Can you provide an example where
1) someone was suspected of scamming
2) they provided information to show they were legit
3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?
Yes, I can.
1) I was never suspected of scamming.
2) My over 3 years of honestly trading here demonstrates I am legit. I was accused of "lying" on the basis of a topic which is under debate and neither party can prove the validity of the accusation. (additionally "lying" has never been an acceptable use of giving negatives from someone on the default trust.)
3) The negative feedback did not get removed.
4) The person who left the feedback is still on the default trust list.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all1) True.
2.a) You lied saying staffs protect Vod even after SaltySpitoon explained.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10062871#msg100628712.b) Lying is a quality of an untrustworthy person. Trust system is not only for trades and that's why it is
trust feedback not
trade feedback.
3) It was changed to neutral feedback and you continued what you did earlier and it was reverted.
4) True.
TBH, I think this anti-trust_system behaviour of yours came after you were removed from default trust list. You are trustworthy enough for me except your judgements.
2) Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. SaltySpitoon is not the god of Bitcointalk. He does not speak for everyone even if he had the ability to know everything. His opinion does not negate my opinion and magically some how make it a lie. Furthermore Saltyspitoon is just a mod, he has very little power to do anything on the forum, so he can hardly speak for higher level staff either. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.
2b) No. "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.
3) It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.
The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.