Wardrick account hacked---trust abuse resolution in sight (finally)

[dooglus]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

[jonald_fyookball]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

There seems to be very few "hard" rules here.  Many of the things that are impossible to enforce (like account selling)
aren't outright banned for that very reason.  If someone trustworthy like you were to publicly sell their account,
it would be at the minimum removed from DT and receive neutral feedback that its sold and probably a few
people would neg it too.

[Vod]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

There seems to be very few "hard" rules here.  Many of the things that are impossible to enforce (like account selling)
aren't outright banned for that very reason.  If someone trustworthy like you were to publicly sell their account,
it would be at the minimum removed from DT and receive neutral feedback that its sold and probably a few
people would neg it too.

I would leave neutral feedback saying the account was sold on whatever date.

[GannickusX]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

There seems to be very few "hard" rules here.  Many of the things that are impossible to enforce (like account selling)
aren't outright banned for that very reason.  If someone trustworthy like you were to publicly sell their account,
it would be at the minimum removed from DT and receive neutral feedback that its sold and probably a few
people would neg it too.

Well, as far as i know quickseller used to sell dt accounts and they didnt receive neg rating or were removed from dt, so it´s obvious that quickseller would say its ok to sell accounts but its not, at least not dt accounts.

[acakf]

...
There seems to be very few "hard" rules here.  Many of the things that are impossible to enforce (like account selling)
...

Nothing is impossible for Bitcointalk A Team!
*If the mechanics of banning the sale of bitcointalk accounts on bitcointalk are unclear, feel free to PM me.

[erikalui]

<snip> If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

You do this a lot: type in English but make no sense.

He's saying that if the person who bought the account trusts the people the previous owner trusted, there's no reason to remove those ratings that are left by original owner.
I got that, but since the account in question was on DT afaik, that only goes half way, because the new owner has the ability to leave ratings that are considered trusted, w/o "earning" that ability.

So it's a no-go on this one. DT account's - by forum rules or not, should definitely not be traded and remain on DT. (imho none should, but DT is where the line must be drawn)

cheers

That's why the DT level 2 members should be removed and there should just be a level 1 with the mos trusted members (who shouldn't sell their accounts atleast). By having over 50 members in the list 2, any random guy can just buy a DT account and mark negative ratings while the person who has added him might not even know whether the account is sold. These DT members from list 2 then go about threatening others about their reputation.

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

[poeEDgar]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

You have to understand -- Quickseller thinks accounts should each be treated as individual persons, and that the person controlling them is irrelevant. It's a bizarre point of view that is unlikely to be held by most people, but it's his story and he's sticking to it.

[tspacepilot]

<snip> If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

You do this a lot: type in English but make no sense.

He's saying that if the person who bought the account trusts the people the previous owner trusted, there's no reason to remove those ratings that are left by original owner.
I got that, but since the account in question was on DT afaik, that only goes half way, because the new owner has the ability to leave ratings that are considered trusted, w/o "earning" that ability.

So it's a no-go on this one. DT account's - by forum rules or not, should definitely not be traded and remain on DT. (imho none should, but DT is where the line must be drawn)

cheers

That's why the DT level 2 members should be removed and there should just be a level 1 with the mos trusted members (who shouldn't sell their accounts atleast). By having over 50 members in the list 2, any random guy can just buy a DT account and mark negative ratings while the person who has added him might not even know whether the account is sold. These DT members from list 2 then go about threatening others about their reputation.

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

In my opinion, the solution to all of this trust farming and related nonsense is to decentralize the trust system by removing "default trust" altogether.  People that don't want to set up their trust settings shoildn't have to do so.  And forcing the default trust list onto them has created a "standard trust" list, which means a central point of failure for those who want to game the system.  But alas, this is geting a bit off topic for this thread.  Here are some really interesting threads on the topic of improving the trust system via decentralization.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0

^^^ Especially interesting is the arguments of quickseller in those threads given the recent relevations concerning his own behavior.

But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section. 

The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller.  But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself.  At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick.  There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.

[redsn0w]

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

You have to understand -- Quickseller thinks accounts should each be treated as individual persons, and that the person controlling them is irrelevant. It's a bizarre point of view that is unlikely to be held by most people, but it's his story and he's sticking to it.

He/she is thinking wrong, I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). So he/she lost his/her mind, Quickseller take a hiatus....

[Vod]

He/she is thinking wrong, I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). So he/she lost his/her mind, Quickseller take a hiatus....

Quickseller has repeatedly posted he will leave the forum as soon as he pays back his last collateral.

He stated yesterday that it will happen today at the latest.

What does that mean?

He'll be back here posting tomorrow. 

Mark my words. 

[acakf]

... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif

[Quickseller]

... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif

Very interesting point anon newbie. Interesting point indeed.

Maybe and just maybe some of my alts are deserving positive trust, or maybe there are just a lot of scammers out to get blood.

[tmfp]

... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif strawman gibberish.txt

FTFY.

You're really trying too hard now.

[tspacepilot]

... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif

Very interesting point anon newbie. Interesting point indeed.

Maybe and just maybe some of my alts are deserving positive trust, or maybe there are just a lot of scammers out to get blood.

Given that quickseller is currently on a "long break" and given the current frequency of his posting, I wonder what it looks like when he's actually around.  Wow.

Okay, did anyone notice my post in this thread just about 5 posts back requesting that we stay on-topic here?

[acakf]

... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif strawman gibberish.txt

FTFY.

You're really trying too hard now.

Raging without a clue as to what's being said: an affliction that's almost endemic to bitcointalk

@tspacepilot re. OT: the topic being what, exactly? dogpile on Quickseller, now that it serves no purpose beyond humiliating him / rubbing salt in wound?

[tspacepilot]

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title
2) reading the OP
3) reading the thread

I realize this thread has gotten a little long, so perhaps only (1) and (2) are feasible, but go ahead and start there.  After that, you might try reading backwards from the end, in which case you'll find this message from me only 6 posts back.  I added some bold in this quote, I hope it helps.

But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section.  

The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller.  But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself.  At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick.  There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.

[dogie]

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title

Except you've changed the title literally 20 times :s

[Pips]

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title

Except you've changed the title literally 20 times :s

Haha, that's so true. In this thread, all you needed to do is read the title every couple of days and you could follow the thread relatively well.

[acakf]

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title

Original title: "How to contact tomatocage."  Unenlightening

2) reading the OP

Let's give it a shot.  OP [redacted]:

UPDATE 16 Sept 2015:
All the latest indications are that the Wardick account was taken over by an imposter ...
UPDATE 7 Sept. 2015:
QS has joined Tradefortress in the realm of the completely discredited thanks to an escrow scam he was pulling off. ...
UPDATE 25 August 2015:
Quickseller has recently removed one of the trust sockpuppet ratings he has left on my account. ...
The original content of this thread's OP is below the horizontal line.  What's happened is that there are really three issues at play here and I had locked this topic and started three separate threads. ...

The overarching theme, clearly, is ... it's obvious that ...  um ... do I get more than one guess?

3) reading the thread

I realize this thread has gotten a little long, so perhaps only (1) and (2) are feasible, but go ahead and start there. <snip>

Listen, don't take this the wrong way, but I might have to pass.


     "I understood at last the look in his eyes. He was insane."

[tspacepilot]

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title

Except you've changed the title literally 20 times :s

Cute, but at no time did the title say "thread where people should offer rhetorical questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the current trust system and also kick around quickseller now that he's down"---and that seems to have been the topic that people landed on and that acakf decided to jump in on literlly 4 posts after I provided links to threads about the trust system and asked people to say on topic.

Then again, I offered a few other strategies too, like (2) check the OP.  Have you checked the OP?  I've done my best to keep the OP and the title up-to-date in what is clearly a developing situation.  Would you prefer that the original title from 3 months ago be left?  Maybe I'm doing it wrong?

I think that anyone spending just a little time to figure out what this thread is about would be able to discern that it's meant to ask QS to justify the negative feedback he gave me based on the discredited word of Tradefortress, and that barring his ability to justify that, that he would remove the feedback.

I dunno, I really thought that this post only 7 posts back now was a reasonable way to recap.

But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section.  

The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller.  But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself.  At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick.  There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.

So, now it's been quoted twice in the space of 10 posts.  @dogie, were you actually confused about the topic or am I missing the protocol here?