"Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL

[Vod]

Quickseller and Vod will die soon enough.

I probably have another 30 years or so.  I already survived your best assassination attempt - I'm not worried about your word.  

And I'm done feeding the obvious troll.  

[Quickseller]

Thank you blazed out for providing me with the drop address u sent quickseller's coin to.

I am not even going to ask blazedout if it is true because I know it is not.

Regardless, if anything were to happen to me then the fact that you are making death threads is now public information so even if you had nothing to do with it, you would be a suspect and likely would be put on trial for murder

[redsn0w]

Having dealt with both Xestr and QS I can tell you 100% they are not the same person...

I'm pretty sure he was just trying to make a point. The difference is the post that was made by KoS, deleted and made again by his alt is they were the SAME EXACT post. This happened within minutes, I just happened to be browsing that thread at the right time.

Scams like this will easily be identified with the new forum, since it will record all edits and deletions for public use.

Really? That would be fantastic! Can you link me the 'post' when it is write this thing? Thanks.

For the OP, you are probable an alt of that scammer. The negative trust from BadBear is almost 100% secure (I think because he owns some valid proofs that we don't know).

[Vod]

Scams like this will easily be identified with the new forum, since it will record all edits and deletions for public use.

Really? That would be fantastic! Can you link me the 'post' when it is write this thing? Thanks.

[/quote]

Ugh.  No way I could dig it up.  Maybe you could ask outside a thread like this where more people will see the question and someone could answer it for you. 

[Lethn]

Don't you people realise the more you all squabble like this in public and constantly throw accusations at each other the less likely everybody else is to trust any of you? Forget the people you're all picking fights with all of this just makes you look incredibly petty and it will make people wary of doing any business deals with you if that's the kind of attitude you have in general.

I'm all for ousting scammers and calling people out on dodgy behaviour but this shit must have been going on for months now not just a couple of weeks and it's getting boring seeing you all clog up meta with your shit posts.

[Bicknellski]

Don't you people realise the more you all squabble like this in public and constantly throw accusations at each other the less likely everybody else is to trust any of you? Forget the people you're all picking fights with all of this just makes you look incredibly petty and it will make people wary of doing any business deals with you if that's the kind of attitude you have in general.

I'm all for ousting scammers and calling people out on dodgy behaviour but this shit must have been going on for months now not just a couple of weeks and it's getting boring seeing you all clog up meta with your shit posts.

Suggest IGNORE is a good thing to use in that case. Mr. Quickseller is certainly not going anywhere and is more than capable of stirring the pot for many more months and roping more people in. It is escalating.

[shorena]

-snip-
It is escalating.

It certainly is. It would certainly help if the proofs would be collected in a post (e.g. in scam accu) and refered to in the rating. If evidence is strong enough this would also remove most of the bickering and drama.

It would also help if those accused would not hijack several other threads in an attempt to make them look an even bigger fool.

[ACCTseller]

-snip-
It is escalating.

It certainly is. It would certainly help if the proofs would be collected in a post (e.g. in scam accu) and refered to in the rating. If evidence is strong enough this would also remove most of the bickering and drama.

It would also help if those accused would not hijack several other threads in an attempt to make them look an even bigger fool.

If a scam accusation was opened every time quickseller or tomatocage left negative trust for someone then we would need a separate sub for each of them.

I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example).

The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions.  

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

[Blazed]

Quickseller and Vod will die soon enough.

Thank you blazed out for providing me with the drop address u sent quickseller's coin to.

Here I will state it publicly to keep it fair...


Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Northwest, Washington, DC 20500

Deliver notes: Oval Office - Leave on desk

[TECSHARE]

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

Proof of what? Proof that he is another user? How exactly does one prove that? Oh that's right by Badbear claiming he has some magic formula that says 2 usernames are the same person, but he can't share the information because it is a matter of forum national security.  That seems like a worthwhile request.  

P.S. Quickseller the fact that you are here arguing for yourself using your alt says volumes about you.

[ACCTseller]

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

Proof of what? Proof that he is another user? How exactly does one prove that? Oh that's right by Badbear claiming he has some magic formula that says 2 usernames are the same person, but he can't share the information because it is a matter of forum national security.  That seems like a worthwhile request. 

Proof that he is an alt of KoS. There are plenty of ways that you can prove that an account is an alt of another person, the most solid way is to use blockchain evidence, however I think xeter did a pretty good job in this post. BadBear obviously has access to additional information that is not public (eg IP addresses, browser fingerprinting), however if he were to reveal his exact methods then scammers could use that information to avoid detection. Can you give any examples of BadBear being incorrect about alt accounts?

P.S. Quickseller the fact that you are here arguing for yourself using your alt says volumes about you.

I don't think I am arguing for myself, and it is a well known fact that ACCTseller=quickseller, therefore posting from this account does not amount to shilling

[TECSHARE]

I don't think I am arguing for myself, and it is a well known fact that ACCTseller=quickseller, therefore posting from this account does not amount to shilling

Whatever you need to tell yourself...

[shorena]

If a scam accusation was opened every time quickseller or tomatocage left negative trust for someone then we would need a separate sub for each of them.

I like the 3rd person twist.

I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example).

This sounds like we are some sort of shadow tribunal. If there is evidence it should be presented. If it helps scammers to improve their skills in avoding detection thats the pill we have to swallow. There are certainly exceptions that are acceptable, the newbie asking for loan w/o collateral, the obviously carded gift cards, the ToS violation of MS keys. They have been discussed at length and there has been some sort of consensus among the commuity that these ratings are justified or at least the reasoning behind them can easily be understood. That at least is my impression judging by the threads that pop up in meta.

Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless.

makes my point -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1038343.msg11215151#msg11215151

I am very impressed by the work you do and I value it, but if you dont make your findings public it results in the view people have of you now. If you have something extra, keep it for later if you want, but there should be a minimum to hold you accountable.

The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions.  

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

The title and thread are very clear in my opinion. There is no reason to insult your intelligence here.

"Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL

-snip-
where is any evidence i am this scammer or whoever this kos guy is?? there is no proof, i troll sometimes but i am no scammer!
-snip-
I demand that quickseller remove his rating or be removed from the default trust list. He is mad I called him unethical and has retailiated into following suit of other scammer's accusations in retaliation and calling me a scammer when not one piece of evidence has been provided

His lack of providing evidence with his rating and ruining someone shows how immature he is. he should not be on this default trust list.

[ACCTseller]

I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example).

This sounds like we are some sort of shadow tribunal. If there is evidence it should be presented. If it helps scammers to improve their skills in avoding detection thats the pill we have to swallow. There are certainly exceptions that are acceptable, the newbie asking for loan w/o collateral, the obviously carded gift cards, the ToS violation of MS keys. They have been discussed at length and there has been some sort of consensus among the commuity that these ratings are justified or at least the reasoning behind them can easily be understood. That at least is my impression judging by the threads that pop up in meta.

I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed. A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.

Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.

Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless. [/quote]The example did not have additional drama in that specific thread, however I believe there was additional drama in other threads after that post (he had deleted his posts so there is nothing to point to specifically.

makes my point -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1038343.msg11215151#msg11215151

I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.

I am very impressed by the work you do and I value it, but if you dont make your findings public it results in the view people have of you now. If you have something extra, keep it for later if you want, but there should be a minimum to hold you accountable.

Evidence was presented on replies 2 and 3 of this thread (xeter and I both posted the same evidence, and I posted it shortly after he did, so I deleted the post to avoid posting essentially the exact same thing).

The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions. 

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

The title and thread are very clear in my opinion. There is no reason to insult your intelligence here.

"Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL

-snip-
where is any evidence i am this scammer or whoever this kos guy is?? there is no proof, i troll sometimes but i am no scammer!
-snip-
I demand that quickseller remove his rating or be removed from the default trust list. He is mad I called him unethical and has retailiated into following suit of other scammer's accusations in retaliation and calling me a scammer when not one piece of evidence has been provided

His lack of providing evidence with his rating and ruining someone shows how immature he is. he should not be on this default trust list.

I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others

[erikalui]

OP received a valid negative feedback from Badbear which is the only feedback anyone should consider bearing in mind that Badbear is the admin. Rest those who left negative feedback don't have any proof/evidence and hence their feedback doesn't make sense.

I don't get if one has already received a negative feedback from the admin or a default trust member, why do other members too join the league? Does it improve or make his trust rating more valuable or trustworthy? I don't think so and find it weird ways of entering the default trust system.

[Muhammed Zakir]

OP received a valid negative feedback from Badbear which is the only feedback anyone should consider bearing in mind that Badbear is the admin. Rest those who left negative feedback don't have any proof/evidence and hence their feedback doesn't make sense.

I don't get if one has already received a negative feedback from the admin or a default trust member, why do other members too join the league? Does it improve or make his trust rating more valuable or trustworthy? I don't think so and find it weird ways of entering the default trust system.

If only one user left negative and he/she is removed from default trust list, negative rating will change to neutral rating. So to avoid it, two or more or DF users leave feedback.

[shorena]

-snip-
I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed.

The same arguement could be applied to positive trust received. Just because you have been trustworthy in the past does not make you trustworthy now. Its the DT equivalent of the long con.

A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.

Its not in a sense that you lock someone up, but it is in a sense that you can make it very difficult for someone to trade with others here. Its very close to a fine. This is esp. true for older accounts. A newbie account is quickly replaced, an established (as in high rank) account is not.

Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.

Yes. Hiding evidence of their scams means that you undermine the trust system and over time rending it useless. Any scammer can get enough information about how to hide their tracks without you revealing their idiocity. If the trust in the current system is destroyed it is useless and can not easily be replaced.

-snip-
I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.

Next step will be mixers if it turns out bitstamp rats them out for a court order. Dark wallet. Anonymous focused alt coins. There are plenty options. Increasing the workload for scammers is a good thing.

-snip-
I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others

No asking for evidence is the only way to defend yourself. It is impossible to proof that you did not do something. It is however possible to show error in your chain of evidence.

OP received a valid negative feedback from Badbear which is the only feedback anyone should consider bearing in mind that Badbear is the admin. Rest those who left negative feedback don't have any proof/evidence and hence their feedback doesn't make sense.
-snip-

BadBear might be the only acceptable exception here. If they draw a connection based on personal information like IP addresses it certainly makes sense to keep the personal information private. It is also different from a dox as the IP is typcially not publicly available. The interesting question is whether BadBear has information at all or just followed the rating by someone else.
Be that as it may my point is not this specific or any other specific case, but the tendency to leave a rating without ref link or accountable arguments.

[Vod]

The interesting question is whether BadBear has information at all or just followed the rating by someone else.

BB has a lot at stake with his reputation here, as I do.  I don't think he would "follow" anyone else's rating.

I, however, have enough trust in him to follow his ratings.

[shorena]

The interesting question is whether BadBear has information at all or just followed the rating by someone else.

BB has a lot at stake with his reputation here, as I do.  I don't think he would "follow" anyone else's rating.

I, however, have enough trust in him to follow his ratings.

I personally also have no problem in trusting Quicksellers (or BB's) judgement either. Im certain neither of them, nor you, are leaving negative ratings lightheartedly or at a whim. Disclosure is still important to maintain the integrity of the rating system or rather of the default trust list as a tool.

[erikalui]

OP received a valid negative feedback from Badbear which is the only feedback anyone should consider bearing in mind that Badbear is the admin. Rest those who left negative feedback don't have any proof/evidence and hence their feedback doesn't make sense.

I don't get if one has already received a negative feedback from the admin or a default trust member, why do other members too join the league? Does it improve or make his trust rating more valuable or trustworthy? I don't think so and find it weird ways of entering the default trust system.

If only one user left negative and he/she is removed from default trust list, negative rating will change to neutral rating. So to avoid it, two or more or DF users leave feedback.

OK but in this case Badbear may not be removed from the default trust list so here the other negative ratings don't make sense.

BadBear might be the only acceptable exception here. If they draw a connection based on personal information like IP addresses it certainly makes sense to keep the personal information private. It is also different from a dox as the IP is typcially not publicly available. The interesting question is whether BadBear has information at all or just followed the rating by someone else.
Be that as it may my point is not this specific or any other specific case, but the tendency to leave a rating without ref link or accountable arguments.

Yeah true. Only Badbear can find a connection with the IP addresses and not the others who have left him negative just based on Badbear's trusted feedback as they have no evidence to present here. To me it just appears as trust abuse.