QUICKSELLER Vs. LEGENDSTER, LIVE NOW on Pay Per View, ROUND 1

[BitcoinDistributor]

*Mod Edit threat removed* -SaltySpitoon

Under my trust score I see -3, and him being on trusted feedback again. I give zero shits about badbear and vod's rating but seeing Quickseller trusted again...brings out a fire in me.




Did no one read how childish and unethical the guy is? And how he has no life besides being on here? Seriously, would you like to trust your $ in a person who is obviously a child.

Also, how ironic, Badbear is a college student. Quickseller is an account that randomly popped up a YEAR AGO having MANY accounts as old as 2011...coincidence? Around same time Badbear got into Bitcoin. Quickseller acts likes a child, badbear is in college....Quickseller gets default trust quicker then anyone before him...coincidence? I think not.

Quickseller = Badbear. 100%. Calling this bullshit for what it is.


Two years ago, you contacted me Salty asking if I would like to get lunch sometime since you live closeby. I would like to know if you would like to do that still. Let me know!

[1714895600]

1714895600

[1714895600]

1714895600

[1714895600]

1714895600

[SaltySpitoon]

What assurance do you have to back up that Badbear is Quickseller 100%? I think all if not most of your arguments are either wrong or irrelevant.

Rather than starting a thread, you could have checked the default trust list to see that Quickseller is trusted by Tomatocage, and then Pmed Tomatocage asking for a reason why they added Quickseller.

[Quickseller]

LOL. It took barely 24 hours for KoS to notice that I was readded to default trust.

I am not even sure why you hate me so much. Did I out one of your alts trying to scam that is not publicly known to be your alt?

edit: If you don't care about BadBear giving you a negative rating, and you do care about my negative rating, and you think that QS=BadBear then at least one of those statements must be incorrect  

also - what was the threat? (@Salty)

edit2: there was at least one person who was scammed because my negative trust ratings were not seen by default in the one week that I was off default trust, and I think that fact should say something about the effectiveness of my work

[Vod]

edit2: there was at least one person who was scammed because my negative trust ratings were not seen by default in the one week that I was off default trust, and I think that fact should say something about the effectiveness of my work

This is why people on DT should back each other up so that this doesn't happen if one of us gets removed.

Personally, I try to catch all the newbie loan requests, but I'm not as involved anymore as QS is to catch the other scams.

[TECSHARE]

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

[Vod]

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.

[DiamondCardz]

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.

Bahahaha, I just saw that as well. Bit ironic that the person who tries to stand up for you and prevent you from having a TWC tag is the same person who you decide to insult for being put back onto DefaultTrust.

That said, I've been away for a while, but I never had an inherent problem with QS. He did leave the occasional weird negative trust but generally his ratings were (are?) accurate.

QS: This was the insult.

[TECSHARE]

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.

Bahahaha, I just saw that as well. Bit ironic that the person who tries to stand up for you and prevent you from having a TWC tag is the same person who you decide to insult for being put back onto DefaultTrust.

That said, I've been away for a while, but I never had an inherent problem with QS. He did leave the occasional weird negative trust but generally his ratings were (are?) accurate.

QS: This was the insult.

Quickseller didn't fix anything, all he did was make it so I don't have ? ? ? any more. I still have a ZERO trust rating after hundreds of trades and 4 years of activity because Vod feels it is appropriate to destroy peoples trust ratings because he does not like what was said about him. Him leaving a rating for me doesn't change my opinion of him, and if anything I would prefer he had not left it, because we have never traded or even hardly had any direct interaction. Furthermore he calls my left ratings into question. I am curious which actual rating(s) he takes issue with, because unlike you jamokes I try to limit my ratings to people I have had direct interaction or trade with and have used negative ratings sparingly. Additionally my posts have noting to do with the default trust, but with how the rules are selectively enforced regarding it (specifically Vods systematic abuse of it). I don't consider this a favor, even if he intended it to be.

[DiamondCardz]

jamokes

"Appearing at the end of the 19th century as a blend of java and mocha, by the 1920s it became slang for someone who lacked mental abilities beyond that of a cup of coffee, probably influenced by moke. In the 1960s it also began to be used as slang for male genitalia.
jamoke - Wiktionary
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamoke"

Sorry needed to define that, that's a curious word to use...

Anyway:

I don't think the negative rating he left on you is unwarranted but I'm curious as to how you can be -1 / +12 and have 0 trust points. I'm guessing the positive ratings need more time to mature for the algorithm but that's still a bit dodgy, I don't think that just because I agree with you having a negative rating put on you means I should agree with that.

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

[TECSHARE]

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

P.S. Thanks for taking the time to look up the definition of jamoke and pasting it. That gave me a good laugh. At least we are on the same page now.

[DiamondCardz]

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

[TECSHARE]

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

Sorry but I don't see anything about DiamondCardz in there... and I don't find it funny, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, even if you are pretending that it was just a joke.

[DiamondCardz]

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

Sorry but I don't see anything about DiamondCardz in there... and I don't find it funny, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, even if you are pretending that it was just a joke.

I'm aware, but I'm not really talking about me. If you're going to pick out things from my grammar or use of pronouns then you don't really have a valid argument in the first place. And well, yes, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, I could've easily put it in another way. I just decided to throw in a touch of humour to freshen it up, if you like, eh? You don't like that...well, I'm not really bothered.

I'm more sticking up for Vod with that statement, I don't really need to defend myself from you like that.

[Twipple]

*Mod Edit threat removed* -SaltySpitoon

Under my trust score I see -3, and him being on trusted feedback again. I give zero shits about badbear and vod's rating but seeing Quickseller trusted again...brings out a fire in me.




Did no one read how childish and unethical the guy is? And how he has no life besides being on here? Seriously, would you like to trust your $ in a person who is obviously a child.

Also, how ironic, Badbear is a college student. Quickseller is an account that randomly popped up a YEAR AGO having MANY accounts as old as 2011...coincidence? Around same time Badbear got into Bitcoin. Quickseller acts likes a child, badbear is in college....Quickseller gets default trust quicker then anyone before him...coincidence? I think not.

Quickseller = Badbear. 100%. Calling this bullshit for what it is.

This was bound to happen, sooner or later he was going to be readded to the list , but this can't be helped. The Quickseller - Badbear theory could be possible looking at how things went but is highly improbable.

[Quickseller]

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.

Bahahaha, I just saw that as well. Bit ironic that the person who tries to stand up for you and prevent you from having a TWC tag is the same person who you decide to insult for being put back onto DefaultTrust.

That said, I've been away for a while, but I never had an inherent problem with QS. He did leave the occasional weird negative trust but generally his ratings were (are?) accurate.

QS: This was the insult.

Quickseller didn't fix anything, all he did was make it so I don't have ? ? ? any more. I still have a ZERO trust rating after hundreds of trades and 4 years of activity because Vod feels it is appropriate to destroy peoples trust ratings because he does not like what was said about him. Him leaving a rating for me doesn't change my opinion of him, and if anything I would prefer he had not left it, because we have never traded or even hardly had any direct interaction. Furthermore he calls my left ratings into question. I am curious which actual rating(s) he takes issue with, because unlike you jamokes I try to limit my ratings to people I have had direct interaction or trade with and have used negative ratings sparingly. Additionally my posts have noting to do with the default trust, but with how the rules are selectively enforced regarding it (specifically Vods systematic abuse of it). I don't consider this a favor, even if he intended it to be.

I left the rating because you had previously expressed legitimate concerns about your ability to trade effectively and efficiently due to what is essentially a de facto trade with caution rating due to vod's negative.

I do think that you do want to be put back in the default trust network although a good number of your posts reflect your wish to do away with the default trust system.

I am not sure why your trust score shows as zero when you have so many positive ratings. My interpretation of how trust scores are calculated means that your trust score should increase by 12 points every month. Maybe theymos can comment as to why your rating is not 100+ that it appears you should have. (The formula is somewhat complicated ) - he can comment if he wants to but I figured it out. When you have a negative rating, only ratings since after your first negative rating are counted for your trust score.

You are welcome to have your own opinion of me. If you want the positive to be removed then confirm and I will remove it.

If you don't agree with Vod's rating then I would suggest contacting TC with your concerns.  He may or may not ask Vod to change it to a neutral however I would consider him to be fair and IMO he is a very good moderator of the trust ratings sent by people on his trust list, he really should teach a class or something on how to moderate the trust ratings of people on his trust list.

I primarily do not trust the negative ratings that you leave. Although I also don't trust the positive ratings you leave for people like WC (who is pretty clearly a scammer).

Edit: it looks like that Vod removed his rating so I will remove my positive that countered his negative.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I'm so glad I don't trade on here, I've seen so many arguments between some of you guys on here.
I appreciate scammers should be given negative trust but do you guys sometimes have feuds with each other & just give each other negative trust for no reason?
Come on guys, can't we all just get along?
We're all in bitcoin for the same reason aren't we, to make money ethically?

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
I am not sure why your trust score shows as zero when you have so many positive ratings. My interpretation of how trust scores are calculated means that your trust score should increase by 12 points every month. Maybe theymos can comment as to why your rating is not 100+ that it appears you should have. (The formula is somewhat complicated ) - he can comment if he wants to but I figured it out. When you have a negative rating, only ratings since after your first negative rating are counted for your trust score.

-snip-

Doesn't that mean if someone receives a positive and a negative rating, they'll go negative if the negative is newer?

If someone has 1 positive and 1 negative, then the time doesn't matter. They'll have a score of -1.

Examples:
Old -> New
+ - : -1
- + : -1
+ + - : ???
+ - + : 0
- + + : 1
+ + + : >=3
- - + : -3
+ - - : -3
- - - : -8

 -snip-

[Quickseller]

TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

[Muhammed Zakir]

TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

I think it is addressed above or am I wrong? No matter how many positive feedback you get *before* negative feedback, rating will be ???. The next positive feedback negates it and make rating 0. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Code:

 -snip-
else
	score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
	if score >= 0
		start_time = time of first negative
		score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time

P.S.

There is no decay. Ratings grow in weight from 1 to 10, then stay at 10 forever. (If the rated person has no negatives.)

[Quickseller]

TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

I think it is addressed above or am I wrong? No matter how many positive feedback you get *before* negative feedback, rating will be ???. The next positive feedback negates it and make rating 0. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Code:

else
	score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
	if score >= 0
		start_time = time of first negative
		score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time

I see your point. Maybe it is addressed.