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

[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.

I thought the escow agent gets the fee regardless.

Not in a voluntary society.

Escrow agents should not be forced to accept idiotic buyer/seller terms, but escrow agents should also make it clear as crystal to buyers/sellers looking through escrow ads, that "my escrow terms are law, and if you buyers/sellers don't like that, don't hire me as an escrow."

It's a quasi-conflict of interest to use your own escrow service as neg trust bait because you deliberately left your terms wide open for buyers/sellers to attempt to set their own idiotic terms, then foist them upon you.

And what Vod said above this post.

[1714857099]

1714857099

[1714857099]

1714857099

[1714857099]

1714857099

[1714857099]

1714857099

[1714857099]

1714857099

[1714857099]

1714857099

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Escrow agents are volunteers?

No, they're slaves who have been coerced with force or fear into agency, no matter how idiotic the terms.  

I appreciate the sarcasm. That's the only way people like me learn.

[tspacepilot]

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.

IIRC, wohiper_-_'s version of the story is that he and seller negotiated some terms,  sent them an escrow request to QS, who agreed, but then sent different terms back, once W saw QS's terms were different from the ones he agreed to with seller, he decided not to go, and cancelled.  QS's argument is that anyone who doesn't accept my God-given perfect terms is obviously a scammer and therefore deserving of my wrath.

@TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior).

[TheButterZone]

IIRC, wohiper_-_'s version of the story is that he and seller negotiated some terms,  sent them an escrow request to QS, who agreed, but then sent different terms back, once W saw QS's terms were different from the ones he agreed to with seller, he decided not to go, and cancelled.

Sending back your own terms is implicit DISagreement with, and refusal to escrow under, the original set of idiotic terms you were sent. Jeopardy only attaches once both counterparties agree to the escrow agent's ToS. If I got sent idiotic terms from both counterparties treating me like an idiot, I wouldn't respond with my own terms (assuming the counterparties could have known from my public ToS that sending their own was verboten), I would respond with something like, "Screw the money, I HAVE RULES! Find another escrow!"

@TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior).

He can, but he hasn't. I await my punishment. LOL

[Quickseller]

If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration  being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed.

worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following:

• full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
• an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address

The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end.

When you negotiate a price for a good/service, you are negotiating a bargain for you. If you enter into a contract to sell something and the other party does not follow though (and does not take delivery) then you will not have the sales price worth of money and would have an extra of whatever you were selling that you should not have. As a result of worhiper_-_ backing out of the trade, the seller is out .1 BTC, regardless of the fact that he still has other property that could be valued at a similar price.

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.

Of course I did not give the OP the goods being traded. See my above explanation as to why it is not okay to back out of a contract/deal.

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.

Backing out after escrow is setup is not exclusive to when I am acting as escrow. If I am made aware of similar behavior and I can find proof of such behavior then a similar negative feedback would be left. I am not the only person who engages in this policy.

This is why I don't escrow.   

LOL, yes you do. This, this, and this are three examples I could quickly find of you offering and/or accepting an offer to serve as 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?

Because you already agreed to a deal with someone else under terms negotiated. I don't see any reason why anyone would ever want to do business with you if you will backout simply because you get a better offer. I cannot count how many times I have had to turn down better offers for things I was selling on here because I had previously come to agreements with traders for something I was buying/selling. I have seen similar activity of the most reputable traders on here.

Also see my above comments about what it means to enter into a contract/deal.

I can also choose another person as an escrow. It's my wish and I don't get your logic.

It sounds like you are just looking for loopholes for ways to back out of deals.

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.

You should have been sued for this. This is not only something that will open you up to liability to the buyer, but is also most likely against fair housing regulations. Another reason not to trade with you.

I am also curious to know what your main account is. I know that you are posting from a purchased account and that you purchased it in or around February of this year.

--quote--
"it's my way or the highway"
--quote--

For clarification, this is not the terms of me acting as escrow, however I will obviously not adhere to scammy terms as were requested in the OP. I have since made it a point to further point out that I will not adhere to such scammy terms and suggest alternatives so all parties can be protected on an equal basis, and decline to escrow when such terms cannot be agreed to. However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met.

@TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior).

He can, but he hasn't. I await my punishment. LOL

Oh, so you disagree with me now? Negative trust left. LOL, just kidding, you are not a scammer haha.

I am fairly certain that you were somewhat disagreeing with my actions when I added you to my trust list (prior to BadBear adding you back into his). Although I have hopefully addressed all of your concerns in this post, as of now you are publicly disagreeing with me, yet your name still remains in my trust list (because I still respect your trust opinions enough for you to remain there). I do not anticipate removing, nor excluding you from my trust list in the near future. You can make your own conclusion about this.

[TheButterZone]

If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration  being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed.

worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following:

• full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
• an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address

The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end.

I consider myself a reasonable person (and according to SB5 IQ, "gifted"), and conclude what worhiper_-_ sent and meren verified was void for vagueness. IMO a contract should be unenforceable if it is too vague for the average person to understand, let alone the mentally incompetent. Now you've had the learning experience; when you see a counterparty like worhiper_-_ writing a vague blank check like that (to cover idiotic terms), and the counterparty at risk verifying that check...

I have since made it a point to further point out that I will not adhere to such scammy terms and suggest alternatives so all parties can be protected on an equal basis, and decline to escrow when such terms cannot be agreed to.

Good.

However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met.

And that was the quasi- or perhaps actual conflict of interest: hunt scammers for free AND try to get paid as an escrow agent trying your damnedest not to get bound up with idiocy/scamming prima facie indistinguishable from each other. Rather than dropping your clearsign, you could have legitimately said "I'm not the escrow for you" and (void for vagueness aside) their contract definitely wouldn't have been bound, until they found an escrow who agreed to do the second bullet point under the idiotic terms the blank check covered.

I do not anticipate removing, nor excluding you from my trust list in the near future. You can make your own conclusion about this.

Ok!

[tspacepilot]

Oh, so you disagree with me now? Negative trust left. LOL, just kidding, you are not a scammer haha.

Love how, as usual, QS talks as if he and only he has access to absolute and final information on who is/is not a scammer.  However, the real explanation for his unusal deference and jolliness comes in the next paragraph.

I am fairly certain that you were somewhat disagreeing with my actions when I added you to my trust list (prior to BadBear adding you back into his). Although I have hopefully addressed all of your concerns in this post, as of now you are publicly disagreeing with me, yet your name still remains in my trust list (because I still respect your trust opinions enough for you to remain there). I do not anticipate removing, nor excluding you from my trust list in the near future. You can make your own conclusion about this.

Yup, QS recognizes that TBZ is at or above his own power level.  Those above or equal to him, he uses the phrase "LOL, just kidding" in a jolly and fun way.   Offers strangely deferential language when referrring to his boss' trust of someone.  To others who disagree with him, those who aren't in his power-list, disagreeing brings out his signature phrase 'you are an idiot', and if you continue to do anthing other than bow down, you get neg-repped (potentially from multiple accounts).  Turns out, TBZ, you're in the immune class.  I didn't know it when I wrote above to watch out for the neg-rep.

[BitcoinDistributor]

Another example of Quickseller's blatant abuse of his default trust...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105136.msg11169188#msg11169188

[erikalui]

Because you already agreed to a deal with someone else under terms negotiated. I don't see any reason why anyone would ever want to do business with you if you will backout simply because you get a better offer. I cannot count how many times I have had to turn down better offers for things I was selling on here because I had previously come to agreements with traders for something I was buying/selling. I have seen similar activity of the most reputable traders on here.

Also see my above comments about what it means to enter into a contract/deal.


It sounds like you are just looking for loopholes for ways to back out of deals.

You should have been sued for this. This is not only something that will open you up to liability to the buyer, but is also most likely against fair housing regulations. Another reason not to trade with you.

I am also curious to know what your main account is. I know that you are posting from a purchased account and that you purchased it in or around February of this year.

@bold: Are you talking to me? This is my account and I dislike account sales. Don't play the assume game with me. Give me proof as I already own this account and have my proof. BTC address posted on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=259765.msg2820123#msg2820123 and my address posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.0. Because my account is older to yours, you found it worthy of a feedback.



@green: LOL! My mom is a lawyer and she sued the other party as he put the check in the bank without confirming the deal. You got to check the law before talking this as you seem to be unaware of how deals work. The owner wanted to scam my mother of $300 and if she had not complained we would be down by $1000. You probably wanted me to get cheated.   I'm sorry but I am not that rich that I can afford to get cheated and it's sad to see you supporting the owner who was a cheat.


I am free to walk out of a deal if the buyer or escrow doesn't respond on time. No rule states that if I back out, I am a scammer.  

And regarding the neutral feedback you found my deserving of with regards to this paragraph:


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.


@bold: This statement means that if the buyer/escrow start misbehaving or/and abuse me, according to you I should continue with the deal. Thanks.


@red: This is another example not related to the bold statement. If I get 1 buyer who wants an escrow and a second person who doesn't want an escrow, I will definitely choose the latter. It doesn't mean that I will back out of a deal I committed to. I will backout when I haven't committed to my deal. I don't backout when I have given my word. That's your assumption about me which is definitely wrong. I stand by my words even if I lose money by not choosing another person who will give me a profitable deal.


Your statement "I cannot count how many times I have had to turn down better offers for things I was selling on here because I had previously come to agreements with traders for something I was buying/selling." This has happened with me as well where I did not respond a person who was offering me $16.5 via Perfect Money for $15 BTC and another person offered $15 via Perfect Money for $15 BTC. I chose the latter as he responded fast and I told the former person that I'm sorry as I have committed to another person. I don't accept 2 deals at a time. I probably don't respond to the other person if I cannot commit to him.

[Muhammed Zakir]

FYI: Quickseller has been removed from BadBear's trust list, hence, default trust list.

[Blazed]

FYI: Quickseller has been removed from BadBear's trust list, hence, default trust list.

That list keeps getting smaller and smaller. I just had to double check my personal list and noticed it was gone    Not sure how I keep deleting my peeps......

[worhiper_-_]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

[Quickseller]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

[BitcoinDistributor]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life.

[Quickseller]

If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration  being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed.

worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following:

• full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
• an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address

The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end.

I consider myself a reasonable person (and according to SB5 IQ, "gifted"), and conclude what worhiper_-_ sent and meren verified was void for vagueness. IMO a contract should be unenforceable if it is too vague for the average person to understand, let alone the mentally incompetent. Now you've had the learning experience; when you see a counterparty like worhiper_-_ writing a vague blank check like that (to cover idiotic terms), and the counterparty at risk verifying that check...

I think that all of worhiper's terms were met. What may have been vague was the fact that he did not clarify when the account details would be verified, however the details were verified prior to him funding escrow so he received the maximum benefit from that vague term that he could have received.

However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met.

And that was the quasi- or perhaps actual conflict of interest: hunt scammers for free AND try to get paid as an escrow agent trying your damnedest not to get bound up with idiocy/scamming prima facie indistinguishable from each other. Rather than dropping your clearsign, you could have legitimately said "I'm not the escrow for you" and (void for vagueness aside) their contract definitely wouldn't have been bound, until they found an escrow who agreed to do the second bullet point under the idiotic terms the blank check covered.

Honestly acting as escrow is not worth the tiny amounts of fees/tips I receive. Granted I could have rejected being escrow, and hindsight is 20/20, however the fact remains that worhiper did most likely try to scam in this case as he was trying to put both the escrow and seller at risk.

[Bicknellski]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

Thank you for your efforts at least one TRUST TYRANT is gone. Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

[redsn0w]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life.

It only means that for Quickseller... the user  worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system).

[Quickseller]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life.

It only means that for Quickseller... the user  worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system).

A lot of people still have me in their trust list and even more have me in their trust network. My feedback is far from worthless.

[lolxxxx]

I dont say that Quickseller is a trust abuser .. He is a nice guy always help users and keeps the forum clean and neat. but sometimes as you know we are humans we can do mistake, quickseller gave me negative feedback on my Ume account .. without knowing the truth  ignoring messages . but i accepted . and never returned to that account he gave me negative feedback saying alt of tacoman lol i dont know who is him but still i said theres no way .. i explained him twice thrice times but he dont reply .. i only want one proof that tacoman is an alt of ume and want a proof if i ever scammed anybody ?. Though He is a nice guy just a little mistake in a buxy day.

[redsn0w]

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life.

It only means that for Quickseller... the user  worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system).

A lot of people still have me in their trust list and even more have me in their trust network. My feedback is far from worthless.

Yes of course, but the newbie users etc have only the DefaultTrust list (depth 2). Is this a problem for you? However I think the purpose of this thread is ended ... Because the negative trust is not under the trusted section (so , worhiper_-_ who cares?) anymore (default trust).