Quote from: ibminer on November 13, 2017, 04:20:29 PM

I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins. Grin

That isn't necessary and the issue isn't really with cyrus here and I understand cyrus' decision why he chose to do it and he's obviously a more considerate and forgiving person than me, but at the same time cyrus probably spends next to zero time having to ban dozens of copy and pasters a day so I'm less forgiving (and like I said I think it sets a bad precedent) and I have a zero tolerance policy for it as did BadBear. Maybe cyrus can forgive infractions in certain instances and fair enough. I didn't overrule his decision; I just let my opinion be known and people can make up their own mind whether they want to trust loan shark or not. Loan Shark's copy and pasting happened a while back so cyrus probably took that into consideration and fair enough, but Bill Cosby shouldn't be let off just because he hasn't raped anyone in 20 years. He still did the crime and that should be on his record and reputation just like this should and even if a judge or jury forgave him or let him off that doesn't mean that I or the public should as well. If it was made a rule that copy and pasting was allowed, I would still leave negative because it's scammy and dishonest. Maybe Loan shark is a different person now and made a silly mistake and fair enough, but my feedback isn't the be all and end all and it hasn't even marked him as a scammer fully and will probably get neutralised over time anyway but I think it should still be noted (people could even leave positive feedback on loan shark if they disagree with my decision). There's a couple of other things I just don't like about Loan Shark though, like the fact that he very likely bought thebutterzone's email forwarding service just to get the trusted feedback as did these other users here. He also claims to be a lawyer here which I don't really believe (pretty sure being a unlicensed loaner ie loan shark is illegal in most countries even the Philippines).

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy.

That's just your opinion, one that is incredibly biased to suit your own agenda of me being removed from default trust or trying to bully me into removing lauda from it myself (which isn't going to happen unless he screws up in some other fashion with his ratings). I even suggested to Loan Shark that he contact an admin and state his case about being unbanned because I wouldn't be removing the feedback:

Quote from: hilariousandco on August 01, 2017, 03:23:38 PM

Sorry. As above, if I unban you then everyone else who was banned will make the same excuse. You can try contact theymos or cyrus and make your case to them to see if they will unban you.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign --

And that's good enough, but he was also in my opinion essentially buying trusted feedback and downloading pirated software that infected him (arguably not really scammy but behaviour that could have cost him and others money and is worth noting).

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.

What do you compare escrowing for yourself and taking fees to do so with? A lot of people personally think self-escrowing for yourself is scammy and using alts to continually attack someone is pretty dishonest and pathetic, but that's also a matter of opinion I guess and nobody really cares about yours any more due to your behaviour.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

And everyone else apart from you and Loan Shark has said the rating and logic is fine but you can feel I have poor judgement if you wish. I don't really care for your opinion or respect because you sadly lost mine years ago due to your behaviour after your escrow shenanigans downfall, but your bias is still incredibly obvious here.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

I've already addressed it. I trust lauda's feedbacks here regardless of his mistake in the extortion attempt and I don't care how you view me. I would have still trusted your feedbacks even after your self-escrowing mishap but you fucked up with how you handled it like a petulant child. You should have owned up, apologised and moved on and you likely could have rebuilt your rep but instead you ruined it beyond repair by ruthlessly attacking anyone who exposed you (which was your own fault in the first place for attacking them). And that's fine about not trusting my judgement. I think you've had multiple lapses in judgement and behaviour and your ego is so fragile and broken you wont ever admit to your mistakes whilst you turn even friends and allies into enemies. You haven't supported me at all either. You created this thread with a known alt in order to try get me kicked off staff and to play good cop bad cop with yourself just so you can get one over on lauda again in this pathetic tit for tat battle you have with him. You obviously hate him with such a passion that you will attempt to bully and take down anyone else who gets in your way of retribution and this is really sad, especially from a person I used to like, trust and respect.

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

You can continue to have that opinion, but you only think I've done something wrong because it's personally annoyed you on your quest for revenge, but let me be clear: I likely won't be removing either the feedback on Loan Shark or lauda from default trust any time soon no matter how much you decide to hound or troll me about it on whatever accounts, but if I do ever remove either instances it won't be because of anything you've done because I'm not going to give in to your childish and petty bullying. Please just move on from this issue because you're just wasting both our time now because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, and you know what Einstein's definition of insanity is don't you? Well, I can assure you I'm not the crazy one here. Again, move on.

Quote from: Lauda on November 15, 2017, 06:17:11 AM

I wonder how you related to mr. Loan Shark and what your ulterior motive here is (other than the title of this thread).

He's just looking for any petty thing he can do to attack me and he's certainly scraping the barrel with this. Wouldn't surprise me if he's complained to theymos about me telling him to fuck off. "Theymos, is this really the sort of language staff/default trust members should be using wah wah wah". "Theymos, should staff/default trust members really be making jokes about you being a gender terrorist? Please taker swift action on this matter". "Theymos, y u no respond". Roll Eyes

Quote from: ibminer on November 15, 2017, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

I'm not sure what the questionable reasons and/or questionable circumstances in this case would be. It sounds like he had banned an account due to copy-pasting, which violates a rule that was put in place for a reason. Because he has the power to ban, this would be the first step, as it was, and shows that he has concerns with the account because he is banning it. An admin overruled the ban, but hilariousandco still doesn't trust the account, his next option as a DT member is to warn others about the shady activities of the account. Whether there is some sort of vindictiveness or ego behind the decision is speculation, the statement he gave as the reasoning implies to me that he was trying to help others by warning them of the account's activities since it had been unbanned, which I think is a legitimate use of the trust system.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2017, 05:33:41 AM

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

He didn't go back and re-ban the account, so his action as a moderator was overruled and accepted. I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion as a DT member after that. If a moderator cannot act as a DT member, why are they on DT? If he had left feedback first, and then banned the account, would you have a different opinion here?

I guess my thought on the situation is that hilariousandco, if he was NOT a moderator, would have left feedback as a DT member stating the account was copying/pasting. Because he was a moderator, he banned because he has that authority, and Cyrus has the authority to overrule it... but hilariousandco still has the right as a DT member to leave feedback because of his personal concerns.

Thank you for being able to look at this intelligently and from a completely impartial and rational perspective. Sadly, QS is unable to think rationally and logically regarding such matters because all he cares about right now is getting lauda kicked off default trust and to do that he has to either persuade me to do it or try get me kicked off DT in any way he can.