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

[alani123]

IMHO giving tips about security it good but escrowing according to their terms aren't always good. If their terms aren't good, escrow should come up with new terms which is comfortable for both. The terms Quickseller came up with were good but backing out that deal for making a safer terms is shady.

It's more uncomfortable if the escrow doesn't discuss the changes in the terms that he things should take place with the other parties. Quickseller gave the other parties new terms without discussing the changes with them, he now claims that he had reached an agreement with worshiper while in fact there was never an agreement between them since the original terms were different with the ones quickseller presented.

And while backing off this deal seems a bit shady, it didn't cause any harm. Not it could have caused any. That's why I believe a neutral rating instead of a negative one would have been more justified since Quickseller has no evidence to support that this user attempted to scam someone. Yes, what worsiper did was unprofessional but not fraudulent. If quickseller doesn't want to deal with him again he's free to do whatever he wants. But ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required. And in the end of the day, quickseller wasn't all that professional in this transaction, he could have been the one to deny providing his service from the start instead of presenting new terms  and avoid all this.

What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this.

[1715080839]

1715080839

[1715080839]

1715080839

[1715080839]

1715080839

[Quickseller]

And while backing off this deal seems a bit shady, it didn't cause any harm. Not it could have caused any. That's why I believe a neutral rating instead of a negative one would have been more justified since Quickseller has no evidence to support that this user attempted to scam someone. Yes, what worsiper did was unprofessional but not fraudulent. If quickseller doesn't want to deal with him again he's free to do whatever he wants. But ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required. And in the end of the day, quickseller wasn't all that professional in this transaction, he could have been the one to deny providing his service from the start instead of presenting new terms  and avoid all this.

Scammer will often agree to use escrow and then disappear once escrow is set up with the hopes that escrow will take too long to respond so their trading partner will simply agree to send first (and end up getting scammed). All of the OP's terms demands were met yet he still backed out of the deal.

What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this.

no

[alani123]

-snip-
no

You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
no

You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic.

I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous

[alani123]

-snip-
no

You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic.

I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous

I never actually said or implied that. Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I say.

ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required.

To clarify:
To me it seems like you gave him a negative rating for having an unsuccessful transaction with him while he never scammed you.

And you're telling me that he could end up being a scammer later? Is this a prophecy? Because he couldn't scam you or the seller in the transaction you were handling even if he wanted to. And this is not how trust ratings are supposed to work.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
no

You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic.

I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous

I never actually said or implied that. Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I say.

ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required.

To clarify:
To me it seems like you gave him a negative rating for having an unsuccessful transaction with him while he never scammed you.

And you're telling me that he could end up being a scammer later? Is this a prophecy? Because he couldn't scam you or the seller in the transaction you were handling even if he wanted to. And this is not how trust ratings are supposed to work.

No. You said

What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this

You said nothing about a failed transaction.

However to address your concerns, it is not only appropriate to leave negative trust when someone scammed you, otherwise when new users get scammed, the scammer will never receive actual negative trust.

The negative trust was the result of scammy behavior. Period

[alani123]

I did say that you disliked him, but didn't say that you did before this transaction.

Also unsuccesfull=failed

They're synonymous words. So maybe next time read a little bit more carefully so you don't put words in other's mouth and misinterpret what they say?

Also, define scammy behaviour. For me lying and misinterpreting people's posts is closer to scammy behaviour. And that's I feel that you're to be doing here.

[worhiper_-_]

Can't give a definition to the terms you're using eh? 

[Quickseller]

Can't give a definition to the terms you're using eh? 

Scammy behavior is something that is subjective and requires the use of judgment. However backing out of escrow is almost always going to be considered to be scammy behavior. Backing out of escrow while stomping your feet is always going to be scammy behavior.

At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling.

[worhiper_-_]

Can't give a definition to the terms you're using eh? 

Scammy behavior is something that is subjective and requires the use of judgment. However backing out of escrow is almost always going to be considered to be scammy behavior. Backing out of escrow while stomping your feet is always going to be scammy behavior.

At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling.

How am I trolling? You're the one mixing personal bias with actual definitions in the English language. That's why you're unprofesional.

[cathoderay]

At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling.

Like you do on dogies scam thread you mean?

I think you might be dogie in disguise tbh. Are you Alan Allcock?

[worhiper_-_]

At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling.

Like you do on dogies scam thread you mean?

I think you might be dogie in disguise tbh. Are you Alan Allcock?

Who knows really, this guy has sold and bought so many accounts. 'Quickseller' is probably his main but he probably does business from one of his other alts by now.

[worhiper_-_]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034655.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

Well at least I'm not the only one. Quickseller seems to have really taken the role of the 'retarded policeman' up to himself. I hope that it's not going to be long before people in the default trust realise that he's acting so immaturely and take back their ratings.

[TECSHARE]

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

Unless of course your name is Vod, then you are free to make up things about people and leave negative ratings for whatever you feel like. I never made an exchange with him or been suspected of shady behavior either and he claims I lied about him  (since when is that an acceptable use of default trust?). He is still very much on the default trust list still abusing away at it playing rent a cop.

I find it amazing how much shit you guys are giving Quickseller when Vod does this kind of thing several times a month.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

[Twipple]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034655.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

Well at least I'm not the only one. Quickseller seems to have really taken the role of the 'retarded policeman' up to himself. I hope that it's not going to be long before people in the default trust realise that he's acting so immaturely and take back their ratings.

He is seriously acting immaturely, He has this stupid attitude that he is always right, and if you start of by being angry towards him , which obviously everyone will be, after seeing the negative rep, then he will never remove your trust.
 
I am not saying that he doesn't spots scams or stuff, but when he does , people blindly are agreeing to him, and when someone tries to justify, he doesn't care.

[alani123]

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

Unless of course your name is Vod, then you are free to make up things about people and leave negative ratings for whatever you feel like. I never made an exchange with him or been suspected of shady behavior either and he claims I lied about him  (since when is that an acceptable use of default trust?). He is still very much on the default trust list still abusing away at it playing rent a cop.

I find it amazing how much shit you guys are giving Quickseller when Vod does this kind of thing several times a month.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

Well at least with Quickseller we have the chance to have a look at the beginning. If you were to take a look at his trust ratings from trusted members, very few of them were from amounts or trades wothy enough to put him in default trust. At least not if you put him in perspective with other members. One could even say that he was purposely putting  down such trades to earn that trust. Funny thing is that he goes after users bullying them that they're trying to 'buy trust' while he himself is probably the most shady person in the default trust.

He has supposedly stopped dealing accounts, but no one can actually guarantee that he's also stopped doing that from his alts.

[Quickseller]

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

Unless of course your name is Vod, then you are free to make up things about people and leave negative ratings for whatever you feel like. I never made an exchange with him or been suspected of shady behavior either and he claims I lied about him  (since when is that an acceptable use of default trust?). He is still very much on the default trust list still abusing away at it playing rent a cop.

I find it amazing how much shit you guys are giving Quickseller when Vod does this kind of thing several times a month.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

Well at least with Quickseller we have the chance to have a look at the beginning. If you were to take a look at his trust ratings from trusted members, very few of them were from amounts or trades wothy enough to put him in default trust. At least not if you put him in perspective with other members. One could even say that he was purposely putting  down such trades to earn that trust. Funny thing is that he goes after users bullying them that they're trying to 'buy trust' while he himself is probably the most shady person in the default trust.

He has supposedly stopped dealing accounts, but no one can actually guarantee that he's also stopped doing that from his alts.

What are you talking about? A large amount of the trust that I have received is from people I have not even traded with at all, but rather was received because of the contribution to the community by busting scams. The majority of the rest of the transactions of which I have received positive trust from people on default trust were either from people who had risked funds when trading with me (e.g. they either used me as escrow or they sent first) or were for transactions in excess of 1 BTC. If you seriously think that I am engaging in farming trust then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

[TECSHARE]

Scambusting itself is becoming a form of trust farming (not just by Quickseller). Steamroll over a bunch of people, pretend you stopped a bunch of scammers, collect positive ratings, and abuse trusted position even more. This is one of the main reasons I have argued so heavily against "scambusting" in general. People who are wronged will bring it to light, we don't need internet precrime police running around everywhere interfering with what would otherwise be voluntary transactions in most cases.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Scambusting itself is becoming a form of trust farming (not just by Quickseller). Steamroll over a bunch of people, pretend you stopped a bunch of scammers, collect positive ratings, and abuse trusted position even more. This is one of the main reasons I have argued so heavily against "scambusting" in general. People who are wronged will bring it to light, we don't need internet precrime police running around everywhere interfering with what would otherwise be voluntary transactions in most cases.

So are you telling there must not be any scambusters in this forum?

[EcuaMobi]

Scambusting itself is becoming a form of trust farming (not just by Quickseller). Steamroll over a bunch of people, pretend you stopped a bunch of scammers, collect positive ratings, and abuse trusted position even more. This is one of the main reasons I have argued so heavily against "scambusting" in general. People who are wronged will bring it to light, we don't need internet precrime police running around everywhere interfering with what would otherwise be voluntary transactions in most cases.

So are you telling there must not be any scambusters in this forum?

There would definitely be much fewer posts on meta complaining about trust abuse so of course it would be positive. The only problem is there would be so much more threads on scam accusations