delete

[Possum577]

I don't have a history with Quickseller or this forum to be worthy of a vote on his/her specific candidacy. However as a Sr. Member of the forum community I do have a right to share what I believe the qualities that exemplify a Moderator, those are primarily:

• One who is willing to remain objective to the facts at all times, a judge (which is what a Moderator often is) must remain objective to the situation or decision, regardless of personal impact or opinion
• One who is willing to hold restraint at times when it would be easy (and human nature) to make a quick and forceful, yet potentially rash and damaging decision

Thanks

[XinXan]

You are just another hater that always blames quickseller every time you can, dont you have anything else to do? You are so focused on this when there are way bigger problems out there, why dont you use your time doing something productive instead?

Idiot. Stop and form a thought before you type next time. What the FUCK do you think YOU are doing that is any different?

I am just trying to warn people that Quickseller is an evil hack, responsible for selling accounts that people use to defraud other forum members with. And you are defending his evil hackishness. So who's the bigger douchebag?

You are derailing the point here which is if qs should be a mod or if people want to, so far a lot of people have vouched for him. Selling accounts is allowed, as i said before, you also have to take a look at all his sent feedbacks to see that he has been giving plenty of accurate ratings

[lahm-44]

Love him or hate him

Anyone with more than two brain cells not fighting each other for survival of the fittest can clearly see Quickseller is a major positive for the forum.

I have seen numerous times that he has helped newbies and accurately answered hundreds of questions.

Undeniably the King of Scam Busing post Phinaeus Gage (RIP) and Vod.

He/She/It apparently has plenty of time to dedicate.

Therefore I nominate Quickseller for consideration of Moderator or Staff.


Thoughts


~BCX~

well are you sure that quickseller is. king of Scam Busting posts...well I know and I am sure that he is very helpful to everyone even I and many of my friends has deal with him and always got a smooth deals and helpful advices but as we know there is nothing 100%  good ..so I want to know why some of the poeples are giving him negitive trusts and making false comments there..sorry but I dnt want to point any wrong intension just I am cerous about those

[PistolPete]

Being a mod requires a sound knowledge of the rules, and obviously a lot of time to spend on the forum. QS fits both the criteria. For all those worried about QS going overboard, initially he would be a patroller and would hardly have any power.

Having said that, BadBear doesn't seem to be too matey with QS these days so I won't be holding my breath. Or weren't BB and QS supposed to be the same guy? It's confusing

[Karpeles]

I think Quickseller is too precipitated when he gives feedbacks. See for example this thread:

OP is not offering escrow anymore. I understand why hilarious left negative trust for OP, but in my opinion yours is unjustified because OP is not offering escrow at the moment(just my opinion please don't act like I'm insulting you or something)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I went ahead and updated my rating to a neutral.

I don't think QS deserves to be either in the default trust settings list or be a mod.

Quickseller gave negative trust rating without verifying by himself if his assumptions are true, then confessed that his rating was wrong according to his own criteria and changed it to neutral. If enough buzz is created QS gives negative trust without checking by himself the facts, so some of their ratings are wrong, even if he does a good job in some situations, or if the accused person, by coincidence, really did what QS thinks he did.

Mod power is even more dangerous than trust power, because a perma banned user won't be able to return to the forum forever, while reputation can be rebuild and the neg reped user still can use the forum.

And we all know that QS is an account seller, so it is of his interest damage as much accounts he can, under any pretext. As patroller he would be able to ban and nuke all newbies, and I don't think the admins would spend time judging if a ban of a newbie user was really fair or not. Plus he would get access to some informations not available to normal users, what will probably be dangerous, because we don't know what other identities he has.

(btw, who put QS back in the level 2 trust?)

[Yamato no Orochi]

(btw, who put QS back in the level 2 trust?)

Badbear did, technically. he deleted QS from his exclusion list.
previously Tomatocage has QS on his trust list and BadBear excluded him, that's why he got knocked off. CMIIW

[OrangeSeller]

(btw, who put QS back in the level 2 trust?)

Badbear did, technically. he deleted QS from his exclusion list.
previously Tomatocage has QS on his trust list and BadBear excluded him, that's why he got knocked off. CMIIW

I love how you make new account just for this. Trust issue is really sensitive here

[BadBear]

Being a mod requires a sound knowledge of the rules, and obviously a lot of time to spend on the forum. QS fits both the criteria. For all those worried about QS going overboard, initially he would be a patroller and would hardly have any power.

Having said that, BadBear doesn't seem to be too matey with QS these days so I won't be holding my breath. Or weren't BB and QS supposed to be the same guy? It's confusing

No I'm not Quickseller, obviously. The people who say things like that are usually after information, either about me or the other person. They want me or someone else who knows me to say "Well no I/he couldn't be Quickseller because..."
It's an obvious ploy, and not one I fall for.

(btw, who put QS back in the level 2 trust?)

Badbear did, technically. he deleted QS from his exclusion list.
previously Tomatocage has QS on his trust list and BadBear excluded him, that's why he got knocked off. CMIIW

I never excluded him.

[Yamato no Orochi]

-cut
I love how you make new account just for this. Trust issue is really sensitive here

what? who will I offend with that little comment?

-cut
I never excluded him.

huh. guess I was wrong then.


====================================
then who put QS back?

[ColderThanIce]

-cut
I never excluded him.

huh. guess I was wrong then.


====================================
then who put QS back?

Looks like Tomatocage added Quickseller back onto his trust list.

[Possum577]

No I'm not Quickseller, obviously. The people who say things like that are usually after information, either about me or the other person. They want me or someone else who knows me to say "Well no I/he couldn't be Quickseller because..."
It's an obvious ploy, and not one I fall for.

I never excluded him.

So you're saying QS is a "him"...interesting, verrrry interesting. The details are all falling in place now...

Are staff/moderator positions granted purely through nomination or invite? Seems appropriate to do it that way, just curious. And am in no way implying that I'd want to eye such a position...let's just get that out there.

[hilariousandco]

They're usually chosen by report accuracy.

[ndnh]

They're usually chosen by report accuracy.

I got 61% (thanks to updownbot.bz). Glad I didn't want to be a mod.

[DiamondCardz]

This thread is literally a dank Bitcointalk meme.

Anyway, kek aside, QS shouldn't be a mod unless he reports a lot (maybe he does? I don't know) but he should be on DefaultTrust. He ain't that bad, damn.

I just checked my report count actually...326 @ 96% accuracy, pretty low count but that accuracy

[hilariousandco]

Anyway, kek aside, QS shouldn't be a mod unless he reports a lot (maybe he does? I don't know) but he should be on DefaultTrust.

He stated that on the first page:

While I would be honored for the position, I do think it would be very controversial. I do have over 1.6k reports with a 95% accuracy rate.

[DiamondCardz]

While I would be honored for the position, I do think it would be very controversial. I do have over 1.6k reports with a 95% accuracy rate.

Well, if a position opens up, why not then?

Though it would probably be controversial...but then again, who are the people who would create that controversy?

[funtotry]

While I would be honored for the position, I do think it would be very controversial. I do have over 1.6k reports with a 95% accuracy rate.

Well, if a position opens up, why not then?

Though it would probably be controversial...but then again, who are the people who would create that controversy?

The scammers,
but the 5% would also create the controversy as well.
If you are given the power of a mod, and you are 5% wrong, that is bad. Also with all this previous stuff you are tied into, I don't think that would make for a very impartial judge.

[Lauda]

The scammers,
but the 5% would also create the controversy as well.
If you are given the power of a mod, and you are 5% wrong, that is bad. Also with all this previous stuff you are tied into, I don't think that would make for a very impartial judge.

You can't compare that. I'm pretty sure that some moderators were invited with even a lower percentage. As stated in the rules, moderators are allowed to interpret rules as they wish (to some degree).
He might have been wrong less than 5% of the reports if someone else was handling his reports. I assume that he made mistakes when he joined the forums, as did I. I'm also now at 95%, it is just really hard to get it much higher.

I think that theymos has stated somewhere that 90% (or even less?) was enough.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The scammers,
but the 5% would also create the controversy as well.
If you are given the power of a mod, and you are 5% wrong, that is bad. Also with all this previous stuff you are tied into, I don't think that would make for a very impartial judge.

You can't compare that. I'm pretty sure that some moderators were invited with even a lower percentage. As stated in the rules, moderators are allowed to interpret rules as they wish (to some degree).
He might have been wrong less than 5% of the reports if someone else was handling his reports. I assume that he made mistakes when he joined the forums, as did I. I'm also now at 95%, it is just really hard to get it much higher.

I think that theymos has stated somewhere that 90% (or even less?) was enough.

Your success rate doesn't actually matter all that much. If you're above 60%, we'll teach you the rest once you become a mod. As long as you can maintain that, quantity of reports is much more important than quality. Specifically, we're looking for people who report things during time periods where the reports aren't immediately acted on, because that indicates a need for additional moderators for that time block. People who report things during those time are far more likely to be chosen, and you're more likely to report during those times if you report more in general.

[dothebeats]

I vouch for Quickseller too, though most of the time I just read and read how he bust and uncover those potential scams that could probably affect the community, especially the newbies. I think his reports (1600+ reports with 95% accuracy) is over-qualified for a position of a mod and he's always active as far as I can see. But still, it is for theymos to decide whether he'll accept a new moderator or not. The local languages boards seemed to be not that moderated appropriately, a Global Mod maybe could help fix things in there?