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

[lobogil]

PFT:

What conclusions do you think can be made with either the above results or with results with your software?

Nothing at all. Apart from dogie & yourself following each other around, swapping spit & posting exactly the same thing as each other in an effort to cover up the fact that you both (correctly) have multiple trust abuse claims against you in this very thread. Not to mention his obvious scam thread where you keep posting for him  

It's ironic that probably the two worst trust abusers on the forum keep harping on about how trustworthy they think they are, when it took me less than a minute to count a combined total of at least 6 dedicated threads here complaining of trust abuse by both of you towards forum members - & that's not including the many more posts complaining about you both in many, many other threads.

This has all the hallmarks of becoming another quickseller/dogie love-in thread. Let it die before that happens.

Someone save us  

I'll not bump the other Quickseller/dogie complaint threads - just making a point  

By copy and pasting the same oped post by a shill account in 3 places?

Quickseller posts shit in dogie threads. Dogie posts the same shit in Quickseller threads. Who are you to talk?

Besides, cathoderay is not only right, but it's relevent to the threads - why shouldn't he quote/copy/paste? You do it all the time, only your efforts ain't relevent & are mostly BS. There's a difference  

He actually done you both a favour by not posting in all of both your trust abuse threads as he stated, otherwise the first ten threads in meta would all be Quickseller/dogie complaint/trust abuse threads - you should both thank him, if you're both actually two different people, which is debatable  

[1715572872]

1715572872

[1715572872]

1715572872

[1715572872]

1715572872

[dogie]

Besides, cathoderay is not only right, but it's relevent to the threads

Says the shill account, referring to another shill account

if you're both actually two different people, which is debatable 

Says the shill account, referring to another shill account . And neither of us have to hide behind other accounts. What is your main account called?

[tspacepilot]

Besides, cathoderay is not only right, but it's relevent to the threads

Says the shill account, referring to another shill account

if you're both actually two different people, which is debatable 

Says the shill account, referring to another shill account . And neither of us have to hide behind other accounts. What is your main account called?

Quickseller used ACCTSeller to troll me and, dig up dirt by talking to tradefortress, etc, before "discovering" the work of ACCTSeller when he logged in as Quickseller.  I think that's a lot like hidng behind another account.  I don't know what the deal is with you or why people are saying you and quickseller are alike/in each other's threads, etc.  I thought you were a reviewer of mining hardware, that's all I know about you.  Back to the OP, do you think it was cool for quickseller to give worhipper_-_ negative trust for refusing to do business with him?

[Vod]

I see people complaining about you blocking them and refusing to discuss your ratings all the time. I am sure it is easy to forget about with how often it happens. I was not your enemy until you negative rated me, up until that point I simply had things to say about your behavior that annoyed you. If you don't want to be my enemy then I think you know what actions you need to take. Otherwise take your pretender act elsewhere.

Are you talking about my negative trust that claims you are constantly lying about me to get me removed from default trust?

Well, you still are lying about me to get me removed from negative trust.  I am not protected by anyone, and I am not above the rules here.

Don't be naive and think just because we have a common enemy I will turn a blind eye to your constant lies.  

I think you know what actions you need to take before we can become best friends.

[tspacepilot]

Seems like the discussion between Vod and TECSHARE has strayed quite far from the issue of quickseller's neg-repping worhipper_-_ for not wanting to trade with him.  That seems like a shame because as far as anyone has pointed out, worhipper_-_ did no wrong and yet is suffering a reputation cost.

[TECSHARE]

Seems like the discussion between Vod and TECSHARE has strayed quite far from the issue of quickseller's neg-repping worhipper_-_ for not wanting to trade with him.  That seems like a shame because as far as anyone has pointed out, worhipper_-_ did no wrong and yet is suffering a reputation cost.

It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?

In the past many users have been removed from the default trust for such actions, and doing so ONCE. Quickseller and Vod however seem to get a pass on this behavior over and over and over. Worshiper didn't do anything wrong backing out of a deal, and I didn't do anything wrong criticizing Vods behavior in threads. These are both instances of users on the default trust list abusing their position of authority to punish or silence people over personal issues that have absolutely nothing to do with trading or trust.

The fact is that staff are willing to mobilize to remove some people but not others from the default trust list. They SAY it is because these rules they arbitrarily apply are important to maintaining the integrity of the default trust list, but suddenly these standards are not important when it is a friend of theirs. When they want to enforce the rules they tell you about the integrity of the default trust, when they don't they tell you about how they don't moderate trust.

[redsn0w]

It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?

The concise answer is "with no clearly defined, concise rule set, everything is permitted. Or not. Maybe."

I think a few users in the defaultTrust list are doing this thing, but only "few users". The phrase is always, trust systems is not moderated, but we should understand what does it mean "moderated". The personal issues should "stay" away from the trust system, in some cases (almost always).

[tspacepilot]

It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?

The concise answer is "with no clearly defined, concise rule set, everything is permitted. Or not. Maybe."

I think a few users in the defaultTrust list are doing this thing, but only "few users". The phrase is always, trust systems is not moderated, but we should understand what does it mean "moderated". The personal issues should "stay" away from the trust system, in some cases (almost always).

But redsn0w, I think the thing is that a few users is a few too many.  I think it'll feel a little differently when you're the one who gets dinged because someone decides they didn't like you.  I have to admit, I was quite, quite shocked to see that nothing was done about it when QS went after me the way he did.  I also admit that I don't really know the scope of the problem, I've definitely seen it for myself in Quickseller and I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it.  Thankfully, for the moment, QS's plan failed because the folks I was advertising for saw what he was trying to do to me and decided it wasn't right.  However, who knows what future partners will say. As long as this stands, I'm going to be sending everyone I want to work for to this silly thread where QS acts like an amateur detective with a chip on his shoulder, rehashing the lies of a known scammer in order to make me look bad.

Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I think you'll feel it much more personally when you end up being the victim.

[TECSHARE]

It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?

The concise answer is "with no clearly defined, concise rule set, everything is permitted. Or not. Maybe."

I think a few users in the defaultTrust list are doing this thing, but only "few users". The phrase is always, trust systems is not moderated, but we should understand what does it mean "moderated". The personal issues should "stay" away from the trust system, in some cases (almost always).

But redsn0w, I think the thing is that a few users is a few too many.  I think it'll feel a little differently when you're the one who gets dinged because someone decides they didn't like you.  I have to admit, I was quite, quite shocked to see that nothing was done about it when QS went after me the way he did.  I also admit that I don't really know the scope of the problem, I've definitely seen it for myself in Quickseller and I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it.  Thankfully, for the moment, QS's plan failed because the folks I was advertising for saw what he was trying to do to me and decided it wasn't right.  However, who knows what future partners will say. As long as this stands, I'm going to be sending everyone I want to work for to this silly thread where QS acts like an amateur detective with a chip on his shoulder, rehashing the lies of a known scammer in order to make me look bad.

Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I think you'll feel it much more personally when you end up being the victim.

Well said. It is not like the default trust list is that big to begin with, "A few" could easily mean half of the default trust list because they treat it so exclusively. Then when they get tired of denying that the system is corrupt they turn on you and claim it is just an overreaction over having your reputation damaged, not because you feel the system is corrupt, and you should stop talking about it because no one cares. The no one cares part is true, unfortunately no one cares... until it happens to them, then suddenly they care, and then if they speak up about it, they end up being marginalized like the rest. People often ask me why I suddenly cared only AFTER I was removed from the default trust, but considering there are no rules posted anywhere, observing how others used it, and the fact that I didn't bother reading every meta thread regarding default trust, I am not sure how exactly I could have known about this issue until it happened to me personally. A lot of people here have no idea how big of a problem this issue is until individuals such as you and I speak up about it. Unfortunately speaking up about it puts us under further risk of harassment and retribution from those that have interest in the current state of affairs staying the way they are.

[redsn0w]

But I still don't understand why he leaves also a negative trust from his alt account? And especially why two negative trust from his 'main' account? I think one negative trust "would be" more appropriate in 'this circumstance'.

...
But redsn0w, I think the thing is that a few users is a few too many.  I think it'll feel a little differently when you're the one who gets dinged because someone decides they didn't like you.  I have to admit, I was quite, quite shocked to see that nothing was done about it when QS went after me the way he did.  I also admit that I don't really know the scope of the problem, I've definitely seen it for myself in Quickseller and I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it.  Thankfully, for the moment, QS's plan failed because the folks I was advertising for saw what he was trying to do to me and decided it wasn't right.  However, who knows what future partners will say. As long as this stands, I'm going to be sending everyone I want to work for to this silly thread where QS acts like an amateur detective with a chip on his shoulder, rehashing the lies of a known scammer in order to make me look bad.

Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I think you'll feel it much more personally when you end up being the victim.

You can't do nothing, maybe try to wait some couple of months and he will remove the negative trust or change it to a neutral.

[TECSHARE]

Redsnow, you are using quotes far too often and in grammatically incorrect ways. Please stop before I gouge my eyes out.

[redsn0w]

Redsnow, you are using quotes far too often and in grammatically incorrect ways. Please stop before I gouge my eyes out.

redsn0w , with the r lowercase.

However sorry, but I think you are not obliged to read my post (ignore me, it is not a problem)... I am always use the quote function (it is a habit now) and I do not know why I should stop.

[worhiper_-_]

Redsn0w can you get the fuck out of here? You made 80 FUCKING POSTS yesterday alone. I wonder how you're not banned yet. Since you can't contribute to the discussion here in any way, please show yourself out. Fuck fuck's sake, this is not the place to spam your signature.

[TECSHARE]

Redsnow, you are using quotes far too often and in grammatically incorrect ways. Please stop before I gouge my eyes out.

redsn0w , with the r lowercase.

However sorry, but I think you are not obliged to read my post (ignore me, it is not a problem)... I am always use the quote function (it is a habit now) and I do not know why I should stop.

I "didn't" say the "quote" function, I said "quotes", because "you" use "quotes" entirely too "often", and in "grammatically" incorrect ways.

[onewiseguy]

Redsn0w can you get the fuck out of here? You made 80 FUCKING POSTS yesterday alone. I wonder how you're not banned yet. Since you can't contribute to the discussion here in any way, please show yourself out. Fuck fuck's sake, this is not the place to spam your signature.

? what is going here now this thread is still open?

close it man unless you like the damn drama, no need for this. 

[tspacepilot]

Redsn0w can you get the fuck out of here? You made 80 FUCKING POSTS yesterday alone. I wonder how you're not banned yet. Since you can't contribute to the discussion here in any way, please show yourself out. Fuck fuck's sake, this is not the place to spam your signature.

? what is going here now this thread is still open?

close it man unless you like the damn drama, no need for this. 

I can think of one reason the thread was left open, Quickseller's reputation attack on him is still standing.  As far as I can tell, the issue is far from closed from the perspective of worhiper_-_.

[BitcoinDistributor]

The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.

Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.

This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?

[cathoderay]

The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.

Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.

This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?

I do. You are completely correct. Not only that, but the similarites between QC & Adam Allcock are staggering, yet they both seem to be untouchable by admins. Why?

[BitcoinDistributor]

The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.

Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.

This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?

I do. You are completely correct. Not only that, but the similarites between QC & Adam Allcock are staggering, yet they both seem to be untouchable by admins. Why?

Imho Quickseller and Acctseller are one of the mods / admins under a hidden name who put them on the default trust themselves. Personally I believe them to be Badbear.

[lobogil]

This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?

I do. You are completely correct. Not only that, but the similarites between QC & Adam Allcock are staggering, yet they both seem to be untouchable by admins. Why?

Imho Quickseller and Acctseller are one of the mods / admins under a hidden name who put them on the default trust themselves. Personally I believe them to be Badbear.

Say no more