Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

"Pointing out" something? You accuse me of exaggerating while EVERY LAST JUDGEMENT made against me from the staff is in the most negative and punitive light possible. If he was "just pointing out something", what were all the insults he included for?

Exaggeration again. The only 'negative light' you've been cast in is not being trusted to be on default trust anymore and that was your own doing. I hardly think you've been the target of a smear campaign. And so what if someone insulted you? Deal with it, but this is obviously the problem here, you couldn't deal or handle it properly or be the bigger/better man so you just left negative feedback in an attempt to shut him up and get your way and it backfired.

So again I ask IF HE WAS NOT TROLLING, what were the INSULTS FOR? Your entire premise is he was just "pointing something out" and I left him a negative for no reason. Now that I have demonstrated this is not true you are accusing me of over reacting for defending my ability to trade in the ONLY AREA I am allowed to.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

Also I took responsibility for the mistake I made, Armis however ESCALATED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY beginning from his first post thru my trust removal, and he never once admitted any of his part in it.

You didn't for the mistake of leaving the feedback, and you both escalated it at each point. You handled the situation pretty badly and it spiralled from there. And what do you expect people to do once their account has been tarnished and is marked as a scammer? You're complaining far more now and all that's happened to you is you were removed from the trust list. You would've done exactly the same if not worse in his situation.

Again you are fantasizing about events that haven't happened and just claiming you know what I would do. Armis had an opportunity to walk away after he posted. Armis had an opportunity to walk away after I made it clear he was not welcome. Armis had an opportunity to repair his reputation by removing his slanderous and trolling posts from multiple sales thread he posted on for no other reason than to harass me. He took none of these options and instead opted to escalate at every step and manipulated staff into doing his trolling for him, and you guys sucked it down because it makes you look like you are some how the champion of "the little man".

I on the other hand:
-reported the posts (and was ignored)
-made it clear to the user his posts were unwelcome
-admitted the trust value was wrong and corrected it
-gave Armis an opportunity to repair his reputation by removing the damage he had done to me

I took several steps to mitigate this issue before leaving negative trust, and after it was left he had options to repair it until he escalated EVEN FURTHER.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

Also the staff clearly did attempt to extort me into changing my trust by threatening removal of the party that trusted me from the trust list himself if he did not comply. He didn't remove me because I was untrustworthy, he removed me because he was DIRECTED TO by the forum staff.

You were removed not because you're untrustworthy to trade with but because you now can't be trusted to be on the default list. And I haven't seen any evidence of this extortion or threats so I can't comment on it, but I'm sure this is exaggeration again. I'm sure all that happened was messages were exchanged about the abuse by you asking them to reconsider your position, though without knowing more details I can't comment on the level of coercion involved.

An ultimatum was given to some one on the trust list. Remove me or they will be removed themselves. This is a dictate, not a trust system. You are correct you don't know all the details because things like this always happen behind closed doors around here. When you "ask someone to reconsider" "or else we will..." that is a form of coercion to force me to remove a trust rating I KNOW to be justified, even if no one else knows or cares. That is the WHOLE POINT of the trust system, so staff/mods don't get involved in disputes.... yet here you are.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

People have left me negatives before, and I haven't complained about it because people have enough sense to judge feedback for themselves. You insist on treating everyone like children you have some right to dictate to because you have buttons to play with. You can pretend you know what I would do all day to cast me in whatever light suits you, but it does not make it true. This is a nice way of using circular logic and fantasy to justify your stance as opposed to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

If people have the sense to judge feedback for themselves then what's the problem here? Your feedback is still there and people can judge it. If people trust your judgement the feedback is still relevant and valid to them. People really only get treated like children when they act like one and this is how you've been acting from the start of this entire debacle. And regarding 'playing with buttons', I think the only reason you are complaining now is because you've had your negative feedback button removed yourself which you now can't 'play with' at your own whim.

The problem is I did not instigate this, and removing me from the default trust is just insult to injury for doing nothing more than protecting my ability to trade here in the only area I am allowed. Armis however is free to criticize me on the entire forum, yet me expecting a single thread free of his harassment is too much I guess. As far as me leaving negative feedback on a whim, any one can look at my left ratings and see that is not true. I do not leave negative feedback flippantly. I have left 6 total negative trust ratings since the rating system existed.

Two are for the same user, and one is for Armis. That leaves 4 other instances where I thought negative trust was appropriate. I do not treat the trust system like a toy. Users like VOD however do, spending their days pretending to be Sherlock Holmes and leaving negative trust on a "hunch" or because someone annoyed them, or because they were drunk. This behavior is common here and not limited to VOD. These users have DOZENS OF NEGATIVE TRUST RATINGS given out like candy on a whim and remain on the default trust list, but your right my one so called unjustified use of a negative trust means I am out of control clearly!

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

The default trust has ZERO INTEGRITY, not because of people "abusing" it, but because it is selectively moderated ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF STAFF, MODERATORS, AND THEIR BUDDIES.

Now you're the one using fantasy and bizarre logic to suit yourself. Can you tell me what benefit does the staff have for removing you from the list and how does it serve the interest of them? Absolutely nothing. You were removed for abusing the position and you're just playing the victim and inventing fantasy and conspiracy to suit your argument. The staff care about having people who can be trusted to use the system for what it was intended for, not people using it as a bargaining tool to get people to shut up when they merely say something they don't like regardless of how much of a trusted trader they may or may not be. The only person who abused their position here was you, but it's obvious you're never going to accept this.

It serves the rest of them because they get to pick and choose who gets to be on the default trust, not because users decided on their own to add or remove them, but because they were DICTATED TO REMOVE users. Mods and staff get to occupy their own little enclave where only the boys in the club get backup and everyone else is just useful fodder to feed to people complaining about abuse, while ACTUAL serial abusers are allowed to continue their abusive behavior.

He didn't merely "say something I didn't like", he was there for trolling clearly, and it was directly effecting my ability to trade, but why should you care if he hurts my trade? Since when do the moderators dictate what the content of a trust rating should be for? I thought the trust was unmoderated. Oh right that's not true.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 02, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 02, 2014, 12:44:02 AM

You guys handed me down a maximum punishment because I DEFIED YOU not because of the reason I left the trust. STAFF use the default trust as a form of EXTORTION over honest traders by threatening to remove something they did not create, THE HONEST TRADERS DID, over a period of YEARS. Because of this the default trust is nothing more than a sham designed to give staff complete control over all high level traders here by dangling years of their work in front of them and saying "obey or else".

Lol, come on now. Maximum punishment? And no, it wasn't about defying staff. You left unjust feedback and were removed from the default trust not banned or had your reputation tarnished. See how you exaggerate at every single point and just make up wild conspiracy to suit your argument? You seem to think you've earned the power to abuse the system because you've been an honest trader here for years. It doesn't. The system would indeed be far more corrupt if it was just one big boys club that let the long-time members do what they want because they've apparently earned the right to do so, but thankfully that isn't the case. And once again, you were seemingly fine with the default trust right up until you were removed from it.

Actually it very much is the case that the trust list is one big boys club, and how I was dealt with is proof of it. Yet some people here make a part time job out of leaving negative feedback for the most flimsy of reasons and they are allowed to stay on the default trust. I EARNED my position on the default trust by trading honestly for YEARS. Additionally I was removed not because I was untrustworthy (the entire point of the trust system), but because staff DICTATED that I be removed under threat of removal of the trusting party. If he chose on his own to remove me that would be fine, but he didn't, he was directed to remove me "or else".

What you call abuse, I call a justified use. Supposedly the trust system is unmoderated, but here you are specifying the right and wrong kinds of trust based on your own interests and completely disregarding my own concerns. How was I supposed to be aware that the staff/mods operate like this if it is all done behind closed doors? I guess I should just know it because you know it, like via osmosis or something.