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

[worhiper_-_]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

[xetsr]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

Who are these innocent people? To many troll posts / threads against quickseller to go through lol

[tspacepilot]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

FWIW, that comment from newbiew "quickerseller" isn't helping anything either.  The main thing to do at this point is to wait until badbear gets back and take things up with him.  QS doesn't talk to anyone who doesn't suck his dick publically.  You basically have to tell him he's the man and that we all owe him a debt of gratitude to even get him to engage.  It's really pointless and it's why I locked the thread that I had started about his abuse of me.

[erikalui]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

I noticed that you had your negative trust removed and then Quickseller added it again today. What happened?

[tspacepilot]

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

[nor9865]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

FWIW, that comment from newbiew "quickerseller" isn't helping anything either.  The main thing to do at this point is to wait until badbear gets back and take things up with him.  QS doesn't talk to anyone who doesn't suck his dick publically.  You basically have to tell him he's the man and that we all owe him a debt of gratitude to even get him to engage.  It's really pointless and it's why I locked the thread that I had started about his abuse of me.

Badbear has made multiple comments in the past hour. I do not think your request is going to be what you wanted.

[tspacepilot]

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

FWIW, that comment from newbiew "quickerseller" isn't helping anything either.  The main thing to do at this point is to wait until badbear gets back and take things up with him.  QS doesn't talk to anyone who doesn't suck his dick publically.  You basically have to tell him he's the man and that we all owe him a debt of gratitude to even get him to engage.  It's really pointless and it's why I locked the thread that I had started about his abuse of me.

Badbear has made multiple comments in the past hour. I do not think your request is going to be what you wanted.

If badbear is back that's great. If badbear stands behind qs' crazy trolling madness on me that'd certainly be surprising but I'm going to wait for him to speak for himself.

[erikalui]

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

Why are you leaving positive trust for yourself using your alt account? It seems that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=117142 is your alt as the signature implies the same.

[Vod]

Badbear has made multiple comments in the past hour. I do not think your request is going to be what you wanted.

Badbear has stated he is away until the first.

While he may be able to post messages, it's possible he doesn't have access to all his regular investigative tools until the first.

[Quickseller]

Badbear has made multiple comments in the past hour. I do not think your request is going to be what you wanted.

Badbear has stated he is away until the first.

While he may be able to post messages, it's possible he doesn't have access to all his regular investigative tools until the first.

BadBear outed a number of alts of dznuts85 who scammed girlbtc.com out of .3 BTC just yesterday.

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

You have also pissed off a lot of innocent people and prevented them from contributing to the Bitcoin community because of your false or misleading accusations.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

I noticed that you had your negative trust removed and then Quickseller added it again today. What happened?

Short for what I'd consider fair: him to review the rating to something more accurate/change it to a comment saying that he personally doesn't trust me/remove the rating.

I edited the rating to remove the statement that "an agreement was reach" despite that I still believe that fact to be true.

I don't think you have disputed any of the facts in my adjusted rating.

I had noticed that the OP was changed requesting that the text of my negative trust be updated to something more accurate, so I edited it (deleted and reposted) to something that reflects facts that are undisputed. Unsurprisingly the OP has continued trolling and has not stated this is resolved.

[worhiper_-_]

Short for what I'd consider fair: him to review the rating to something more accurate/change it to a comment saying that he personally doesn't trust me/remove the rating.

I edited the rating to remove the statement that "an agreement was reach" despite that I still believe that fact to be true.

I don't think you have disputed any of the facts in my adjusted rating.

I had noticed that the OP was changed requesting that the text of my negative trust be updated to something more accurate, so I edited it (deleted and reposted) to something that reflects facts that are undisputed. Unsurprisingly the OP has continued trolling and has not stated this is resolved.

Gotta admit, I didn't notice that. We don't get a notification for trust ratings you know. Plust this thread has 5k views and 11 post pages till now. I didn't notice this reply, sorry.

Anyway, now that I noticed... I'll admit that the current rating is a bit more accurate. However, I didn't request you to make this change with my latest change in the OP. It was there since the original post from April 13 and you changed the rating today.

Another thing, I'm not trolling. I don't appreciate most of your posts as well but I don't devalue them by saying that you're trolling, please avoid that in the future.

And also, I don't find your rating completely innacurate as I already admited. But still not 100% accurate so this is not resolved for me.


I know that we've been over this many times, but what you consider a scammy action (me exiting the escrow) was in fact a result of my anger towards you (and this anger still holds slightly, maybe that's why you think I'm trolling you). And what would I have scammed someone out of? Actually nothing, you claim that I would have the name of the account revealed to me and therefore try to ruin the accounts reputation. Why on earth would I do that?

Which still seems unreasonable to me because I didn't specifically ask you to change the account's pass before I funded your address but you claimed that I did multiple times here which is ridiculus.

And you saying that my conditions were met, is partly true. But this wasn't thanks to you. The other party did hand you the account before I sent you the funds although that didn't came in agreement with your terms. BUT This wasn't something I was expecting since I had contacted you prior to that informing you that I would be exiting the deal if you didn't change the terms and you replied saying that you won't change the terms (also before receiving the account).

And even though this happened in a way you described as unsecure. Did I take the chance to bring on my scammy plans? I never did because I didn't plan on scamming someone in the first place, but you still gave me a negative rating (probably because you were also angry at me or something) which is undertandable.

Short for what I'd consider fair: him to review the rating to something more accurate/change it to a comment saying that he personally doesn't trust me/remove the rating.

^^ you also missed the point of it saying to change your rating to a personal comment (neutral rating). Your latest rating is a bit more accurate but in my opinion not 100% fair.

After all the backlash in this thread you reviewed the rating, that's good. But I still don't consider this resolved.

Lastly, thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic. Please try to always be accurate and objective with your ratings.

[worhiper_-_]

Posting for future reference. Also, I'll try to address what's in the rating.

I don't think you have disputed any of the facts in my adjusted rating.

While in the middle of as escrow transaction

I wouldn't describe it as the middle of the transaction but my description has little to do. The first interaction we ever had was me telling you that you changed the terms and I'm likely to exit the deal.

this person failed to fund the escrow address of a deal despite all of his demands/conditions were met

The conditions were met after I wanrned you about exiting the deal and you denied to accept the oroginal terms. The conditions were only met because of the unexpected godwillingness of the other party after my warning about exiting the deal.

the conditions of which were scammy by themselves.

Right, this is your description of my terms. You've claimed here that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving funds from me. Nowhere in the messages I sent you did I say that specifically. I even gave you a way to verify that the account did fit the seller's description without even getting access to the account but this was ignored. AND EVEN THOUGH my otherwise scammy conditions were met, did I end uo scamming anyone? No, I didn't. Because I couldn't and didn't even want to.

I would avoid doing business with this person.

Very well! Since you personally wouldn't do business with me you're welcome to leave a neutral rating. Many prominent members that looked at the case have pointed out that this would be the most appropriate thing to do.

[tspacepilot]

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

Why are you leaving positive trust for yourself using your alt account? It seems that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=117142 is your alt as the signature implies the same.

I don't know how to prove it to you, but I can assert to you that r3wt is not my alt.  From my experience with him, it seems he also has some issue with with quickseller or just with default trust.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I don't really check my own feedback unless someone draws my attention to it.

[andulolika]

I must agree that Quickseller is a bit harsh, he gave me negative trust (not without reason) as soon as i became active, but he mantained his word and took it down, i never interacted with him in any other way but i followed a bit his moves and i dont think he does bad, he supports the forum in a pretty good way, no one is perfect so mistakes are always on the table. Eitherway i think taking it easier with the newbies could be better for the forum, newbies are treated pretty unfair (by anyone) just cuz of the fact of newbie, its good against scammers but any new user to the bitcoin coummunity may fly away because of that.

[worhiper_-_]

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

Why are you leaving positive trust for yourself using your alt account? It seems that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=117142 is your alt as the signature implies the same.

I don't know how to prove it to you, but I can assert to you that r3wt is not my alt.  From my experience with him, it seems he also has some issue with with quickseller or just with default trust.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I don't really check my own feedback unless someone draws my attention to it.

r3wt was known for running an exchange, (wasn't he?). I don't think that tspacepilot has showcased technical knowledge appropriate for running an exchange.

[tspacepilot]

I must agree that Quickseller is a bit harsh, he gave me negative trust (not without reason) as soon as i became active, but he mantained his word and took it down, i never interacted with him in any other way but i followed a bit his moves and i dont think he does bad, he supports the forum in a pretty good way, no one is perfect so mistakes are always on the table. Eitherway i think taking it easier with the newbies could be better for the forum, newbies are treated pretty unfair (by anyone) just cuz of the fact of newbie, its good against scammers but any new user to the bitcoin coummunity may fly away because of that.

Good to know that someone actually has had their negative removed by him.  In my case, I'm far from a newbie and my reputation of years of talking on here with no trading and no issues *should* speak for itself about how quickseller is behaving towards me (if, for some reason, you decided to ignore his using of alts to troll me and his (failed) vengance campaign to get me kicked out of my signature ad campaign).  Ie, his reasons for neg-repping me were personal and vindictive and in no way associated with any sort of issues I was causing on the forum for anyone.  From what I can tell, the guy has a very fragile ego and you have to really suck up to him in order to have a pleasant interaction.  If you in any way cross him and he sees you as an inferior, you're basically going down.  As I've said in the past, I'm confident this really won't last for too long, it's a temporary, if unfortunate, state of affairs.

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

Why are you leaving positive trust for yourself using your alt account? It seems that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=117142 is your alt as the signature implies the same.

I don't know how to prove it to you, but I can assert to you that r3wt is not my alt.  From my experience with him, it seems he also has some issue with with quickseller or just with default trust.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I don't really check my own feedback unless someone draws my attention to it.

r3wt was known for running an exchange, (wasn't he?). I don't think that tspacepilot has showcased technical knowledge appropriate for running an exchange.

I can write some code but I certainly can't (and wouldn't want to) run an exchange.  I think that r3wt's signature looks like the one I used for a short time when I was out of my signature ad campaign because he felt something similar had been done to him and he was trying to draw attention to it.  I have to admit, I don't know the details of r3wt's case.

[worhiper_-_]

Quickselled has yet to reply here. He was pretty outraged that I didn't notice his 'update' of my trust rating though. Hypocrisy continues(?)  

[Quickseller]

Quickselled has yet to reply here. He was pretty outraged that I didn't notice his 'update' of my trust rating though. Hypocrisy continues(?)  

I am not further responding to this thread. The feedback is valid and you are trolling.

Good luck with your smear campaign. It is not going to work though.  

I'd recommend dropping it because you are trolling at this point and all you have been posting on is quickseller threads recently and adding nothing of value to any conversations. The trolling is most likely going to get you banned eventually.

[worhiper_-_]

How the hell am I trolling? Do you realise how imature you are right not? You're essentially trying to avoid everything I say by devaluing me and calling me a troll.

You asked me to adress your lattest rating and so I did... For fucks sake quickseller, I'm not trolling anyone here, perhaps you've emen mistaken the definition of the word.

[tspacepilot]

Quickselled has yet to reply here. He was pretty outraged that I didn't notice his 'update' of my trust rating though. Hypocrisy continues(?)  

I am not further responding to this thread. The feedback is valid and you are trolling.

Good luck with your smear campaign. It is not going to work though.  

I'd recommend dropping it because you are trolling at this point and all you have been posting on is quickseller threads recently and adding nothing of value to any conversations. The trolling is most likely going to get you banned eventually.

He learned the word "smear campaign" from me when I called him out for doing exactly that against me.   In some sense, worhiper_-_, he's right that this thread isn't going to get him to back down.  I think there's not a single example of a time when he backed down or admitted he was wrong.  When someone crosses him, they immediately get called "idiot" "dumbass" etc (it's easy to see this, just search through his posts).  When someone calls him out or asks why he goes into inspector clausier mode and starts saying "where were you on the night of the 5th?"  "do you deny having not denied having admitted that I denied that I was not the man you thought I was?" etc.

Essentially, this is the kind of person that only shows respect to people he sees as powerful so the only real recourse here is to wait until badbear takes him back off his trust list.  This is the way trust works, at the moment, badbear has shown trust in QS and Theymos shows trust in BadBear.  Once badbear sees the way QS uses this new authority to abuse and shout at those with less authority, that will start to go back on Badbear unless he fixes his own trust list.  Since he is away, we can't expect him to act on this until he has a chance to get back and look over things.

The reign of terror is a real but (I believe) temporary state-of-affairs around here.