Indeed, welcome, and also please consider whether it's worthwhile to bump a thread which hasn't been posted in for more than a month just to restate a one line opinion which is basically what the OP says but less elegantly.   Welcome. 

Since this thread is actually about what Quickseller has done to worhipper_-_ (neg repping him for not going through with a trade when all parties weren't agreed on terms), do you have any opinion on QS behavior on these forums?

That's fine, I see that now.In fact I haven't had "shady" behavior at all.  And this accusation by TF is over 2 years old.  I think the real question for everyone on the forum should be whether a guy like QS, who was clearly attacking me for a personal reason, should be allowed to perpetrate this stuff on Default TrustAgreed, that it's not appropriate to rehash this here.  Let's leave it.  But again, I deny "scamming a scammer".  I am not admitting to TF's likes or QS's rehashing of them.  And if people keep bringing them up, then I'm going to keep on setting the record straight.


Sho, I'm pretty sure that r3wt ended up in some trouble with someone on default trust and started supporting me when he saw that I was also being abused by default trust.  I'm not sure the details of his situation.  But I do think that people need to keep in mind that when that original thread was going down, TF was a trusted member who hadn't yet revealed himself and I was a noobie.I also explained this above.  A conflict of interest requires two monetary interests.  If I were deciding who was on default trust && and I have an interest in getting QS removed, that would be a conflict.  In fact, only the latter is true.  I think it's clear to anyone who reads the post history of ACCTSeller in the day leading up to QS's attack on me that he was doing it for personal vendetta reasons.  You can see how he calls me "an idiot" several times and threatens to get me kicked from the signature ad campaign (which is what he was trying to do with the feedback).
I can reopen that thread if there's anything productive to be said (as I did for you when you asked me to open it so you could comment).  I closed it because it had become a flame war and I didn't see how continuing that was helping since everyone told me I basically had to wait to hear back from Badbear.  In the end, I'm still waiting to hear back from BadBear about the situation.  I'm not sure how long I'm going to have to wait.

That seems like it'd be a fun game to watch even if you didn't play along yourself.  I think this sounds cool and I'd probably play it in the english room next time I'm there if someone wants to organize it.

I'm not sure what happened between you and Vod, TECSHARE, but I observe two differences between Quickseller and Vod:

1) While Vod is out to get people who sell microsoft keys, he makes no bones about this.  It's his stated motivation and it's easy enough to remove him from your list if you're not worried about microsoft stuff
2) Vod seems to admit that sometimes he's wrong or hasty, he even has a link offering people to remove the negative trust he gave them if they stop selling the keys.  I've never seen quickseller back down on a single point or admit he was wrong, ever.

To me, those differences are substantial.

How can you ask this?  They closed about 6 months ago and ran away with the money of everyone who had anything in their exchange.  They promised some kind of reopening in 3 months but who knows why they even gave this promise.  They are long gone.

MZ, I'm not sure why we're continuing this here, but if you're going to keep doing this, I'm going to have to keep replying.
It's not "derailing".  It's an apt characterization of the one guy who brings the accusation.  He accused, I disputed.  Everyone walked away.  He was shown to be a liar and a theif.  I was shown to be a peaceful and helpful citizen who did many small projects and had a lot of fun on these boards without causing an issue.None of those people have any evidence beyone what TF and I say to each other.  They are parsing the argument in the context where I was an unknown noob and he was on default trust.  He was making up all kinds of things in that discussion as if they were facts and his reputation (at the time) meant that people believed his word over mine.  This should no longer be the case.  Hindsight, as they say, provides a 20-20 vision.  If you don't have a bias against me (as QS does), then you ought to be able to see exactly what happened there for what it was.  TF got mad and tried to push me around, I wouldn't take it and walked away.  History has vindicated me.
As has been said multiple times in multiple places, I didn't receive the rules until after TF kicked me.  This is depsite asking him about rules for bots even as I was experimenting (note, I never got out of the experimental phase), he replied to several of my questions about node.js, but never got back to me about the rules until our email exchange after he kicked me out.

It's "average" because they compute an average price with weighted components basedon the volume of trading at the various exchanges.  It's right there in the FAQ of the site.  Or in the OP of this thread.  Just read a little.  It's a great service with an open API.

You still do not understand conflict of interest.  Yes, I have an interest in having your removed from default trust because your lies have the potential to cost me money.  But this is not a conflict of interest, this is merely my interest.  The conflict of interest would be if I was also in a position to decide who was on default trust.  If I had both the role of deciding who was on default trust (my interest in that role would be justice) and a personal profit interest in having you removed, this would be a conflict of interest.  I don't have any authority over who is on default trust so I don't have any conflict.  I hope you can understand that now.In fact, Blazr's opinion very much relies on the statements by TF.  In fact, if anyone fucking cares, you can see in that original thread that I was not given the rules about bots by TF until after he banned me despite me asking him about them in PMs multiple times, despite the fact that he knew I was making a bot because I was asking him for help with it using node.js.  I never admitted to any wrongdoing and I still don't.  The fact that TF accuses me and that Blazr questions me isn't evidence.  It's accusation from TF (a known liar) and speculation from Blazr (a side observer).  Nothing more, nothing lestt.There's no evidence that I scammed anyone.  On the other hand, there's ample evidence that you're attempting to smear me off this forum and that you're not getting away with it.The fact that you are attempting to smear me, by using multiple accounts to leave multiple feedbacks, by trolling me on the campaign thread and threatening to get me kicked out, the fact that you failed in this vendetta, none of that adds up to me being a scammer.  It adds up to you being an immature hothead who thinks he's God and can't take it when you get called out.  I called you out multiple times for being a hothead, I said it to your face that calling people idiots isn't helpful.  This is the only imaginable reason why you went after me and all your lies and accusations don't add up to a shred of evidence against me.  Now you're getting crazy and you're starting to try to call out other people who have worked with me and continue to work with me?  I hope you don't start frothing at the mouth soon.  Hold yourself together, kid.  You'll grow up one day and realize sometimes you actually have to admit it when you're wrong, not keep digging the grave you're standing in.


MZ, I don't understand you.  You are linking us to r3wt's ancient opinions in the thread where practically no one believed me and everyone believed tf and then I walked away.  The context is that TF was on default trust at the time and had not revealed himself to be the liar and theif that he is.  So of course people were suspecting when a newbie like me said "why is this guy coming after me".  It's really stupid to rehash this again and again and again so I don't know why we have to do it.  The obvious conclusion that should be taken from that situation is that while TF scammed people for a huge a mount of money, I spent years on here with absolutely zero issues.  Doing no harm and causing no problems.   If you look at things in context it's quite clear what happened is that TF went of the rails accusing me of taking arbitrary amounts from his site (his amount he demands changes 3 times of the course of the discussion---this clearly shows that he didn't know what was going on, he just felt like someone abused him and he wanted revenge).  I tried to talk with him about this to see if we could figure out what happened and where the misunderstanding was but it was impossible to do so.  He just demands that I pay back everything I ever withdrew from the site and that was blackmail so I left it.

If you look at the situation of QS attacking my reputation it becomes quite clear that QS's only motivation was to troll me and get me kicked from and ad campaign.  Why else would he leave three negative feedbacks using two accounts?  Why else would he be lmaking threats in the campaign thread about getting me kicked out?  Why else would he be spending a day looking through years of posts trying to find some trouble?  Why else would he be taking a known scammer and liar's word as if it was gold?  What motivation would he have for this except that he couldn't handle it when I called him out for being a hothead and calling people idiots.  I made fun of his hot temper and told him it was unhelfpul.  In return, he launched a smear campaign and tried to ruin my reputation.

At this point, I have no recourse other than to repeatedly point out the facts of the situation until  one of: 1) the trustsystem chances 2) QS's slander is no longer on my account (this will never happen, he's the kind of person who will go down in flames rather than admit he was wrong---have you ever found one example of him admitting to being wrong?) 3) QS is removed from default trust.

However, I have to ask why you are bringing this back up in this thread?  Why are you linking to r3wt's opinions?  What does it have to do with anything here?

Great, got it.  So you shouldn't give feedback when you don't risk something, I see.You are outright lying here. It's doubtful that you were even on the forums 2.5 years ago when TF accused me.  How would you have "witnessed" anything?  Taking the word of a known scammer isn't witnessing.You're cute!  I know you can't resist the ad hominem, but it's fun that you've changed your signature "you are an idiot" for the more Charlie Brown style "thickheaded".  With respect to stirring up trouble, is that what you were doing to me when you trolled me on multiple threads with multiple acounts and left multiple negative feedbacks for me using multiple accounts in a (failed) attempt to get me kicked out of a signature ad campaign?

Now it says (for USD) 237.34.  So I guess I don't thinki it's actually stuck.  I agree with you about this being one of the best for bitcoin price.  I use it in my wallet as well.

Lol.  "I know", "I know", "I am fairly certain", "I am so certain", etc, etc.  I guess one day you'll pull your head out of your own ass far enough to realize that:

1) Claims of knowing something are not evidence
2) Masterbation posts like that don't actually make you look good or knowledgeable.

Maybe one thing that might help would be to "schedule" some ring game parties.  I mean if MargaretsDream has come by and others have as well but aren't planning on returning till there's action then this is just the point I was saying, you want all of those folks to pop in at the same time so that we see each other and play together.  If I pop in one hour, leave, then MargD next hour, leaves, etc then maybe you had 10 players but they all popped in at the wrong times.

Right, but has MZ has stated several times, the question of why is still unanswered.  I think that's why we're waiting for an answer.  If, as hillarious said, the functionality isn't motivated, why not remove it?

Here you emphasize that trust should be based on the amount of risk undertaken by a party.  But just a few posts above you emphasize that this is trust feedback system not a trade feedback system.  These two viewpoints are incommensurate.  In your first opinion you suggest that people can leave feedback for any cause, no matter the risk.  The latter opinion tries to correlate the validity of trust with the risk involved. How can you hold both these conflicting opinions simultaneously (or are you just posting to increase your signature pay?---NB: I only add this paranthetical because that is exactly what you have done to me many times when I disagree with you---more recently you took it to even greater extremes, leaving me negative feedback multiple times from multiple accounts just because I disagreed with you).

One thing I keep thinking about here is that the "soft rollout" of the site might have been a mistake.  That is, many people have probably stopped by, seen the place abandoned and they'll never come back.  I wonder if the OP had say, started advertizing a few weeks or a few months before opening, building hype and expectation, then, on opening weekend, be sure to pay like 20 or 30 people to play all weekend long in ring games, obviously lots of parties and freerolls, then who knows, everyone's first impression would have been of an amazingly busy place, and they'd have returned the next day, keeping the place busy.

At this point, the place really only has freeroll vultures, almost no actual action between players.  I'm not troling either, I like the site, I'm trying to figure out how it can be fixed.
 
I wonder if the same strategy could still be used, shutdown for a few weeks, build the hype for the reopen, make sure it's really busy when you open doors.  There's a real critical-mass/bootstrapping problem that has to be overcome somehow.

FYI

[Further reading: "affected" is a participial form (very similar to a post-nominal adjective) for the verb "to affect" which means, roughly, to cause a change on/in (notice the passivization of the argument structure here, the undergoer is the modificand of the adjective); "effected" is from the verb meaning "to bring about" "to make real" ]

Seems wrong to turn this once-dead thread on the old version of sealswithclubs into a discussion of alternative poker sites.  There are other threads for these sites or maybe someone can get a discussion thread going (if you guys don't want to resurrect my overview thread).

As someone who's constantly looking for action in the ring game section, I'd love to see it.  Not only if I get a prize but because I'd also be happy to find more folks playing there to join in.

I agree.  While everyone says this new software is far and above what mavens offered, in the end poker needs players more than fancy software (imo).  Anyway, hopefully we'll all be happily playing again together in swc in a few more weeks

One thing I've asked about above but never heard anything on is when they are going to allow us to create logins on the website to check our accounts, etc.  If they're eventually going to make an html client then they'll sooner or later need to do this.  And for those of us without windows, we could at least log in and get our krill transferred and set our passwords and whatnot.