Quickseller Gave me a negative trust Without Considering any possibility

[Vod]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link. 

Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11193212#msg11193212

He actually responded to that exact quote, the response was several days after theymos had posted that statement. 

LOL!  I didn't catch that either, because I modified my quote to not show it.

I even spent 10 minutes searching google.   

[Quickseller]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link. 

Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11193212#msg11193212

He actually responded to that exact quote, the response was several days after theymos had posted that statement. 

LOL!  I didn't catch that either, because I modified my quote to not show it.

I even spent 10 minutes searching google.   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11257211#msg11257211

Above is the post where he replied. I personally wouldn't spend any time searching for answers for that person, I have had him tagged as a spammer for a long time and I doubt he has any actual interest in the answer to any questions he asks.

I personally have also had much better luck in finding things with the forum search as it allows you to search specific threads and specific subs.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

It is in "Trust Improvement" thread in which theymos mentioned about newly added features.

I made three improvements to the Trust system:

 -snip-

Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list. Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network.

Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules:
1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly.
2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded.
3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.

  -snip-

[Blazed]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1048706.msg11282428#msg11282428

Made a list of all the lies

[tspacepilot]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1048706.msg11282428#msg11282428

Made a list of all the lies

Actually, he's just rickrolling the forum.  It's too bad he's making light of a serious situation.

[Twipple]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1048706.msg11282428#msg11282428

Made a list of all the lies

https://youtu.be/uQZMaG1eO74?t=59
Its no lie what few of the people say. Perhaps, you guys should read the post in the first page , and make sense out of it, than deviating the topic discussion.

[tspacepilot]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link. 

Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11193212#msg11193212

He actually responded to that exact quote, the response was several days after theymos had posted that statement. 

LOL!  I didn't catch that either, because I modified my quote to not show it.

I even spent 10 minutes searching google.   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11257211#msg11257211

Thanks, Vod.  I appreciate it.

Above is the post where he replied. I personally wouldn't spend any time searching for answers for that person, I have had him tagged as a spammer for a long time and I doubt he has any actual interest in the answer to any questions he asks.

I personally have also had much better luck in finding things with the forum search as it allows you to search specific threads and specific subs.

Lol, I love the god-like voice he uses.  I have spoken therefore->TRUE.

You have trolled me and tagged me with all kinds of lies (and using multiple accounts) but that doesn't make them true.  I have tagged you as a hothead with a god-complex.  Take note everyone, tspacepilot has spoken therefore->TRUE!

[Twipple]

I would reiterate and re-state my argument and ask Quickseller to use his brains on this again.

"Alt of tacoman71, scammer.

tacoman71 posted the address 1Fz6xXind3Kovsw4ArW6u7oMXRZTUSBj1G (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=812533.msg10239935#msg10239935) which signed https://blockchain.info/tx/bfd3ec181aeae8abd8da9e63f6c4772ff8fceb6d4c0f3472cac66b6c77649353 that was also signed by 1Fo6Uy8JWnV9SnDM5LBnYA8nnCQgbfbyDT and Twipple posted 15ZX2yUZio9HeSWUeWubxznQyaYcYFBFzB https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=924856.msg10255801#msg10255801 which signed d515a082b1df9b515e8f826cae84f41629183f26575bd014ba3d32ecddc9b633"

The address that Twipple had posted, was the one which was used to take a loan, and soon after that defaulted on it, and was sold to me(new Twipple). Now Quickseller argues that all the loan stuff was to hide a scam or something or do dump the account ,
But here is the fact " IT WAS THE LOAN ADDRESS POSTED WHICH QUICKSELLER USED, TO ACCUSE THIS ACCOUNT OF BEING THE ALT OF THE SCAMMER" . But I have already said the fact, that since the amount moved out of the loan address 7 days after getting the loan. It clearly is part of an exchange or a gambling site. If Twipple didn't want that loan, why wouldn't he just request the loan to be cancelled for the loan to be given back. Basically, its stupidity , to take a small amount(only 0.03 BTC loan was taken) for such an account, and happen to post the address which is so INDIRECTLY related with a scammer's address.  


Why Can't a trusted member or Moderator consider any of the facts. Nothing adds up.

[Twipple]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

[Quickseller]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

[alani123]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims or is this just speculation? This sounds like a story one could make up from assumptions.

[tspacepilot]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims or is this just speculation? This sounds like a story one could make up from assumptions.

He doesn't need evidence.  He does this sort of thing as he feels.  He laid multiple negatives on me using alts and with zero evidence.  As the mods say, "the trust system isn't moderated".  Huh, what can you do?

[Quickseller]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims or is this just speculation? This sounds like a story one could make up from assumptions.

Have you considered looking at the revised trust rating that I left him? I am no forensics expert, however it looks like pretty convincing proof to me

Your addresses are not those of an exchange. I sent you a list of addresses that are likely part of the wallet file none of which are associated with an exchange; Blazr did a much more in-depbth analysis of each of the addresses giving additional evidence that they are not exchange addresses.

Furthermore, you opened up a scam accusation against Ume at most two hours prior to contacting him to buy the account. This means one of two things, one - you faked the sale in order to attempt to protect the trust rating of your account, or more likely, two - opened the scam accusation in order to put pressure on Ume to sell any account he had in his possession cheaply, which according to your screenshots you were able to do. Regardless it is more then appropriate to let the negative trust remain on the account. (Delete)]/quote]

[Twipple]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims or is this just speculation? This sounds like a story one could make up from assumptions.

Have you considered looking at the revised trust rating that I left him? I am no forensics expert, however it looks like pretty convincing proof to me

Your addresses are not those of an exchange. I sent you a list of addresses that are likely part of the wallet file none of which are associated with an exchange; Blazr did a much more in-depbth analysis of each of the addresses giving additional evidence that they are not exchange addresses.

Furthermore, you opened up a scam accusation against Ume at most two hours prior to contacting him to buy the account. This means one of two things, one - you faked the sale in order to attempt to protect the trust rating of your account, or more likely, two - opened the scam accusation in order to put pressure on Ume to sell any account he had in his possession cheaply, which according to your screenshots you were able to do. Regardless it is more then appropriate to let the negative trust remain on the account. (Delete)]/quote]

Here we go again. So from what you are saying it seems you are implying that I faked the sale. But here is the thing that will clarify your ignorance of the fact. You neg repped me due to the loan address Twipple requested the loan to. If I had to fake it, why would I be stupid enough to use some address related with the scammer ?

And I opened the scam accusation against Ume, because I thought he edited out the loan message, and I saw his own alts giving him trust, which I also reported. What exactly are you saying ? Ume was a FM then, so I am stupid to use a Member account, to trap my own FM account ?

Why is it appropriate to leave the trust , If I am not a scammer ?

And Why did you remove trust from Pagalwana, who had the same case as me, but just because you escrowed it, you removed it. Should I give you your 10 cents for the escrow ? ANd WIll you remove it then ?

[tspacepilot]

Bump . Quickseller care to reply in the thread ever ?

No. I have addressed your concerns about you not being an alt of tacoman71, although I do find it extremely suspicious that Ume just so happens to PM me within ~24 hours of you PM'ing me to have your negative trust removed and just so happens to post in this thread very shortly after you created this thread.

I have updated my negative trust to reflect that you created the scam accusation in order to buy the account for a lower then market price, effectively scamming the owner of the account of money that he reasonably could have received from a sale of the account under reasonable circumstances.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims or is this just speculation? This sounds like a story one could make up from assumptions.

Have you considered looking at the revised trust rating that I left him? I am no forensics expert, however it looks like pretty convincing proof to me

Your addresses are not those of an exchange. I sent you a list of addresses that are likely part of the wallet file none of which are associated with an exchange; Blazr did a much more in-depbth analysis of each of the addresses giving additional evidence that they are not exchange addresses.

Furthermore, you opened up a scam accusation against Ume at most two hours prior to contacting him to buy the account. This means one of two things, one - you faked the sale in order to attempt to protect the trust rating of your account, or more likely, two - opened the scam accusation in order to put pressure on Ume to sell any account he had in his possession cheaply, which according to your screenshots you were able to do. Regardless it is more then appropriate to let the negative trust remain on the account. (Delete)]/quote]

Here we go again. So from what you are saying it seems you are implying that I faked the sale. But here is the thing that will clarify your ignorance of the fact. You neg repped me due to the loan address Twipple requested the loan to. If I had to fake it, why would I be stupid enough to use some address related with the scammer ?

And I opened the scam accusation against Ume, because I thought he edited out the loan message, and I saw his own alts giving him trust, which I also reported. What exactly are you saying ? Ume was a FM then, so I am stupid to use a Member account, to trap my own FM account ?

Why is it appropriate to leave the trust , If I am not a scammer ?

And Why did you remove trust from Pagalwana, who had the same case as me, but just because you escrowed it, you removed it. Should I give you your 10 cents for the escrow ? ANd WIll you remove it then ?

Here's the deal: it's absolutely pointless to argue with him.  I've yet to see one example of a case where arguing the facts with quickseller led to him backing down.  It's his personality, he doesn't back down.  Once you've openly crossed him in public you are not going to get any respect from him unless he sees you as more powerful than him.  Those are literally the only people he shows any kind of humanity or deference towards.  Anyone else is SOL.  This is going to continue until the people above him recognize that allowing this guy to take a scorched earth policy with people who disagree with him is problematic.  However, because QS remains deferent to those above him, they don't actually experience the bullying, quicktempered, impossibly-arrogant side of him that the rest of us have to deal with.  Look at my case, he went after me with two different accounts leaving three negative feedbacks and we've literally never even traded or interacted beyond the fact that I called him out for his hot temper and had the audacity to argue with him in public.  He didn't need any evidence to do this to me, why would he need evidence for anything else he does?  This will last until someone above him corrects the situation by removing him from their trust list(s).

[Twipple]

Here's the deal: it's absolutely pointless to argue with him.  I've yet to see one example of a case where arguing the facts with quickseller led to him backing down.  It's his personality, he doesn't back down.  Once you've openly crossed him in public you are not going to get any respect from him unless he sees you as more powerful than him.  Those are literally the only people he shows any kind of humanity or deference towards.  Anyone else is SOL.  This is going to continue until the people above him recognize that allowing this guy to take a scorched earth policy with people who disagree with him is problematic.  However, because QS remains deferent to those above him, they don't actually experience the bullying, quicktempered, impossibly-arrogant side of him that the rest of us have to deal with.  Look at my case, he went after me with two different accounts leaving three negative feedbacks and we've literally never even traded or interacted beyond the fact that I called him out for his hot temper and had the audacity to argue with him in public.  He didn't need any evidence to do this to me, why would he need evidence for anything else he does?  This will last until someone above him corrects the situation by removing him from their trust list(s).

If he was to block me from his PM, then there is nothing else I can do except for just post here. As for trust I doubt it will happen, as he probably spots more scams than the wrong accusations he makes. And since he will never make any accusations towards the more trusted like you said, he will never be removed anyways .

[tspacepilot]

Here's the deal: it's absolutely pointless to argue with him.  I've yet to see one example of a case where arguing the facts with quickseller led to him backing down.  It's his personality, he doesn't back down.  Once you've openly crossed him in public you are not going to get any respect from him unless he sees you as more powerful than him.  Those are literally the only people he shows any kind of humanity or deference towards.  Anyone else is SOL.  This is going to continue until the people above him recognize that allowing this guy to take a scorched earth policy with people who disagree with him is problematic.  However, because QS remains deferent to those above him, they don't actually experience the bullying, quicktempered, impossibly-arrogant side of him that the rest of us have to deal with.  Look at my case, he went after me with two different accounts leaving three negative feedbacks and we've literally never even traded or interacted beyond the fact that I called him out for his hot temper and had the audacity to argue with him in public.  He didn't need any evidence to do this to me, why would he need evidence for anything else he does?  This will last until someone above him corrects the situation by removing him from their trust list(s).

If he was to block me from his PM, then there is nothing else I can do except for just post here. As for trust I doubt it will happen, as he probably spots more scams than the wrong accusations he makes. And since he will never make any accusations towards the more trusted like you said, he will never be removed anyways .

Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed.  And it may be that he does some good "busting scams".  I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me.  As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with).  I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority.  I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.

[Twipple]

Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed.  And it may be that he does some good "busting scams".  I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me.  As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with).  I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority.  I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.

I agree thats the problem with him. Firstly one he starts a scam accusation, he is hardly seen replying back unless the person starts a thread about him.

As for the mods, it won't happen as there isn't a mod for scam accusations on the thread. People are considered to be responsible enough for their decisions to be safe from scams themselves.

[tspacepilot]

Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed.  And it may be that he does some good "busting scams".  I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me.  As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with).  I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority.  I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.

I agree thats the problem with him. Firstly one he starts a scam accusation, he is hardly seen replying back unless the person starts a thread about him.

As for the mods, it won't happen as there isn't a mod for scam accusations on the thread. People are considered to be responsible enough for their decisions to be safe from scams themselves.

I was referring to the fact that QS is currently trusted by BadBear, who is a mod on default trust.  Therefore QS's ratings show up on anyone he decides to ding.  Because he's so nonchalant about using this power against anyone and everyone he's ever had a quarrel with, and he's absolutely remorseless about this MO, the only hope for those who were falsely accused is that he fall off the default trust list.  This can happen two ways: 1) Badbear removes him from his trust list 2) 2 or more people in DefaultTrust1 write "~Quickseller" in their trust lists (effectivly excluding him).

The reason I think it will happen eventually is tha I was falsely accused by Tradefortress nearly 3 years ago.  At the time, he tried to blackmail me to pay him back an arbitrary amount which he accused me of taking from him.  I wouldn't cave to his blackmail and false accusations and for a while, I had a warning on my account because of the feedback from TradeFortress.  However, history eventually vindicated me because TradeFortress revealed himself to be the kind of person he is and he now has one of the lowest trust ratings around (-500, approx).  He was removed from default trust.  Ironically, it's these false accusations from TradeFortress which Quickseller now considers to be his reasons for neg-repping me.  I'm pretty confident that, just like before, people who side with scammers and liars will eventually make mistakes and reveal themselves for who they are and be removed from default trust.  It happened with Tradefortress, why wouldn't it happen with Quickseller when he aligns himself with tradefortress so nonchalalantly?

Time will tell.

[Twipple]

Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed.  And it may be that he does some good "busting scams".  I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me.  As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with).  I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority.  I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.

I agree thats the problem with him. Firstly one he starts a scam accusation, he is hardly seen replying back unless the person starts a thread about him.

As for the mods, it won't happen as there isn't a mod for scam accusations on the thread. People are considered to be responsible enough for their decisions to be safe from scams themselves.

I was referring to the fact that QS is currently trusted by BadBear, who is a mod on default trust.  Therefore QS's ratings show up on anyone he decides to ding.  Because he's so nonchalant about using this power against anyone and everyone he's ever had a quarrel with, and he's absolutely remorseless about this MO, the only hope for those who were falsely accused is that he fall off the default trust list.  This can happen two ways: 1) Badbear removes him from his trust list 2) 2 or more people in DefaultTrust1 write "~Quickseller" in their trust lists (effectivly excluding him).

The reason I think it will happen eventually is tha I was falsely accused by Tradefortress nearly 3 years ago.  At the time, he tried to blackmail me to pay him back an arbitrary amount which he accused me of taking from him.  I wouldn't cave to his blackmail and false accusations and for a while, I had a warning on my account because of the feedback from TradeFortress.  However, history eventually vindicated me because TradeFortress revealed himself to be the kind of person he is and he now has one of the lowest trust ratings around (-500, approx).  He was removed from default trust.  Ironically, it's these false accusations from TradeFortress which Quickseller now considers to be his reasons for neg-repping me.  I'm pretty confident that, just like before, people who side with scammers and liars will eventually make mistakes and reveal themselves for who they are and be removed from default trust.  It happened with Tradefortress, why wouldn't it happen with Quickseller when he aligns himself with tradefortress so nonchalalantly?

Time will tell.

Maybe you can PM badbear and explain him the situation ,and make a thread and explain it in that. So if you are not at fault , then you can have it removed.