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

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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?

Cool? Nah, it doesn't fit the criteria for negative feedback.

Is it abuse? No, her reasons for leaving him negative feedback is reasonable.

[Muhammed Zakir]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

[Vod]

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?

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   

[tspacepilot]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   Roll Eyes

How is this in any way constructive, Vod?  You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP?

[Muhammed Zakir]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.

Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens...

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   Roll Eyes

How is this in any way constructive, Vod?  You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP?

He said to kill Vod or something. I think it is something related to that comment.

[tspacepilot]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.

Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens...

Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive?  Is this somehow "invalid"?  Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases.  How many cases have to be built up before something will be done?

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   Roll Eyes

How is this in any way constructive, Vod?  You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP?

He said to kill Vod or something. I think it is something related to that comment.

I must have missed that.  Still, I wish Vod would comment on the situation in the OP.  He's here and reading the thread but I haven't found anything where he supports or complains about QS's actions against worhiper_-_.  Maybe there's an unspoken thing where people on default trust don't complain about each other publically, IDK.

[Muhammed Zakir]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.

Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens...

Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive?  Is this somehow "invalid"?  Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases.  How many cases have to be built up before something will be done?

No, I didn't said "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them". I said ypu and worhiper have an exception in people who I referred in "mostly".

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   Roll Eyes

How is this in any way constructive, Vod?  You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP?

He said to kill Vod or something. I think it is something related to that comment.

I must have missed that.  Still, I wish Vod would comment on the situation in the OP.  He's here and reading the thread but I haven't found anything where he supports or complains about QS's actions against worhiper_-_.  Maybe there's an unspoken thing where people on default trust don't complain about each other publically, IDK.

[Vod]

How is this in any way constructive, Vod?

Adds a small humor break to a tense thread?  Everyone needs a break now and then.

[tspacepilot]

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?

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.

Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens...

Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive?  Is this somehow "invalid"?  Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases.  How many cases have to be built up before something will be done?

No, I didn't said "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them". I said ypu and worhiper have an exception in people who I referred in "mostly".

 What is the difference?  Above you seemed to be saying, "no QS is doing the right thing, people complaining are scammers.  The criticisms are not valid".  Then I say, wait, wait, my criticism is valid and worhiper_-_ seems to have a valid complaint, too.  And you say, ok, you guys are exceptions.  Now you say we are exceptions but we are not abused?  I'm not following you at all.  I know it must be nerve wracking because if you criticize QS and you are not on default trust, you risk his coming down on you and smearing you.

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

[Vod]

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

Having only glanced at it quickly, it looks like worhiper_-_ backed out of a deal - nothing wrong with that.

If someone was scammed out of coins, a negative trust is warranted, and should be backed with a reference.

If no one lost anything and a deal went sour in due diligence (or whenever), everyone should just walk away.  In this case, a neutral would be more appropriate, warning others not to waste their time. 

[Quickseller]

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

Having only glanced at it quickly, it looks like worhiper_-_ backed out of a deal - nothing wrong with that.

If someone was scammed out of coins, a negative trust is warranted, and should be backed with a reference.

If no one lost anything and a deal went sour in due diligence (or whenever), everyone should just walk away.  In this case, a neutral would be more appropriate, warning others not to waste their time. 

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

[nutildah]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

Why anybody would deal with a permashady individual such as yourself is well beyond me.

[Vod]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

[Quickseller]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him.

The note in my rating does give facts that would make a reasonable person believe he was trying to avoid escrow.

IMO once escrow is setup for a deal it should be pretty much set in stone. As if you are selling something the seller may send what is being sold right away assuming that the escrow is going to be funded (this has happened a number of times if you look at various escrowers' sent negative ratings). The only real reason to back out of a deal once escrow is setup is because of some significant change in circumstances, for example didn't receive money you were expecting, and canceling a deal should be mutually agreed to, meaning both parties agree.

[Quickseller]

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

Having only glanced at it quickly, it looks like worhiper_-_ backed out of a deal - nothing wrong with that.

If someone was scammed out of coins, a negative trust is warranted, and should be backed with a reference.

If no one lost anything and a deal went sour in due diligence (or whenever), everyone should just walk away.  In this case, a neutral would be more appropriate, warning others not to waste their time. 

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

@QS you were so keen to have me remove that BS feedback that alt account left you, yet you go around red-inking everybody like it doesn't mean anything. Listen you: that magic wand of yours, use with caution.

that negative that you removed from KoS was 100% BS. There is actual substance behind the negative I left the OP.

[TheButterZone]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him.

To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after...
...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves. By hiring Quickseller as your escrow, you agree that you are bound by these terms."

If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted for depriving you of your escrow fee (time=money). If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is.

If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all.

[Quickseller]

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

Having only glanced at it quickly, it looks like worhiper_-_ backed out of a deal - nothing wrong with that.

If someone was scammed out of coins, a negative trust is warranted, and should be backed with a reference.

If no one lost anything and a deal went sour in due diligence (or whenever), everyone should just walk away.  In this case, a neutral would be more appropriate, warning others not to waste their time.  

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

@QS you were so keen to have me remove that BS feedback that alt account left you, yet you go around red-inking everybody like it doesn't mean anything. Listen you: that magic wand of yours, use with caution.

that negative that you removed from KoS was 100% BS. There is actual substance behind the negative I left the OP.

Have I misunderstood the point of escrow??

the point of escrow is to ensure that all parties are protected in a transaction. As well to ensure that the transaction proceeds as agreed. The OP had agreed that a certain amount of money would be sent to the seller via myself and the OP deprived the seller his money that he was due.

[erikalui]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him.

The note in my rating does give facts that would make a reasonable person believe he was trying to avoid escrow.

IMO once escrow is setup for a deal it should be pretty much set in stone. As if you are selling something the seller may send what is being sold right away assuming that the escrow is going to be funded (this has happened a number of times if you look at various escrowers' sent negative ratings). The only real reason to back out of a deal once escrow is setup is because of some significant change in circumstances, for example didn't receive money you were expecting, and canceling a deal should be mutually agreed to, meaning both parties agree.

@bold: If that's the case, then probably I wouldn't use you as an escrow. If I am not comfortable with the attitude of the buyer/seller or the attitude of the escrow, I am free to cancel the transaction. Also, if I find another buyer who doesn't want to use an escrow and is willing to go first, paying me a higher amount which can earn me profit and I will pay him after his payment is received, why should I use an escrow and pay his fees? Why shouldn't I go for a deal that would save me from paying the escrow fee? I can also choose another person as an escrow. It's my wish and I don't get your logic.

Set as stone is as if I/any other member is obliged to completing a deal with you no matter if he is happy with your terms or not. You are talking as if you are the boss and the buyer/seller are your slaves and have to listen to you. I have cancelled real deals as well where I needed to rent an apartment and after setting the terms with the broker, I cancelled it as the buyer was a nuisance. Doesn't mean I wanted to scam him.

Today my one deal got cancelled after setting up an escrow and the other party backed out. That dint make me feel to leave him a negative feedback. He just wasn't happy with the terms. Fortunately, my other deal went through with an escrow. Any deal can be cancelled any time but that doesn't mean that it was cancelled due to the buyer/seller wanting to scam a person. A person uses an escrow to protect himself from being scammed and not to be gifted with a negative feedback if he doesn't use the escrow services after agreeing to the terms.

[Quickseller]

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him.

To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after...
...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves."

If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted. If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is.

If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all.

All of worhiper_-_'s terms and conditions of the trade were met. He wanted me to confirm the details of the account which is something that I did even though doing so fell outside of the escrow agreement.

Additionally, the purpose of escrow is to protect all parties involved. If there are terms that would put one party at significant risk (as was the case with the seller) then terms need to be adjusted to ensure that all parties are protected. If there was a condition when it would be impossible to tell if it was met or not if one party was lying then that condition is obviously not acceptable. For example if someone was buying BTC for cash in the mail, it would obviously make zero sense for a condition to be that no insurance be purchased if escrow is being used as it would be impossible to make any kind of determination as to who is lying if one party were to claim the envelope was empty/didn't contain all the cash that it should.

[Vod]

the point of escrow is to ensure that all parties are protected in a transaction. As well to ensure that the transaction proceeds as agreed. The OP had agreed that a certain amount of money would be sent to the seller via myself and the OP deprived the seller his money that he was due.

I'm confused at the bold part myself.  As the escrow, you didn't hand over the seller's goods or efforts before receiving payment, did you?  How was the seller deprived of money he was due?  The deal was never finalized.  

IMO once escrow is setup for a deal it should be pretty much set in stone.

@bold: If that's the case, then probably I wouldn't use you as an escrow.

I agree Quickseller - you should put in your terms that once you start negotiation for your services as escrow, you will receive negative trust if you back out.  This would be ethical, since you are on DT and your trust means more than other escrow providers.

This is why I don't escrow.