Quote from: SaltySpitoon on December 19, 2018, 11:26:23 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 19, 2018, 06:59:37 PM

How is something subjectively accurate? I mean you seem an okay guy that is serious question not me taking the piss. How do you confirm it is accurate if it is subjective? I mean what criteria is there. I mean that leaves this open to anything really and reduces its value to zero if we all exercised it to the max without it being abuse.

I've been using the term subjectively accurate meaning that its a reasonable statement. One could follow the train of thought that lead someone to make their claim, even if they don't necessarily agree. Everyone is going to see a situation differently, but as long as a real good faith effort is put into leaving feedback, I don't see any problem with it.

If someone was harassing me for example, at what point is it harassment, and at what point is it just annoying, a joke, or all in good fun? If 99% of people think its all in good fun, and I'm taking it as harassment, its likely that I'm overreacting and negative feedback wouldn't be appropriate. Switch that to 99% think its harassment and 1% think its a joke, its probably justified for a negative as harassment. The times where its 99% one way and 1% the other way, there isn't a need for discussion, it is what it is. That is the exception though, you don't see a thread often about a confirmed scammer disputing their negative feedback, or someone who got negative feedback out of nowhere. When opinion may be split 50/50, I don't think its worth suppressing information that 50% may want to know before deciding to trade with someone.

My point is that if someone leaves feedback because they strongly believe that something is wrong, I don't think thats abuse. Thats what feedback is for. As long as the feedback is not misleading, its up for individuals to judge its validity. The 50% who disagree with the claim and the proof provided are free to ignore it.

I want every DT to review this and order him to take this off. It is a mockery of DT red trust is called only finally due to his incorrect assumption and not checking with me what I even meant. I will not call for his removal so long as he removed the red trust now.

*edit* And again, I haven't looked at the claim against you, I'm just speaking generally how I think feedback should be handled on subjective topics.

I can understand what you say but this in not applicable to my case.

I have had more time to consider and cant put the events as following.

I will not complicate with too much context which favours me i think anyway I will concentrate on the link to my offending post and assumed claim I am simply going to state events

some sexual explicit language coming unavoidable..

1. malboroza appears in a thread opened by such moon about me ..in malborozas post there are 4 possible quotes of mine ... 2 in block quotes which I have obviously just made in the blocks he has pressed the quote button for which are there in black and white and I just typed them and 2 other quotes in " something i said about tagging lauda" and " something similar to what I said ( i said TP was ass kissing lauda this quote said that lauda was banging TP in the ass "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48750243#msg48750243

2. So I rightly or possibly wrongly assume he is quoting all the things I have said with a mistake about lauda going heavy on TP which I did not actually say but I said something close but not quite so bad.

I mean nobody else mentioned anything like this about those guys at all so I assumed he just got that last quote wrong. I will never know if he really did think I said that or was using these special "" that suchmoon tells me means either malboroza is quote such moon or probably nobody. Obviously I never heard for such "" I mean in copy and paste threads you are hearing anyone getting quoted must be in "" now. So that is weird if you quote 2 seperate things one after another then the second "" is saying nobody said it. Anyway let's say for this argument he was meaning nobody said that and it just happened to be within 3 other quotes i did make and was similar to the other things I said and involved the same 2 people.

3. So moving on let's imagine I am mistaken and I say to malboroza stop misquoting me and talking about your own disturbing fantasies (okay so look at the 4 quotes) if any person had to say one was a disturbing fantasy it could only really be the anal sex he mentions between lauda and the pharmacist.

4. So this is the bit I do not believe but even if I do believe it cos these are meta individuals. Okay so apparently malboroza for some reason does not think I am refuting 1/ the only quote of the 4 i did not write 2/ the quote that fits the description when you are misquoting me stop with your disturbing fantasies so he does not make the logical and sensible conclusion that I am telling the truth that I never wrote that other quote. Rather he chooses to believe I would 1/ seriously deny a block quote on the same page inside the same post I am refering too that I just posted in public and he just pressed the quote button and it is there on the post and 2/ a post that is not in anyway a disturbing fantasy of his

5, So now I am giving benefit of the doubt he was not trying to quote me and these really are special "" "" meaning nobody wrote it and it just happens to be in amongst 3 of my other quotes and this one is similar to what i said and contains the same 2 people.

I am also giving the benefit of the doubt that he does not choose the obvious an only logical one I can be referring to and rather assumes I am referring to anther post that does not fit the disturbing fantasy description.

6. so now I say he has miss quoted me and he does not ask which quote, he ignores the description i gave to indicate which quote and does not make any effort at all to make sure I am referring to the quote he thinks that I am he just assumes the totally illogical quote and gives me a red trust for that.

7. Soon after when looking at it all it become obvious when you re read it and the description i gave and its is the only one of the 3 quotes i did not make and the fact the others are block quoted there in my face on his thread then I even explain it with credible evidence. So it not only likely (going on description and the fact its the only one that was incorrect ) I am so confused that he has assumed i meant the other quote that it is obvious what happened.

8. Either way 4 quotes I say you are misquoting me there 1 i didnt make you dont just assume and leave red trust you discuss and get on the same page before charging me with false accusation because he thinks he has proof I have made one cos it is there in black and white.

9. Now it is all explained and he should have made sure which quote before giving neg trust because there is one quote i did not make infact the only quote that fits my description.... so he should have not assumed and wrongly said this is a false accusation. He should have made sure by discussing it first before leaping to a conclusion finally before red trust got pulled on me.

I mean it is trust abuse to say someone is lying before you find out what they are apparently referring to in their lie when there are multiple options. But to still keep it on after it is demonstrated that his final wrong assumption led to the red trust then this is flagrant stubborn abuse.

You have to realise I could be asking for benefit of the doubt in both cases I gave to him anyway but I am not even though really I think I should have it due to logic and just common sense. But still either way the red trust needs to go.

I mean a simple analogy if you give him benefit of the doubt in both junctures...

4 dogs walking down the street

3 Chihuahua - dogs 1 2 3
1 doberman - dog 4

I say thats not my big dog (referring to dog 4 I only have Chihuahuas)

The guy looks at the 4 dogs and says I have proof that dog 1 is yours now sorry I have proof that dog 1 is yours and you get red negative trust for lying to me.