Censorship

[Ed.uard]

Recently, I posted a negative opinion about a person that I had used as a Middleman. She had asked me to re-consider my vouch and to remove certain content that might harm her reputation.

I declined her request because I did not think that what I had written was false or any form of slander. Then, she threatened me with a ban and infraction for crossing her path.

Later, I found out that my vouch had been deleted. Also, she claimed it had been deleted because it breached the rules of her disclaimer. Unfortunately for her, she edited her disclaimer minutes before, adding in what she could to implicate me. Sadly, I have a screenshot of the original disclaimer, thus proving her petty attempts to get her way.

I am curious as to why this could happen when the content of the post was not violating any Sythe.org rules?

I had nothing personal against this user until she harassed me and set me off.

 

[that tank kid]

I'm not sure, She could have simply not displayed that certain vouch?

Wouldn't that be the simple option?

I see a vouch as feedback, if she was not easy to deal with I think you can say exactly how you felt?

 

You guys should settle it out via PM. The only reason I deleted it was because if someone doesn't like a particular person/comment on their vouch thread, I usually delete it as to not cause drama.

 

[Ed.uard]

You guys should settle it out via PM. The only reason I deleted it was because if someone doesn't like a particular person/comment on their vouch thread, I usually delete it as to not cause drama.

I respect your decision and agree with it to an extent. The issue was resolved by SMR, kudos to him for settling it so quickly and professionally.

 

Good to hear, if you ever need anything from me, send me a PM.

 

[Colbyy]

Unfair, Shouldn't be aloud.

 

[cosrob97]

Unfair, Shouldn't be aloud.

What's wrong with leaving a negative vouch? It's just explaining how he feels the trader is. If he/she was rude/slow/irritable, etc etc, he/she should have the right to say so.

 

[Ed.uard]

What's wrong with leaving a negative vouch? It's just explaining how he feels the trader is. If he/she was rude/slow/irritable, etc etc, he/she should have the right to say so.

I think he meant the deletion of my post and the subsequent threats from Hayden were unfair, not the negative vouch.

Although the whole issue has been resolved, I'm still appalled that such virtulent actions resulted from my honest opinion of a service I used. I did not post seditious libel against Hayden, but my remarks on the way she conducted our trade.

I clearly told her she was trustworthy but there were some vices as well.

After posting that vouch, she was infuriated and threatened me, which provoked me and shocked me with her brash arrogance.

 

[Alteranz]

I had viewed and answered the Spam Report that she sent in herself over this matter, and I left it there and told her that it would stay. For her to go and overrule my decision by sneaking off to another more kind moderator is NOT on and I won't tolerate that kind of behavior. My decision was final and it should have stayed that way - all negative vouches are to remain on threads to give other members an indication of their trading habits; the only posts that should be deleted are those that accuse of scamming without proof. Essentially she's creating a false image of herself by lying and removing anything that affects this negatively.

 

[Alteranz]

A link to her vouch thread would be appreciated - I will undelete the posts.

 

[Ed.uard]

A link to her vouch thread would be appreciated - I will undelete the posts.

Already fixed by SMR.

Thanks for all your support. I was confused as to what I did to receive such malicious actions, but clearly I was not wrong in protesting against the deletion of my feedback.

It is definitely reassuring to know that on Sythe, one cannot be wrongly censored and silenced.

 

[Alteranz]

Ah righto, good to see that the problem was rectified.
I don't think it was any fault of Gohan's at all, as he was unaware of my initial decision - the other member involved was at fault instead as she purposefully avoided my ruling.

 

[Plznate]

Although your original feedback will remain, I am going to clear out the off topic arguing between the two of you on the thread.