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

[Bicknellski]

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.

Better question who the hell is Quickseller and what other accounts does he control?

For someone to gain a Default Trust place through anyone or to act as an escrow or be a pillar or paragon of the community why should he hide behind several anonymous ID's? That is circumspect and the height of hypocrisy given how many times Quickseller is quick to call out shill accounts as scam artists. Why should we trust anyone that hides his identity?

Will this get deleted as well? I suppose it will.

===

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

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

[1714872569]

1714872569

[1714872569]

1714872569

[1714872569]

1714872569

[Twipple]

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads.

They are just egoistic assholes on the forum ,and the whole scenario is mis-interpreted but a lot of people on here. What most people see here is a negative trust on a scammer and who was spotted by Quickseller or someone and they follow him like scammer spotting god. What they don't realize is the other side of the argument and how they also do unethical things on here. Quickseller gave me a negative trust for something clearly I didn't do , and despite providing all the proof he disregarded all of it. But there happened to be another guy with the exact same case as mine, and he got his rating removed from Quickseller, because apparently Quickseller acted as an escrow on the deal and got 1$ out of it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

I knew it. When I posted in mprep's thread, I knew you would drag me into this. I am not willing  to discuss about your theories in this thread because that will be an endless discussion. I am post here to ask how is TECSHARE's words applies to me? I am not in DF, not a staff or a person who have power and is not a person who is highly trusted. I am also not a spammer. How is staff protecting me?

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

I knew it. When I posted in mprep's thread, I knew you would drag me into this. I am not willing  to discuss about your theories in this thread because that will be an endless discussion. I am post here to ask how is TECSHARE's words applies to me? I am not in DF, not a staff or a person who have power and is not a person who is highly trusted. I am also not a spammer. How is staff protecting me?

I just wanted to comment that even though Muhammed Zakir is very opinionated, so much so he might not think everything though as much as he should, but IMO he is a reasonable person. We had a momentary conflict but it was easily resolved with a short private discussion. I don't believe he belongs grouped in with the others you mentioned. I don't really find him abusive (at least not that I have witnessed).

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).

Yeah but, which actual ratings do you find questionable? I didn't just leave WC a positive rating, I transacted with him and he delivered what was promised. Why shouldn't I leave him a positive rating for that? It is not like it changes much anyway.

As far as negative ratings, I have left 13 total in the 4 years I have been trading here. Of those 13, 10 were for unique users (some users I left negatives for twice, usually as an update due to their activities). Of those 10 users, 6 were marked negative by other high ranking members for their fraudulent or questionable activities (confirming that others agree the negative trust was justified). Of the four remaining users I left ratings for, one was left for some one who skipped out on a loan from me, one was left for a user that decided to dox an Infinitecoin development team member with no cause or reason because he was angry that he was hacked by a 3rd party, two were left for Nubbins for negative rating me for being critical of his behavior, and the last one was left for Armis for harassing me in my own market place threads. Which of these ratings do you find questionable?

I try to only leave ratings (positive or negative) for people I have personally transacted with, or at least have had some direct interaction with. I don't hand out ratings as favors or use them as a tool to harass people I don't agree with. I consider myself one of the more conservative users of the trust system. You have on the other hand left more negative ratings than I have the free time to count, many of them questionable, and that is just on one account. I am not sure you are the person to criticize my use of trust ratings.

[nutildah]

I'm pretty sure Quickseller is also a moderator. He has every negative comment that I have to say about him removed by a moderator.

He'll probably have this one removed as well.

Since he buys and sells accounts for a living, thus enabling a pervasive culture of fraud and untrustworthiness that is now considered inherent in this particular forum, there is no way his ratings should have actual sway on peoples' trust levels.

If Quickseller were to suddenly disappear, the forum would instantly become a more honest, trustworthy place. I am quite certain of this.

[erikalui]

Finally one person will stop hounding me from now on. 

In any case, the entire DF system is being misused and immature ratings are being left on accounts. So many ratings are due to personal reasons. With the recent changes in the trust system, I can expect ratings for many accounts and the ratings can have the following comments:

"I don't like the avatar of this person. Oversmart person."

"This person openly stated to be Obama himself. Very suspicious."

"He's a psycho. Don't deal with him."

"He called me mad. I call him mad now."

"He is a big fat liar."

"This person is making fun of me and now I am making fun of him."

And positive trust can be as sensible as "I love his hairstyle and hence I trust him."

Continue with such ratings as trust system isn't moderated and people can leave ratings even without any evidence and just spam. It will not benefit the bitcoin community for sure but will give peace to the members who want to personally attack others. I don't know what's the meaning of having a trust system which itself cannot be trusted.

DF now seems to consist of members who are treated as ministers and have the power to rule over the forum and the best thing is that they are appointed without conducting any elections. What can be worse than this?

[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.

Better question who the hell is Quickseller and what other accounts does he control?

For someone to gain a Default Trust place through anyone or to act as an escrow or be a pillar or paragon of the community why should he hide behind several anonymous ID's? That is circumspect and the height of hypocrisy given how many times Quickseller is quick to call out shill accounts as scam artists. Why should we trust anyone that hides his identity?

Will this get deleted as well? I suppose it will.

===

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

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

Come now, you aren't one of the trolls who calls censorship abuse when a rule is broken and a post is deleted or a line is censored.

You shouldn't have to give up your pseudonymity/anonymity to be on default trust. You don't have to trust anyone who hides their identity. You can trust everyone or no one if you wish, that's up to you. Why does it matter what accounts someone has? If one of their accounts does something untrustworthy, then that should carry over to their other accounts as well. Persecute Quickseller when someone finds that one of their accounts has done something they shouldn't have.

You are welcome to think whatever you want, but I still don't see how this relates to Staff at all. The only correlation I see is that Staff tend to respond to threads in Meta as that is sort of in the job description. Tomatocage has added Quickseller to their default trust list, Tomatocage is not staff. If you have a problem with Quickseller being on default trust again, talk to Tomatocage about it. I'm baffled by the fact that people are fighting "preferential treatment", but don't respect individuals rights to make their own opinion. Would it not be abuse if someone forced Tomatocage to remove Quickseller? Provide Tomatocage with a list of reasons why Quickseller shouldn't be on default trust, if Tomatocage doesn't agree, then its on him.

I really have a hard time rationalizing what your complaint is. I guess I should first try to understand a few points.

Who is in charge of giving preferential treatment to people?
Why must Tomatocage listen to you?
And who is or should be responsible for counteracting trust of people you don't approve of?

[Bicknellski]

Okay I'll take that challenge give me the holidays let us see how anecdotal observation holds up to close scrutiny shall we. The point is bias in the application of the rules where "friends" and likely alt accounts of our mods skate free. The patterns exists let us see.

New Meta thread.

Who is Quickseller?  Nobody knows... number 1 reason he shouldn't be on any trust list.

[Quickseller]

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).

Yeah but, which actual ratings do you find questionable? I didn't just leave WC a positive rating, I transacted with him and he delivered what was promised. Why shouldn't I leave him a positive rating for that? It is not like it changes much anyway.

As far as negative ratings, I have left 13 total in the 4 years I have been trading here. Of those 13, 10 were for unique users (some users I left negatives for twice, usually as an update due to their activities). Of those 10 users, 6 were marked negative by other high ranking members for their fraudulent or questionable activities (confirming that others agree the negative trust was justified). Of the four remaining users I left ratings for, one was left for some one who skipped out on a loan from me, one was left for a user that decided to dox an Infinitecoin development team member with no cause or reason because he was angry that he was hacked by a 3rd party, two were left for Nubbins for negative rating me for being critical of his behavior, and the last one was left for Armis for harassing me in my own market place threads. Which of these ratings do you find questionable?

I try to only leave ratings (positive or negative) for people I have personally transacted with, or at least have had some direct interaction with. I don't hand out ratings as favors or use them as a tool to harass people I don't agree with. I consider myself one of the more conservative users of the trust system. You have on the other hand left more negative ratings than I have the free time to count, many of them questionable, and that is just on one account. I am not sure you are the person to criticize my use of trust ratings.

The negative rating that you had left for armis is clearly based on a person dispute and has nothing to do with how much he should (or should not) be trusted. If I was an outsider and has no prior connection to you then there would be no reason why I should have to take additional precautions when trading with armis just because you do not like him.

The same goes for your ratings you sent to Vod and nubbins. I think it is pretty clear that you do not like either of them (at least as of when you left the ratings). Granted they did leave you negative trust first (I think), however I think anyone who leaves retaliatory trust ratings against someone should not have their sent trust ratings trusted. You should only leave a negative rating if you strongly think they are a scammer, and leaving an inaccurate rating is not scamming (nor is "trust abuse"). 

Regarding the rating that you left WC, I would say that it is a fair rating as you appear to have traded with him (I have no reason to believe the trade was faked, nor do I think you would do something like that). With that being said, I think you were probably defending him for longer then you probably should have. At first when WC was first accused of using a laser to make his pieces when he was claiming to hand carve them, I could understand you defending them as some of the points he was making was somewhat valid, and I could see you relating to the points he was making. However after a while, it became more apparent that he was scamming, yet you were still supporting him. Even when it got to the point where he had essentially admitted to scamming and when he admitted that he was simply trolling, you were still supporting him.

The ratings that I have left were left because I have found evidence of either a scam or of scammy behavior (i.e. an attempt to scam). Although I may not agree with some of the people who I left negative ratings for, that does not mean that the negative rating is connected to my disagreement with them.

Of course there are plenty of people who are more then willing to claim that my negative rating I left for them is because of a personal opinion, however that is just an attempt to get my rating to either be removed or to get my rating to not show up by default. 

[TECSHARE]

The negative rating that you had left for armis is clearly based on a person dispute and has nothing to do with how much he should (or should not) be trusted. If I was an outsider and has no prior connection to you then there would be no reason why I should have to take additional precautions when trading with armis just because you do not like him.

The Armis rating was debated endlessly here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269
 so I am not going to waste time repeating myself. I did not negative rate him because "I did not like him", I negative rated him because he was calling me a scammer in my market place ops for asking the full cost of a gift card and continued lying about me and making insults in my market place op, effecting my ability to trade negatively for no other reason than his own personal entertainment.

He was trolling my op and refused to move on, and then escalated it with a series of accusations of me trying to"silence" him from speaking out about me, when he has the whole rest of the forum to do so in. If he would have posted in the appropriate section I never would have negative rated him. I made an offer to him that if he had removed his troll posts, I would have removed my rating for him, but he refused, and instead opted to continue to escalate the situation. Furthermore, no one ever explained to me that there were additional standards for default trust members. I was left to believe like everyone else in the trust system, we were free to rate people as we pleased. If some one had explained this to me I never would have left the rating, but these rules are not posted anywhere of course.

The same goes for your ratings you sent to Vod and nubbins. I think it is pretty clear that you do not like either of them (at least as of when you left the ratings). Granted they did leave you negative trust first (I think), however I think anyone who leaves retaliatory trust ratings against someone should not have their sent trust ratings trusted. You should only leave a negative rating if you strongly think they are a scammer, and leaving an inaccurate rating is not scamming (nor is "trust abuse").  

I never left a rating for Vod ... ever. Way to form opinions on something without knowing the facts. As for Nubbins he negative rated me simply because I disagreed with his WC theories, and his method of mob justice based on flimsy speculation. He also did this to several other users for the same reason. If some one is willing to abuse the trust system to try to silence myself and others from criticizing their behavior, then why shouldn't I negative rate them? It has nothing to do with retaliation and everything with drawing attention to the fact their ratings can not be trusted. Even Badbear excluded Nubbins from his trust list because of his behavior.

Regarding the rating that you left WC, I would say that it is a fair rating as you appear to have traded with him (I have no reason to believe the trade was faked, nor do I think you would do something like that). With that being said, I think you were probably defending him for longer then you probably should have. At first when WC was first accused of using a laser to make his pieces when he was claiming to hand carve them, I could understand you defending them as some of the points he was making was somewhat valid, and I could see you relating to the points he was making. However after a while, it became more apparent that he was scamming, yet you were still supporting him. Even when it got to the point where he had essentially admitted to scamming and when he admitted that he was simply trolling, you were still supporting him.

The ratings that I have left were left because I have found evidence of either a scam or of scammy behavior (i.e. an attempt to scam). Although I may not agree with some of the people who I left negative ratings for, that does not mean that the negative rating is connected to my disagreement with them.

Of course there are plenty of people who are more then willing to claim that my negative rating I left for them is because of a personal opinion, however that is just an attempt to get my rating to either be removed or to get my rating to not show up by default.  

What does my stance on the WC fiasco have to do with my clearly accurate positive rating left for him for a trade? Did I in any way abuse the trust system to try to support WC, or did I simply speak my opinion in threads, and you happen to disagree with it? Also, he never admitted to scamming anyone, lets not start with revisionism here.

You claim your left ratings are accurate and that they are all scammers, but that is not that easy to prove for certain. It is very easy to just claim anyone critical of your ratings is just another scammer, and who would believe them anyway unless they could prove their innocence. Judging people guilty until proven innocent has historically been a very destructive social policy because innocents are easily wrapped up in it.

People like Tomatocage at least have some standard of evidence that they require before marking a user negative, and he doesn't make a sport out of it, or use it as an excuse to farm trust points from rubbernecking onlookers entertained with the ensuing drama. If he is unsure, he uses neutral ratings to warn people of the possibility of a scam, he doesn't just outright accuse people on a hunch. I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest. I think people have quite a bit of justification to call your ratings into question, and you trying to divert the topic and make this about me is not doing you a service.

[Vod]

I did not negative rate him because "I did not like him", I negative rated him because he was calling me a scammer in my market place ops for asking the full cost of a gift card and continued lying about me and making insults in my market place op, effecting my ability to trade negatively for no other reason than his own personal entertainment.

Love the hypocrisy from this jamoke!  

[TECSHARE]

Love the hypocrisy here!  

I see you you still can't restrain yourself. There is no hypocrisy, just no understanding of the rules that were unwritten and never explained to me at the time. He was impeding my ability to trade directly. He had the rest of the entire forum to accuse me of scams if he wanted to. The only reason he chose to do it in my op was to entertain himself at the expense of my sales. This is a common problem in the marketplace section, and often staff refuse to do anything about it. It is like trying to sell things on 4chan here some times. Anyways, do you have any comment on the actual topic, or are you just here to start more drama because you were asked to revise your rating left for me?

[Vod]

I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest.

Badbear asked me to give you a chance, and I am.  I've removed your negative trust.

I hope you don't disappoint me.     Good luck.

[SavellM]

I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest.

Badbear asked me to give you a chance, and I am.  I've removed your negative trust.

I hope you don't disappoint me.     Good luck.

This is exactly the egotistical bullshit that I am talking about.
Who the bloody hell do you think you are that we need to not disappoint you...

[KWH]

I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest.

Badbear asked me to give you a chance, and I am.  I've removed your negative trust.

I hope you don't disappoint me.     Good luck.

This is exactly the egotistical bullshit that I am talking about.
Who the bloody hell do you think you are that we need to not disappoint you...

And how dare we not listen to or live up to your standards, am I right? 

[Tomatocage1]

QS and Vod: I added you both to my Trust list because you two are very good at identifying scammers. However, to maintain your positions on my list, I ask that you remain as impartial as possible (ie. don't be a Trust Nazi) and flag only those accounts who are clearly up to no good. Vindictive ratings levied out of spite will not be tolerated, mmkay?

That being said, I know I'm guilty of doing it myself in the past, but I've done my best to go back and audit such ratings. TL;DR: Let's not be those cops that throw the book at people for going 1mph over.

[koshgel]

Nothing like DefaultTrust to turn a Bitcoin community into squabbling, teenage schoolgirls.

[tspacepilot]

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

Sweet!  I found the traditional quickseller masterbation post!  I love it.  I thought he had been masterbating less in public since I started the game to catch these masterbation posts.  But I guess sometimes you just feel that pressure and you gotta let it go.  For the record, a quickseller masterbation post is one where he "toots his own horn" (to use a euphemism) without providing any concrete proof or evidence.  "At least one person .. " lol.

[Quickseller]

QS and Vod: I added you both to my Trust list because you two are very good at identifying scammers. However, to maintain your positions on my list, I ask that you remain as impartial as possible (ie. don't be a Trust Nazi) and flag only those accounts who are clearly up to no good. Vindictive ratings levied out of spite will not be tolerated, mmkay?

That being said, I know I'm guilty of doing it myself in the past, but I've done my best to go back and audit such ratings. TL;DR: Let's not be those cops that throw the book at people for going 1mph over.

The OP is KingOfSports. If he isn't a clear scammer then IDK who is.

There have been several instances when I have either removed or downgraded to neutral my trust ratings when additional information was available, when someone was able to complete a successful transaction, or I otherwise am made aware that I was wrong.

Either way I am always open to suggestions in regards to my sent trust ratings.

[melody82]

I have only had one dealing with QS but in my experience he is reasonable and trustworthy.  I think that it would be more productive to communicate with him in a less belligerent manner.  you might be surprised at the results.

(goes to hide in his bunker)