I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years. I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name. :/
Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP. Is the general consensus they are valid?
I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon. I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy.
I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed:
If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then; TEC can not be on DT.
It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then,
and since things are vastly different on the forum now;
Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law: your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok; even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag. If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for; please correct me now.... but this is how I see it to be used. My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses. I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well; but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing.
This is why; Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo. IF the above is not correct... well.... You know my feelings by now I would think.I'm not sure about the second trust flag; as I don't think I even looked into it.... I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong.
As an outsider.... Its a tough thing to sort all of this out. But at least now I know; and TBH: I do feel for everyone involved in this.
Hopefully... something amicable can come around. It has been nearly 6 years... The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better.
That's the meat of it.
Its centered on how red trust was used and why. I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc.... people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned.
was red trust misused? or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used? because; if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still; then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance?
is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set??
*edit* added formatting to quote and more description
I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture.
Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's.
Vod brought this up as a distraction from having to address any of these issues himself. He is unable to substantiate any of the ratings he has left for me, when asked to, he just repeatedly claims he did already and refuses to quote it. I am kind of feeling like you are treating me guilty until proven innocent and expecting me to prove my innocence and not expecting Vod to prove any of his accusations. So far all of your questions have been focused at me, and I have done my best to respond to them while Vod avoids interacting with you completely. I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years. Why is it you feel Vod does not have to substantiate any of his claims against me exactly? This is starting to feel decidedly one sided.