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

[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?

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 

He believes it won't happen and he is firm with it just to remove DefaultTrust.

Saying again, this forum and trust system is centralized not decentralized.

Trust system is designed to help others. People shouldn't judge people by looking trust rating but by looking trust feedback and reference. Trust feedback is necessary to know who to trust and who not to. Your saying tells you want to get into default trust list. I don't know why though. You still are trusted and can do trades. Just 1 trusted negative feedback doesn't make you scammer. People still trust you but somehow, your goal is to make Vod remove from default trust list like you stated in your thread or perhaps, to get rid of this system.

What people should do and what people actually do in reality are two very different things. People almost always superficially review a person and will move on to the next trader at the slightest question of impropriety. The Bitcoin community is a hyperparanoid environment because of the constant barrage of scammers.

[1715262526]

1715262526

[tspacepilot]

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 

That's a hypothesis, I think it might be time to put it to the test.  If it really were the case, it wouldn't be that hard to reinstate the trust-rangers.

[Blazr]

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.

It doesn't work like that. What happens is the scammer calls you a scammer with his sockpuppets/friends and keeps it up until you stop negging their accounts or they stop scamming.

[worhiper_-_]

It doesn't work like that. What happens is the scammer calls you a scammer with his sockpuppets/friends and keeps it up until you stop negging their accounts or they stop scamming.

You've probably reversed the roles there. I'm not handling several bitcointalk accounts, Quickseller is more likely to have sockpuppets any way. Also, I haven't scamed anyone nor could have had through using his services. Please stay on topic, hasty generalisations have no reason to be posted in a meta post discussion Quickseller's degeneracy.  

[worhiper_-_]

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page.

[Twipple]

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page.

Can't be helped, I haven't gone through all the threads, but the one where he gave a negative due to someone not agreeing to the final escrow did seem his arrogancy where he wasn't paid a dollar for his escrow fees. Maybe you should have given him the dollar to avoid the negative trust.

[EcuaMobi]

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page.

Can't be helped, I haven't gone through all the threads, but the one where he gave a negative due to someone not agreeing to the final escrow did seem his arrogancy where he wasn't paid a dollar for his escrow fees. Maybe you should have given him the dollar to avoid the negative trust.

So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

[erpbridge]

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page.

Can't be helped, I haven't gone through all the threads, but the one where he gave a negative due to someone not agreeing to the final escrow did seem his arrogancy where he wasn't paid a dollar for his escrow fees. Maybe you should have given him the dollar to avoid the negative trust.

So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

That would get him a negative trust if Quickseller was to do that. I doubt he would .

[Twipple]

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page.

Can't be helped, I haven't gone through all the threads, but the one where he gave a negative due to someone not agreeing to the final escrow did seem his arrogancy where he wasn't paid a dollar for his escrow fees. Maybe you should have given him the dollar to avoid the negative trust.

So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

Well, I didn't do any such thing, but I see profiles of some scammers who did, and Quickseller removed the negative trust from the accounts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11203884#msg11203884
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11203952#msg11203952
probably many more.

[TerminatorXL]

...
So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved!

[Twipple]

...
So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved!

I doubt if even that would work. I would expect him to be the sort of person, who would keep reporting his own sold accounts so they would come back to him to buy more accounts.

[Muhammed Zakir]

...
So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved!

I doubt if even that would work. I would expect him to be the sort of person, who would keep reporting his own sold accounts so they would come back to him to buy more accounts.

I don't understand the logic here. If accounts sold by a person are reported as sold frequently, why do people come to buy more accounts from same person?

[Twipple]

...
So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved!

I doubt if even that would work. I would expect him to be the sort of person, who would keep reporting his own sold accounts so they would come back to him to buy more accounts.

I don't understand the logic here. If accounts sold by a person are reported as sold frequently, why do people come to buy more accounts from same person?

I meant, that I assume Quickseller to be a person who would sell an account "A" , which would have probably been bought for a signature campaign. Then he would repeatedly report the posts which aren't much constructive, leading to a ban , and the account buyer would resort back to buying another account from Quickseller now. Thats just what I assume him to be like, from the messages we have exchanged.

[TerminatorXL]

...
So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work 

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved!

I doubt if even that would work. I would expect him to be the sort of person, who would keep reporting his own sold accounts so they would come back to him to buy more accounts.

Haven't thought of that, excellent business strategy! He already neg reps to create demand, if he neg repped the accounts he sold, he has a sort of  perpetuum mobile - an inexorable, closed-loop demand! Brilliant!
Perhaps I was to quick to discount his business acumen

[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.

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  

Do you really believe that a handful of virtual mallcops are going to stop the tsunami of fraud on the internet? Doubtful. People who are wronged tend to seek justice and bring offenders to light. Preventative precrime type scambusting is inefficient, it also harms reputable users because people want to play private investigator and pump up their trust ratings by harassing people and negative rate them over the flimsiest of pretenses. They get entertained, they look like they are doing something to help, they collect positive trust, then use that trust to abuse their position even more.

Instead of trying to stop the ocean from flooding in why don't you teach some people how to make a boat? We should be focusing on teaching people how to protect themselves, not going on crusades looking for people to crucify to satiate the boredom of a handful of asshats at the expense of the entire community.

[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?

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 

Do you really believe that a handful of virtual mallcops are going to stop the tsunami of fraud on the internet? Doubtful. People who are wronged tend to seek justice and bring offenders to light. Preventative precrime type scambusting is inefficient, it also harms reputable users because people want to play private investigator and pump up their trust ratings by harassing people and negative rate them over the flimsiest of pretenses. They get entertained, they look like they are doing something to help, they collect positive trust, then use that trust to abuse their position even more.

Instead of trying to stop the ocean from flooding in why don't you teach some people how to make a boat? We should be focusing on teaching people how to protect themselves, not going on crusades looking for people to crucify to satiate the boredom of a handful of asshats at the expense of the entire community.

Nope. I believe a handful of virtual persons can stop or atleast reduce tsunami of fraud in Bitcointalk. We can't stop all fraud in Internet and I don't think we need to do it just like the staff here doesn't need to moderate other forums.* We can atleast reduce the amount by doing what we can.

* Exceptions apply.

[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  

Do you really believe that a handful of virtual mallcops are going to stop the tsunami of fraud on the internet? Doubtful. People who are wronged tend to seek justice and bring offenders to light. Preventative precrime type scambusting is inefficient, it also harms reputable users because people want to play private investigator and pump up their trust ratings by harassing people and negative rate them over the flimsiest of pretenses. They get entertained, they look like they are doing something to help, they collect positive trust, then use that trust to abuse their position even more.

Instead of trying to stop the ocean from flooding in why don't you teach some people how to make a boat? We should be focusing on teaching people how to protect themselves, not going on crusades looking for people to crucify to satiate the boredom of a handful of asshats at the expense of the entire community.

Of course having a default trust list won't eliminate all the scams, unfortunately there's no way to do so. However it certainly reduces the number of occurrences. I'm completely sure a lot of scams have been prevented that way and while there are several negative point it's absolutely worth having it until we come up with a better option.

Teaching newbies and everyone how to be safe would help too of course but those two ideas are not incompatible with each other.

And just an advice: to be considered more seriously start speaking directly without generalizing, without trying to put words on other people's mouth and with far less metaphors.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]

the link in your sig doesn't work for me, check it?
BTW, just got neg repped -
http://s29.postimg.org/4192qia5z/Capture.png
Will state it's not true, whatever that's worth

[alani123]

[...]

the link in your sig doesn't work for me, check it?
BTW, just got neg repped -

Will state it's not true, whatever that's worth

Accusations with no proof. Way to silence people... 

[Quickseller]

[...]

the link in your sig doesn't work for me, check it?
BTW, just got neg repped -

Will state it's not true, whatever that's worth

Accusations with no proof. Way to silence people... 

Why don't you bother to stop spamming useless posts and read the reference and maybe you will see that the feedback was not something intended to silence him, but rather was given information that I feel is credible that suggests that he is in fact an alt of supa