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

[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

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

Post it, faggot
BTW, if I can prove to Theymos that I'm not Supa, will you remove yourself from the trust list?

[TheButterZone]

[...]

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

Post it, faggot

This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

[alani123]

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

Personal attacks again? Fine, I'll still take you seriously and respond to your question.

The reason I posted this was because you gave him a negative rating just after he started posting in threads that were against you. Besides that, linking to a post SaltySpitoon made speculating that he could be an alt isn't appropriate proof. Salty is not an admin, he doesn't have access to IP data. Only BadBead and theymos can detect alt accounts with credibility and I'm sure you know that already as you've been dealing with account sales (and probably farming too) for a long time.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]
This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

I know where he got it, though I'm yet to get either a reply or a neg rating from Salty.

[...]

[...] but you better follow your buddy's list and neg rep me - he got the cue from you If I had any doubts about the vindictiveness of that douche, they're gone.

http://s29.postimg.org/4192qia5z/Capture.png

[Quickseller]

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

Personal attacks again? Fine, I'll still take you seriously and respond to your question.

The reason I posted this was because you gave him a negative rating just after he started posting in threads that were against you. Besides that, linking to a post SaltySpitoon made speculating that he could be an alt isn't appropriate proof. Salty is not an admin, he doesn't have access to IP data. Only BadBead and theymos can detect alt accounts with credibility and I'm sure you know that already as you've been dealing with account sales (and probably farming too) for a long time.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa. When BadBear gives a negative trust for being an alt of a scammer, it is because he thinks that is the case. The fact that Salty doesn't have IP data (or other identifying data) does not mean that he is wrong about someone being an alt.

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago). Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

[alani123]

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.

Thinks=no proof=speculation

Meanwhile...

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago).

But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.

Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?

[TerminatorXL]

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.

Thinks=no proof=speculation
[...]

What's more interesting is Salty, who claims to have evidence on me being Supa, not leaving me a neg rating, even after being reminded to do so by me.
Is Salty being negligent in his duties as a mod?
Why not tag known scammers?

[Quickseller]

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.

Thinks=no proof=speculation

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The description of the negative trust button says "strongly believe", not proven beyond any shred of doubt. His statement was strong enough for me to believe that Salty's statement was more then just speculation.

Meanwhile...

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago).

But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.

No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.

Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?

It is not up to me what other people do with their trust. I have pissed off enough scammers in the last few months that it is safe to say with a good amount of certainty someone speaking out against me is either a scammer or an alt of a scammer (the correlation is nearly 100% on this).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.

Thinks=no proof=speculation

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The description of the negative trust button says "strongly believe", not proven beyond any shred of doubt. His statement was strong enough for me to believe that Salty's statement was more then just speculation.

Meanwhile...

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago).

But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.

No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.

Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?

It is not up to me what other people do with their trust. I have pissed off enough scammers in the last few months that it is safe to say with a good amount of certainty someone speaking out against me is either a scammer or an alt of a scammer (the correlation is nearly 100% on this).

You neg repped him because you don't agree with him. That is clear as day. Your default trust is a joke imo.

[alani123]

No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.

Then why not give a negative trust rating to every single person that has ever scammed in this forum? The truth is that you can't and you won't because you'll  only search for a reason to and give them out with ease to the people that have spoken against you thereby attracting your attention.

[Quickseller]

No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.

Then why not give a negative trust rating to every single person that has ever scammed in this forum? The truth is that you can't and you won't because you'll  only search for a reason to and give them out with ease to the people that have spoken against you thereby attracting your attention.

If I come across, or am otherwise made aware of someone who has scammed then they will get negative trust from me.

If you are implying that I should go searching every single thread for scams, then that is ridiculous as I obviously have a limited amount of time/resources and doing so would not be logically feasible.

[SaltySpitoon]

crossposting this here, since it is relevant.

Right, so once again you have proved you don't care about the topic. So this will be my last post. I explained it pretty clearly in the last thread, it was something you had said. Quickseller's actions are their own.

No, fuck YOU.
You said that you require rigorous proof to take punitive actions.
Now, thanks to you, I'm labeled as a scammer - pretty fucking punitive.
I asked to see the evidence against me, you retort with "it was something you said."
Tell me that's not how totalitarian states operate, and I'll call you a lying piece of shit. Again

Enjoy stewing in your own fail.

Eh, ok this will be my last reply as you are entitled to some explanation. If I told someone that I think Bitcoins are going to increase in value and they lose money because they bought Bitcoins on my opinion and it goes down, is it my fault? I didn't tell Quickseller to negative rep you, I would have done it myself if I was certain. I still think you are Supa, and if you are, I dont want to tell you how to fix your mistakes next alt you make. I also said that I dont have any better verification methods than you have, so I no way made a statement that could be taken as fact.

I just said that you said something that caught my attention that made me think that you were Supa, nothing more.

-snip-
You know Supa, you could just use one of your 30 other Alt accounts, if you haven't been banned on them yet, why would you think you would be banned now?

I took your next reply as confirmation to what I had said

Lol, is this what you really think? That's what you've been doing here? Defending your skeezy boyfriend? Well, color me impressed!
Allrighty, gg.

Hehe, good one. I did do a trade with quickseller once, was a pretty smooth transaction. We even used PGP so I was sure that he didn't sell his account. Alas, I'm too nervous to ask him to go steady though. Oh well.

I'm actually more impressed with myself that you are Supa. I was pretty sure based on something you had said, but I figured if I was wrong, I could still claim it was my point that it is hard to keep people from trading alt accounts as I can't establish ownership of an account any better than yourself. Moderators don't have access to anything IP related, and we can't check anything about user accounts out of the ordinary.

Full context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

[TheButterZone]

If I was on DT* and had limited time, I would probably subscribe to the RSS feeds or new topic email notifications for most subforums, so I could have a quick reference to new scams being posted for immediate reporting and/or neg trusting... rather than spending my limited time defending myself for even a single second, let alone minutes or hours daily?

*Which I'm not because I can't abide aggressive repeat libelers trying to get away with it by claiming they were joking.

[TECSHARE]

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.

Thinks=no proof=speculation

Meanwhile...

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago).

But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.

Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?

Why post any kind of evidence if you can just fling accusations around and achieve the same effect? People used to respect the standards of the trust system, now the ones in charge of it abuse it so much the standard for leaving a rating now has dropped to the point people find it acceptable to negative rate people because they disagree with something they said. This is Vod's favorite game: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

[tspacepilot]

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.

How much should I have paid him off?  He was after me and and spent a day or two digging until he ended up using the word of a known scammer as "evidence" that I was a scammer.  Maybe I should still pay some kind of ransom (he hasn't removed his negative---and it's doubtful he will until badbear comes back and talks to him about it), how much should I offer him?

[TerminatorXL]

Fun fact: douche in question took away my neg trust.
He and Mr. Spittoon were so sure...

[...]
This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

I know where he got it, though I'm yet to get either a reply or a neg rating from Salty.

[...]

[...] but you better follow your buddy's list and neg rep me - he got the cue from you If I had any doubts about the vindictiveness of that douche, they're gone.

http://s29.postimg.org/4192qia5z/Capture.png

[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.

How much should I have paid him off?  He was after me and and spent a day or two digging until he ended up using the word of a known scammer as "evidence" that I was a scammer.  Maybe I should still pay some kind of ransom (he hasn't removed his negative---and it's doubtful he will until badbear comes back and talks to him about it), how much should I offer him?

Try 10 cents to start with, if it doesn't work offer him a dollar for all his trouble. He seems to have a poor life anyways, looking at how he spends his life and all day on the forum.

[tspacepilot]

Fun fact: douche in question took away my neg trust.
He and Mr. Spittoon were so sure...

[...]
This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

I know where he got it, though I'm yet to get either a reply or a neg rating from Salty.

[...]

[...] but you better follow your buddy's list and neg rep me - he got the cue from you If I had any doubts about the vindictiveness of that douche, they're gone.

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me.  He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?).  His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy.  He says "avoid interacting with me at all".  Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction?  Seems like immature trolling to me.

[worhiper_-_]

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me.  He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?).  His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy.  He says "avoid interacting with me at all".  Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction?  Seems like immature trolling to me.

Holy shit! Just looked at your ratings, did that idiot give you negative trust for something you did two years ago? How objective of you Quickseller, it's not like you targeted because you hate him, not at all. He really deserved a negative trust rating 2 years after no one else had complained about what he did.

No wonder that you think accts seller is his alt, he necroposted on your scam accusation from 2013 2 years afterwards just to target you from what is seems. Way to abuse his position in default trust.

[tspacepilot]

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me.  He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?).  His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy.  He says "avoid interacting with me at all".  Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction?  Seems like immature trolling to me.

Holy shit! Just looked at your ratings, did that idiot give you negative trust for something you did two years ago? How objective of you Quickseller, it's not like you targeted because you hate him, not at all. He really deserved a negative trust rating 2 years after no one else had complained about what he did.

No wonder that you think accts seller is his alt, he necroposted on your scam accusation from 2013 2 years afterwards just to target you from what is seems. Way to abuse his position in default trust.

It's well known at this point.  He actually admitted that acctseller is his alt in another thread just after this abuse.  Your characterization of what he's doing to me couldn't be more accurate.  I'm sure that Badbear is going to be cleaning it up in a few days though, don't worry.  I've been around here for too long and creating 0 problems for anyone.  Dude isn't going to be allowed to go on trolling smear crusades while on default trust.  There are issues with default trust for sure, but this kind of behavior is typically cleaned up pretty fast---the only issue here is that badbear is the one who has quickseller on default trust and he's out of town until 1 May.