Quote from: hilariousandco on December 29, 2014, 01:20:15 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 12:11:36 PM

Portraying me as "paranoid" and slandering me only demonstrates your lack of a defensible stance on this issue. You are right, it is complete lunacy to think a group of individuals in power here might abuse that authority to keep themselves in complete control of a trading system which makes or breaks the trading activity of every user here. There certainly aren't a plethora of monetary motives for doing so either.

You portray yourself as paranoid and the only person who is damaging your reputation is yourself by acting like a child and making up conspiracies like every other kid does here when something happens that they don't like. THE MODS MOVED MY THREAD ABOUT THE PRICE OF BITCOIN INTO SPECULATION! THIS IS CLEAR CENSORSHIP AND THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR INVESTMENT blah blah blah. Literally saw someone use that argument before. It gets tired.

What I am discussing is perfectly reasonable. The staff have monetary motives to maintain complete control over the default trust. No paranoia or conspiracy need be involved. You don't have to be "out to get me" to steamroll over me without concern.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 29, 2014, 01:20:15 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 12:11:36 PM

This thread is a perfect example of what I explained would happen if you cater to people complaining about unjust ratings. Supposedly the trust is unmoderated, yet the staff pick and choose who they decide to moderate the trust ratings for if the default trust is involved.

You seem to be confusing the trust list with feedback. Were you not aware that people were added and removed from the default trust list before? Of course you were. How do you think it works? Your only gripe is that you were removed from it (and that boys club you apparently despise) and now you cannot use it to your advantage and to get your own way when needed. If I left you feedback for annoying me would you not expect me to be removed? Of course you would and then you would be championing the system as it worked as it should.

I am not confusing anything. You attempted to moderate trust ratings by using the default trust as a tool of punitive punishment for not following the dictates of the staff, therefore they are in fact closely linked. Just because you and your staff buddies talk about things behind closed doors does not mean anyone else on the forum absorbs your knowledge of the rules via osmosis. All I ever saw around here is that trust is not moderated, period, and no, up until this incident I had NEVER ONCE heard of people being removed from default trust, regardless of how much you insist I should have known some how magically because you do as staff. Of course you can see in my mind and can declare what I did and did not know for me. I would ask that you put the rules in writing somewhere, but you guys don't like to do that either. You would rather keep an environment of ambiguity where everyone is guessing what the rules are rather than them just explicitly being stated by staff.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 29, 2014, 01:20:15 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 12:11:36 PM

Now that the trolls, scammers, and con artists see that the staff have implemented a policy of appeasement, allowing a mob mentality witch hunt on long time contributing members of this forum for the slightest of technical infractions, they will use this wedge that the staff have provided to destroy this community from the inside out with a series of baiting, harassing, receiving deserved negatives, then complaining when it happens and using the incident as a form of retribution on any trusted member of the community. In this manner these scum get the staff to dance for them and destroy the community so they can continue to scam, harass, and con people free from interference, because the staff have now handed them a way to take retribution on trusted members of this community on a silver platter.

No, but people need to know that the list isn't full of power-hungry irrational crybabies who will abuse the position of power to get people to shut up when someone say's something they don't like. This would be terrible if we just give 'old-timers' or 'trusted' users carte blanche power to ruin any newer accounts they didn't like the look of (without good evidence). Then that would be a boys club and you were apart of it, but not anymore because of your own attitude. If you would've just looked at this from the perspective of practically anyone else you would've just calmed your ego down and rationally responded and removed the feedback, but you wanted it done on your own terms and were steadfast in that and it cost you. It's clear you're the type of person that wouldn't ever admit their mistakes or where they could've handled something better as you're going to go on about this until the end of time rather than just say, yeah, I could've been the better man and removed the feedback and not allowed myself to be baited.

So staff didn't use their position of power to try to force me to change a rating they didn't like? I in no way was attempting to silence Armis, and he has the ENTIRE FORUM to speak out about my grave injustice of asking for face value of a gift card I was selling. Instead of using the appropriate areas to do this, he instead decided to harass me by slandering me on my marketplace threads, the ONLY place I am allowed to sell here. Who was silencing who? He directly took my ability to trade in those threads by lying about me, insulting me, and trolling well after he made his supposed claims of unfairness. He was not there to point anything out. He was there to troll and entertain himself. I know this as a fact regardless of your unwillingness to accept this so that you can portray me as some kind of uncontrollable power hungry individual looking to silence anyone who ever speaks out against me. Additionally I find it hilarious you accuse me of not admitting my mistakes when I clearly did admit to my mistake of giving the trust rating a monetary value and corrected it immediately upon request, as well as giving Armis several opportunities along the way to deescalate himself, but don't let reality get in the way of a good shaming.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 29, 2014, 01:20:15 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 12:11:36 PM

The staff have NO INTEREST in seeing restorative justice done. They have NO BUSINESS moderating trust for ANY REASON. Their ONLY INTEREST is protecting their influence over the system, and their paychecks.

This is why you're paranoid and I don't take you seriously anymore. You're just making up conspiracy to suit your agenda. How does the trust system help the staff's paychecks? I think you being on the trust list certainly benefited your paychecks though because I think one of the main reasons you're very pissed is because no one will likely buy your overprice stuff anymore for the trusted positive feedback (and how very dare someone point out you can get the same thing you're selling elsewhere for cheaper! What was he thinking speaking out against a trusted member which is clearly out of line and not allowed! /sarcasm). And the staff also didn't moderate the trust or the trust you left, but you forced them to act to remove you from the trusted list. Your feedback is still there and always will be so what's the problem? The problem is you can't get your own way and people wont trade with you for the trust anymore. I must say I think it's funny how you don't want staff to moderate things but yet you wanted Armis' posts removed that you didn't like even though they weren't against the rules. You're a hypocrite and a classic case of only liking something until that same privilege comes back to bite them or (slightly) inconveniences them in some way. It's like the people who champion their right to free speech but yet don't like it when someone says something they don't like and then they immediately want them silenced.

Again, the staff having no concern for me and my well being is not the same as a "conspiracy" or "paranoia", but again don't let reality get in the way of your attempts at marginalizing and slandering me with personal attacks. You keep asking me how the staff maintaining control of the default trust protects their paychecks, and I keep answering, but you keep pretending like I didn't already answer this question by repeating it over and over. How might one gain profit from holding power over EVERY trader on the largest English speaking Bitcoin forum, I wonder? Also lets not forget staff get paychecks now directly from advertisement sales for moderation. If Armis was there just to point out a cheaper product, why didn't he leave after it was made clear he was not welcome? Why did he hang around to make insults? Why did he slander me with lies in 5 more of my sales threads? Because he wasn't just pointing something out. His goal THE WHOLE TIME was harassment. I attempted to solve it civilly via the standard forum enforcement mechanism (trolling is against the rules), but staff couldn't be bothered with that. I didn't force anyone to act against me THEYMOS FORCED SaltySpitoon and Canaryinthemine to remove me UNDER THREAT OF REMOVAL THEMSELVES! This is called a dictate, you try to make it sound like everyone got together and agreed I went too far. THAT IS NOT AT ALL THE CASE. Again you just throw more of your circular logic and moderator frustration and bias at me as if I somehow represent everyone who ever disagreed with you. This demonstrates to me clearly you have difficulty keeping your own emotions from bleeding from one incident to another, and frankly I don't think you have any room to criticize here on this point. I never tried to silence Armis. All I wanted from his first interaction with me was for him to post his slander ELSEWHERE, not filling the only place I am allowed to post trade threads with lies, harassment, and slander. This is not equivalent to silencing him BY FAR, but keep speaking like I am Stalin for making one allegedly questionable trust rating over three years trading here, maybe somone will believe you.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 29, 2014, 01:20:15 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 12:11:36 PM

OP: I would suggest to you that if you don't like getting negative ratings, you should refrain from your "scambusting" type activities and limit your ratings to individuals you have personal involvement with. There are already far too many people on this forum searching for anyone to tag so they can outwardly appear to be helping the community, but the standard of evidence for leaving negatives has become so extremely low that it is now considered ok to leave someone a negative rating just because people SUSPECT THEY MIGHT be a scammer. This is catching up innocent/ignorant users and pissing off a lot of people, and as a result they join the ranks of scammers, harassers, and trolls.

In short the community doesn't enforce any kind of reasonable standards for leaving negatives, and these "scambusting" type of activities are becoming almost trendy, and I get the feeling a lot of users do it for their own personal satisfaction rather than trying to help the community. It is also convenient that "scambusting" gives these users an opportunity to throw personal enemies into the fray and just pretend as if it was just another scammer. Instead of addressing this REAL problem with trust abuse, the staff would rather have a series of inquisitions against trusted members of this community while people who engage in this "scambusting" type of activity tagging people with little or zero evidence get a free pass when they are the true driver of malcontent over abuse of the trust system.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Actually no. It is not unreasonable to ask that people leaving trust ratings have either some kind of direct interaction with users they rate or AT LEAST some kind of evidence. Instead what this community has fostered now has become a mob justice mentality where accusations are made, and everyone looking to up their social status jumps on board with the negative ratings with little or no evidence. Saying that the bar is set too low is not equivalent to saying not to leave any ratings at all.