Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow...

[erikalui]

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

@worhiper_-_: Your terms put escrow and/or buyer in risk. Quickseller came up with usual terms which all good escrow do to protect buyer and seller. I can't see a valid point in this.

AFAIK he left a negative feedback because your terms were shady and when Quickseller came up with good and safer terms, you cancelled the deal which most scammers do.

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

[1714628992]

1714628992

[1714628992]

1714628992

[1714628992]

1714628992

[1714628992]

1714628992

[1714628992]

1714628992

[1714628992]

1714628992

[alani123]

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Code:

Registered: 2012
Feedback: Neutral
Activity: 135+
Posts:135+
Feedback: Neutral
Trust: 0: -0 / +0(0)

Without logging in an account.

[EcuaMobi]

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them. If everyone leaves a trust feedback only after a scam happens then the scams would not be prevented. People can leave a negative feedback if they "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" as stated in the corresponding screen. Of course you have to really believe that, so the user must have had a fishy or suspicious behavior but of course the trust system must work on assumptions, otherwise it would be useless.

What we must discuss here is whether or not OP's behavior was shady enough to assume he may have had scammy intentions, not whether the trust system must work on assumptions.

[Muhammed Zakir]

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

@worhiper_-_: Your terms put escrow and/or buyer in risk. Quickseller came up with usual terms which all good escrow do to protect buyer and seller. I can't see a valid point in this.

AFAIK he left a negative feedback because your terms were shady and when Quickseller came up with good and safer terms, you cancelled the deal which most scammers do.

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

Yup, it's assumption that he can be a scammer but the negative feedback was for shady behavior which isn't good when doing a deal.

There is no rule saying buyer should accept escrow's terms but you are missing the point. worhiper_-_ wants to put both seller and escrow to risk.

1. He wants escrow to check the details:

1.a: Escrow asks seller link to give the profile, seller gives a fake link and escrow is at risk.
1.b: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, seller gives and escrow checks it without changing password. Seller change password and tells escrow did it. Escrow is at risk.

1.c: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, escrow change it and look details. Buyer looks at log, find username and cancel the deal. Seller is at risk.

^^^ This is why worhiper_-_'s term is shady.

Safer term:

1. Escrow asks to fund the address and buyer funds it.
2. Wait for 1 confirmation(to protect from double spend), escrow asks account credentials, change password and look details.
3. Release Bitcoins to seller and account to buyer.

^^^ This is Quickseller's terms.

Leaving negative feedback for the shady behavior by worhiper_-_ is okay.

[worhiper_-_]

Some of you guys are kind of missing the point. I didn't scam anyone nor could scam anyone with my interaction with quickseller even if I wanted to. That's what escrow is for in the end of the story.

If quickseller thinks I'm not good to deal with, he can add a personal comment. You can't justtify his inaccurate negative rating by saying that I might scam someone in the future, because this way you justify any innacurate kind of trust rating.

I declined to continue using his service, he gave me negative trust. Even if you take just that, it seems like a very personal case, he shouldn't abuse his power in the trust list to solve personal issues like that.

[tspacepilot]

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them. If everyone leaves a trust feedback only after a scam happens then the scams would not be prevented. People can leave a negative feedback if they "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" as stated in the corresponding screen. Of course you have to really believe that, so the user must have had a fishy or suspicious behavior but of course the trust system must work on assumptions, otherwise it would be useless.

What we must discuss here is whether or not OP's behavior was shady enough to assume he may have had scammy intentions, not whether the trust system must work on assumptions.

This would be all right and good if it weren't for the "default trust" list which, in my opinion, makes those on it too powerful to be operating on "oh i find that guy a little suspicious".  When/if someone on default trust decides you're a little suspicious, everyone who hasn't looked very carefuly into some obscure facts about the Meta of this forum basicaly thinks you got caught stealing or something: "Warning: trade with extreme caution".

I think that if they removed the default trust list on new accounts so that people actually had to build their own trust network with their own experiences then we wouldn't have so many of these threads.  It would merely be a matter of (in this case) Quickseller and worshiper-_- have decided not to work together.

[Quickseller]

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.

[worhiper_-_]

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

[tspacepilot]

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.

(Note, due to his anger control problems, I've still got Quicktemper on ignore, so I'm only replying because you quoted him.)

In my opinion the main issue here is that someone has been given too much responsibilty.  On the one hand, he should be quite allowed to put willy-nilly feedback reflective of whatever opinions he has into your feedback list.  The issue comes in that now he's a "protector of the new users".  The fact that he admits this in my opinion shows that the trust system is broken.  It's hard to see how quickseller's opinion on whether he wants to do business with you should amount to red letters that say "trade with extreme caution".

I can see two fixes, but I doubt either will be implemented:

1) Reduce Default Trust drastically (default depth of 1, perhaps, or trim the list down to just a handful of people, or both) or else eliminate it altogether.
2) Change the red letter "Warning: trade with extreme caution" to something more reflective of simple opinons.  "Note: this users is untrusted by a few important people", or something like that.

If either of these things were implemented, we would see a lot less Vod threads and feedback abuse threads in the Meta section and it's hard to see how it would make the forum anything but better and calmer.

[worhiper_-_]

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

[worhiper_-_]

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.

It's not accurate but of course you're not willing to admit that. Let me breack this down for ya so you can no longer play it dumb...

After agreeing to the terms of an escrow agreement

We didnt't agree on anything.

worhiper_-_ failed to fund the escrow address

Quite obviously, I didn't want you to be handling my transactions given how unprofesional you are. Look at you, giving negative trust rating to people that don't appreciate your "service"... It's sad that you were given that power.

requesting modified terms to me directly

How hypocritical huh? I asked you to honor the original terms me and the other party had already agreed upon and hired you to secure a transaction with.

which would cause the other party he is trading with to be put at risk.

You are claiming that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving money, I didn't.

I would avoid doing business with this person.

Good, post some neutral feedback then since this is a personal opinion.

[Quickseller]

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   

[marcotheminer]

Maybe a neutral is more appropriate?

[Bicknellski]

Who is Quickseller trying to be a carbon copy of Dogie or something. Welcome to the ignore list and I will be sure to warn anyone off that asks me about your services or sales. Run don't walk away from this unprofessional person.

Cripes the same sort of drag it out when a simple solution where you COMPROMISE would be sufficient to make everyone happy.

I can see why this guy defends Dogie they are brothers or something.

Worhiper it is obvious no matter how hard you try to make a logical argument this guy is never going to be swayed. Cut your losses neg rep him back for being a douchebag and move on.

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.

It's not accurate but of course you're not willing to admit that. Let me breack this down for ya so you can no longer play it dumb...

After agreeing to the terms of an escrow agreement

We didnt't agree on anything.

worhiper_-_ failed to fund the escrow address

Quite obviously, I didn't want you to be handling my transactions given how unprofesional you are. Look at you, giving negative trust rating to people that don't appreciate your "service"... It's sad that you were given that power.

requesting modified terms to me directly

How hypocritical huh? I asked you to honor the original terms me and the other party had already agreed upon and hired you to secure a transaction with.

which would cause the other party he is trading with to be put at risk.

You are claiming that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving money, I didn't.

I would avoid doing business with this person.

Good, post some neutral feedback then since this is a personal opinion.

[marcotheminer]

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller. We might even get some action from tecshare, who knows?

Someone lock it please.

[Bicknellski]

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller. We might even get some action from tecshare, who knows?

Someone lock it please.

Why? No one locked the dogie scam thread when quickseller swooped in and trashed people there.

I am sure we're all big boys and girls that allows people to comment quite naturally to the similarities in both people.

Irregardless worhiper is primed to make a few more posts to see if his logic might sink in... again I'd say just negative rep back and walk away nothing is going to change.

[cathoderay]

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller.

I might as well just incorporate quickseller into the "dogie abuse of members" thread - they seem to be the same person anyway....

Either that or they're twins 

[r3wt]

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller. We might even get some action from tecshare, who knows?

Someone lock it please.

Screw that guy. never liked him anyway