This person had posted on a number of threads with the exact same message. I would say there is a pretty good chance that he is just trolling. |
|
|
|
|
It would probably be a good idea to offer escrow as you are very new here and it would not be advisable for people to join without any kind of guarantee of receipt of payment.
|
|
|
|
How did he get the same server seed on two accounts?
I don't think they can. Server seeds are usually generated randomly by these gambling sites, and each user should have a unique seed. Did Stunna confirm, that 2 accounts had the possibility of having the same server seed ? It was said above that he did. This would somewhat make sense as there was someone in the services section not long ago that was asking people to create an account on PD and make a bunch of rolls with the same client seed, so he was probably hoping that two of the accounts have a similar server seed so he could run a similar exploit. Dooplus had also mentioned that it would be possible that anyone who requested a new server seed in the same second would get the same server seed. edit: it was this guy who was asking people to make accounts with the same client seed, and was doing so via PM on this thread |
|
|
|
|
I just enrolled in the bot, although it doesn't have our specific special terms listed. My current post count is 3861
|
|
|
|
|
The spreadsheet is displaying every one's post count and payment amount. Also the spreadsheet says that the weekly payment period ends on April 14, and it is now 12:28 AM on April 15, forum time so I think it is safe to assume that the the posting period has concluded.
I regret to inform you that I am officially resigning from the campaign, effective immediately. You have managed it very professionally and your management style has caused there to be little spam of people wearing the da dice signature.
I should be due for the current week's payment that should go out today/tomorrow.
Let me know if you ever need assistance and I will be happy to help.
~QS
|
|
|
|
|
Has the current counting period officially ended?
|
|
|
|
Amount: 0.1001 BTC (0.0001 BTC is needed as a transaction fee for following transfer)
Date of repaid: in 7 days or earlier
Repaid: 0.11 BTC
Collateral: may be this account
Adress: 1DYSxNsACEfRpfWFMXbwSPYLj1MqE477e3
it should be noted that you are unable to sign a message from an old address associated with the account so both lending to you and accepting your account as collateral is risky |
|
|
|
Received my two Lealana 10 LTC silver coins in beautiful condition. Thank you, Quickseller.  Regards, Me It was a pleasure working with you. Let me know if you need anything else  |
|
|
|
|
Like I said semantics.
The fact that I was acting as escrow did not influence the negative, although it did give me quick access to the fact/evidence that you backed out of a trade. If I was made aware of a similar situation with another escrow, and was shown proof then I would most likely leave a similar negative feedback.
The fact that my opinion is that people should avoid doing business with you means that I should give a negative. If I was saying that people should avoid dealing with you without escrow then a neutral would maybe be appropriate but probably not
|
|
|
|
|
Using the logic that anytime someone posts in a thread it is considered "bumped" then active threads would never be able to be updated because someone would always have posted in the last 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
Unless the last *bump* was less then 24 hours ago then that would not be the case. His first post should not be considered a bump because it was a reply to someone else. Unless he made an update/bump less then 24 hours ago separate from the posts in question then it would not violate the bump rule.
But he could post the announcement and the reply to that user in one post (maybe wait a couple of minutes before posting that thing). A reply is considered a bump , because it 'brings' the thread above all the others. i don't think someone else posting in a thread would count in a bump. I would consider a bump to be a post whose sole reason is to "bump" it to the top and/or provide some kind of update. Some people will reference the update post either in their OP or elsewhere and many people probably do not want the post they point to having information that is not relevant to the update. |
|
|
|
|
Unless the last *bump* was less then 24 hours ago then that would not be the case. His first post should not be considered a bump because it was a reply to someone else. Unless he made an update/bump less then 24 hours ago separate from the posts in question then it would not violate the bump rule.
|
|
|
|
i was responding to the post above mine.
My negative feedback is accurate. All your conditions were met. You backed out of the deal.
So backing out of a deal is worthy of a negative trust review now? If that's the case, how is your rating accurate then? You never agreed with me, I never agreed with you. But somehow you keep saying that conditions were met and we had an agreement. You argueing semantics. The trust rating is factually accurate. Negative trust is usually appropriate. The only exception to this rule would be when there is some change of circumstances that are reasonably out of any ones control and reasonably were not anticipated. Edit: the vast majority of the I hate Vod/quickseller/tomatocage threads are made by scammers. |
|
|
|
Default trust is designed to protect new users as they do not know who is appropriate to trust for things like escrow and sending first. Once users get more experienced they should be able to make a custom trust list.
Although if default trust works the way it should then people will not need to make huge changes to their trust list for the most part, especially if they are not very active in the marketplace sections.
Even if someone has negative trust, it doesn't mean that people will pay attention to it. I made the mistake of giving every ponzi negative trust during the last ponzi craze and as a result the ponzi operators were able to distract questions about why they should be trusted with others' money (in large amounts) which resulted in the ponzi operators being able to scam for more.
Non of the above justfies you leaving misleading and unjustified negative trust ratings to users. i was responding to the post above mine. My negative feedback is accurate. All your conditions were met. You backed out of the deal. |
|
|
|
|
Default trust is designed to protect new users as they do not know who is appropriate to trust for things like escrow and sending first. Once users get more experienced they should be able to make a custom trust list.
Although if default trust works the way it should then people will not need to make huge changes to their trust list for the most part, especially if they are not very active in the marketplace sections.
Even if someone has negative trust, it doesn't mean that people will pay attention to it. I made the mistake of giving every ponzi negative trust during the last ponzi craze and as a result the ponzi operators were able to distract questions about why they should be trusted with others' money (in large amounts) which resulted in the ponzi operators being able to scam for more.
|
|
|
|
He didn't spam yet. In case you thought his post was spam.
he already made a second post here that I deleted after I made the above edit. It is not uncommon for scammers to write similar type posts as above in order to put pressure on the OP to give into their demands. Candystripes does this all the time in calling people a scammer in big bright letters despite there being no evidence of such (where is he BTW?). |
|
|
|
|
Is there any update to allowing a higher number of maximum number of posts?
|
|
|
|
This user handled my request for an escrow very unprofesionally and even ended up calling me a scammer after I declined to continue using his service.
Quickseller is very unprofesional, and abuses his position in the default trust heavily.
You backed out of a deal after terms were agreed to. Your comments are duely noted. Edit: you are no longer welcome to post here. Further posts here will be deleted. You are welcome to leave your opinion however you cannot spam on here. For now I will leave your above post up but that may change in the future |
|
|
|
Is there a max number of loyalty points one can accumulate
25 a week. so no matter how many weeks we are here we get 25 per week forever? So when we are here for 20 weeks we would get a 100% bonus of the average of the last 4 weeks earnings? Edit also do we get them retroactively or only starting now? lol. Once you get 100, points go back to 0 and it is converted to BTC (20% of previous 4 weeks payout) which is paid out with the payout in that week. From this week onwards. So in other words we get a 20% bonus every 4 weeks of our average earnings. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry but I just can't look at this without thinking of wood collector.
I have to ask but are you one and the same with him?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
