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

[XinXan]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

Of course. They control the default trust system, allow it to be abused left and right, protect their clique, and throw everyone else to the fire so they can maintain the image of legitimacy. When I was dealing with VODs abusive ratings I received several threats of a permaban from Badbear claiming I was off topic, some times in my own OPs even. Yet anyone arguing against me off topic was allowed to go on for page after page after page, regardless of it being reported. They protect freedom of speech here, that is until you question them or if it makes their pals look bad. In that case you'd better STFU and fall in line or else suddenly you will find yourself breaking rules you didn't even know existed, and all their lackeys vying for a position in the default trust list will line up to take pot shots at you to earn brown nose points, or to protect their existing privileged position in default trust.

If you ask others to speak on your behalf, then suddenly you are accused of "shilling" or using sock puppets. It is an organically formed coordinated effort to protect their position of control based on self interest. They have a direct monetary incentive to do so, because people seek to trade with those on the default trust more because if they rate you it will raise the trust they have visible by default. If you are new making a complaint, you are just a sock puppet or a scammer and dismissed. If you have a reputation, then they have something to take from you. Either way they still control the situation to their own benefit via selective enforcement of all these unwritten, unofficial rules that change depending on who it is being enforced upon.

There is little concern for the individual here unless it serves some higher use to them. If you are rocking the boat to get some right wronged, you are more likely to get the hammer than help unless it serves them. Your situation with Quickseller appears to me to be a very similar scenario, and no one of much note will speak in your defense for fear of retribution from Quickseller or the staff.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation, why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways? You can still use your account as always, you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal? You can always take loans or trade if you use escrow

[1714642392]

1714642392

[1714642392]

1714642392

[1714642392]

1714642392

[1714642392]

1714642392

[1714642392]

1714642392

[ajareselde]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

Of course. They control the default trust system, allow it to be abused left and right, protect their clique, and throw everyone else to the fire so they can maintain the image of legitimacy. When I was dealing with VODs abusive ratings I received several threats of a permaban from Badbear claiming I was off topic, some times in my own OPs even. Yet anyone arguing against me off topic was allowed to go on for page after page after page, regardless of it being reported. They protect freedom of speech here, that is until you question them or if it makes their pals look bad. In that case you'd better STFU and fall in line or else suddenly you will find yourself breaking rules you didn't even know existed, and all their lackeys vying for a position in the default trust list will line up to take pot shots at you to earn brown nose points, or to protect their existing privileged position in default trust.

If you ask others to speak on your behalf, then suddenly you are accused of "shilling" or using sock puppets. It is an organically formed coordinated effort to protect their position of control based on self interest. They have a direct monetary incentive to do so, because people seek to trade with those on the default trust more because if they rate you it will raise the trust they have visible by default. If you are new making a complaint, you are just a sock puppet or a scammer and dismissed. If you have a reputation, then they have something to take from you. Either way they still control the situation to their own benefit via selective enforcement of all these unwritten, unofficial rules that change depending on who it is being enforced upon.

There is little concern for the individual here unless it serves some higher use to them. If you are rocking the boat to get some right wronged, you are more likely to get the hammer than help unless it serves them. Your situation with Quickseller appears to me to be a very similar scenario, and no one of much note will speak in your defense for fear of retribution from Quickseller or the staff.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation, why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways? You can still use your account as always, you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal? You can always take loans or trade if you use escrow

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ? He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before. Many will agree with techshare that trust system as it is sucks. At the least it should be moderated to some extent. Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

[Muhammed Zakir]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

 -words against staffs/admins-

What tspacepilot posted does not need three threads as all 3 was basically talking about one thing. That's why, they were deleted.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation,

He was once in default trust list and he got removed and probably, will never return. Plausibly, that's why, he is angry(?)!

why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways?

Vod removed his negative feedback. Now, he does not have any negative feedback from people in default trust list.

You can still use your account as always, you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal? You can always take loans or trade if you use escrow

He does trade here. Check his trust ratings and/or post history.

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ?

He does not have negative feedback from people in default trust list.

He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before.

Wrong!

Many will agree with techshare that trust system as it is sucks.

I don't think so but if you think it is not needed, then come with a better one. If it is better than current trust system, theymos will replace current trust system with yours.

At the least it should be moderated to some extent.

Massive trust spam can be removed by contacting theymos but he does not do it always.

Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

This is not a decentralized forum. Why does people think this forum is decentralized? This forum is absolutely controlled by a central authority.

[XinXan]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

Of course. They control the default trust system, allow it to be abused left and right, protect their clique, and throw everyone else to the fire so they can maintain the image of legitimacy. When I was dealing with VODs abusive ratings I received several threats of a permaban from Badbear claiming I was off topic, some times in my own OPs even. Yet anyone arguing against me off topic was allowed to go on for page after page after page, regardless of it being reported. They protect freedom of speech here, that is until you question them or if it makes their pals look bad. In that case you'd better STFU and fall in line or else suddenly you will find yourself breaking rules you didn't even know existed, and all their lackeys vying for a position in the default trust list will line up to take pot shots at you to earn brown nose points, or to protect their existing privileged position in default trust.

If you ask others to speak on your behalf, then suddenly you are accused of "shilling" or using sock puppets. It is an organically formed coordinated effort to protect their position of control based on self interest. They have a direct monetary incentive to do so, because people seek to trade with those on the default trust more because if they rate you it will raise the trust they have visible by default. If you are new making a complaint, you are just a sock puppet or a scammer and dismissed. If you have a reputation, then they have something to take from you. Either way they still control the situation to their own benefit via selective enforcement of all these unwritten, unofficial rules that change depending on who it is being enforced upon.

There is little concern for the individual here unless it serves some higher use to them. If you are rocking the boat to get some right wronged, you are more likely to get the hammer than help unless it serves them. Your situation with Quickseller appears to me to be a very similar scenario, and no one of much note will speak in your defense for fear of retribution from Quickseller or the staff.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation, why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways? You can still use your account as always, you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal? You can always take loans or trade if you use escrow

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ? He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before. Many will agree with techshare that trust system as it is sucks. At the least it should be moderated to some extent. Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

First of all, some campaigns accept neg trust people and yeah maybe his account is virtually worth nothing now but my point still stands, he can still use his account and do business just as easy, using escrow of course, gaining the trust back but he would be able to do so and use the forum normally

[ajareselde]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

 -words against staffs/admins-

Because staff here are Gods and should be followed blindly like sheeps.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation,

He was once in default trust list and he got removed and probably, will never return. Plausibly, that's why, he is angry(?)!

It is not the question of motive, the question is weather he makes a valid point or not.

why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways?

Vod removed his negative feedback. Now, he does not have any negative feedback from people in default trust list.

We were talking about op here, who does in fact have negative feedback from people in default trust list. (QS)

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ?

He does not have negative feedback from people in default trust list.

Read answer above, he does.

He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before.

Wrong!

With red trust ? Yeah right..

Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

This is not a decentralized forum. Why does people think this forum is decentralized? This forum is absolutely controlled by a central authority.

I did not say this is decentralized forum. I said it's a decentralization forum aka forum about decentralization.

[XinXan]

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.

 -words against staffs/admins-

Because staff here are Gods and should be followed blindly like sheeps.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation,

He was once in default trust list and he got removed and probably, will never return. Plausibly, that's why, he is angry(?)!

It is not the question of motive, the question is weather he makes a valid point or not.

why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways?

Vod removed his negative feedback. Now, he does not have any negative feedback from people in default trust list.

We were talking about op here, who does in fact have negative feedback from people in default trust list. (QS)

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ?

He does not have negative feedback from people in default trust list.

Read answer above, he does.

He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before.

Wrong!

With red trust ? Yeah right..

Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

This is not a decentralized forum. Why does people think this forum is decentralized? This forum is absolutely controlled by a central authority.

I did not say this is decentralized forum. I said it's a decentralization forum aka forum about decentralization.

Seems like your only motivation on this forum is to participate on signature campaigns because you are making a big deal out of it and as i said he can join to some campaigns anyways, if he points out any reason of why he wouldnt be able to do X thing because he got that negative trust rating i would change my mind

[ajareselde]

Seems like your only motivation on this forum is to participate on signature campaigns because you are making a big deal out of it and as i said he can join to some campaigns anyways, if he points out any reason of why he wouldnt be able to do X thing because he got that negative trust rating i would change my mind

If that was my only motive i wouldn't be here in meta pointing at things that almost noone wants to. I'm in a campaign because it's convenient. Anyways it's hypocritical of you because you're in a campaign as well.
In regards to "things he can not do" because of the -ive, you should talk with him.

cheers

[Muhammed Zakir]

Because staff here are Gods and should be followed blindly like sheeps.

Wrong!

It is not the question of motive, the question is weather he makes a valid point or not.

He mostly posts against staffs and trust system but does not necessarily post valid points.

Is autocorrect active?

why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways?

Vod removed his negative feedback. Now, he does not have any negative feedback from people in default trust list.

We were talking about op here, who does in fact have negative feedback from people in default trust list. (QS)

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ?

He does not have negative feedback from people in default trust list.

Read answer above, he does.

He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before.

Wrong!

With red trust ? Yeah right..

XinXan was talking about TECSHARE. He was replying to TECSHARE and he mentioned "you". Read carefully!

Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

This is not a decentralized forum. Why does people think this forum is decentralized? This forum is absolutely controlled by a central authority.

I did not say this is decentralized forum. I said it's a decentralization forum aka forum about decentralization.

Weird! That does not make sense.

Wiki - Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.

[tspacepilot]

People, TECSHARE is welcome to drop a comment in this thead.  As his comment has to do with trust issues, it's relevant to the topic.  However, filling up entire pages abotu what TECSHARE's motivation might or might not be is getting off-topic.  There are three topics here: Tomatocage vouching for a trust abuser and not willing to discuss it; QS's trust spam (many ratings against one person using sockpuppets); QS's false rating against me.  Please stay on topic.  At this point, private discussions are going on with QS which I have smallest sliver of hope that they will lead to some resolution---this is with respect to QS's false ratings.  The other two topics are not currently being addressed in any way.  They are also really important and need to be addressed.

[TECSHARE]

...you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal?

This shows how completely ignorant you are of the situation, yet you still have no trouble claiming authority on the subject.

words

Thanks. It gets a bit old that every time I try to make a point about the trust 3 or 4 of the same brown nosing lackeys go right into accusations of various types trying to discredit my point some how as if what I went thru is an isolated incident that has nothing to do with all the other similar incidents of abuse here.

The reason I am targeted so heavily for this is because unlike 90% of the people who make these complaints, I have an extensive trade history here with good ratings, making it very difficult for them to marginalize me as a scammer or sock puppet, so they have to resort to attacking my reputation, or threatening administrative action. This is also part of their strategy to bait me into having an off topic discussion so they can then report me and get my posts removed, as well as potentially ban me.




I posted here in this thread because I find it relevant as I see many of the same patterns of behavior happening against tspacepilot. Yes he is very vocal, but considering the fact that the system is design to narrow his options to practically nothing except making posts, as long as he is not abusively spamming up the forum with endless topics, he should be allowed to talk for as long as he likes regardless if anyone likes it or not. In reality, this isn't hurting anyone.

I find the fact that Badbear is trying to limit his ability to speak is telling and behavior I recognise from my own interactions when my words became inconvenient for him. When you catch his ire suddenly all kinds of rules that were never a problem before suddenly need to be enforced. As I said previously not only was I threatened with a permaban several times for being "off topic", even in my own threads, he even blocked me from sending him PMs in spite of the fact I have only sent him a handful of messages the entire time I have been here. He is just that annoyed with me and will do anything he can get away with to take punitive action in order to get me to shut up and tow the line. I find people here in general don't give a shit about anything until it effects them personally, or they can get some kind of entertainment value out of it, and I don't see any reason why this case is any different.

As far as Tomatocage, I find his ratings are usually accurate, and he is reasonable in general, but unfortunately he does not apply the same careful attitude to his trust list. This is not the first time TC has given authority to trust system abusers and allowed them to continue with their behavior.

[tspacepilot]

[snip]
As far as Tomatocage, I find his ratings are usually accurate, and he is reasonable in general, but unfortunately he does not apply the same careful attitude to his trust list. This is not the first time TC has given authority to trust system abusers and allowed them to continue with their behavior.

I have to admit that I don't trade on here and I don't really keep up with who's a scammer and who's not a scammer.  I do try to warn people to be careful when I see people talking about doing some thing foolish.  I'm saying this in order to emphasize that I don't really know much about tomatocage as a whole.  I have had very limited interaction with him.  What stands out to me very starkly is the difference between this interaction and the last time.  (The PMs are posted upthread on like page 1 or 2 if you're intersted.)  Last time he was very cordial and made a big effort to tell QS that he needed to be sure that he wasn't putting up personal vengence ratings---within less than 24 hours he was able to convince QS (somehow) to change his slanderous ratings on me to neutrals.   When I saw that QS had returned his false ratings to negatives after being kicked of TC's list, I thought "oh well".  When I saw that TC had readded QS, I honestly expected that things would go as before, that TC would tell QS that he needed to fix his shit in order to be allowed on default trust.  I was quite shocked to find the PM block.  To me, it seems very suspicious.  And I realize that this is speculative, but given QS's open threat against me only 2 days before being readded and given QS' selling of some account on default trust and combining that with the stark contrast between TC's behavior this time and his behavior last time, I have to wonder if this is the same TC.

[TECSHARE]

This is a strategy often used by those in control of the default trust list to protect their pals. They wag their finger at them, remove them for a short time, then re-add them again knowing no one will listen to the complaints a second time. VOD loved taking this strategy with his own ratings removing them after public pressure is applied, then adding them back later after everyone moves on.

[Quickseller]

This is a strategy often used by those in control of the default trust list to protect their pals. They wag their finger at them, remove them for a short time, then re-add them again knowing no one will listen to the complaints a second time. VOD loved taking this strategy with his own ratings removing them after public pressure is applied, then adding them back later after everyone moves on.

I'm sorry, but who else besides myself has ever been added to Default Trust Network after being removed? The only other example I can think of is TBZ, however he was put back on because he had removed the negative rating that got him removed in the first place.

[TECSHARE]

VOD was temporarily removed by one or two people who were responsible for him being on the default trust. He was never completely removed, but then he was quietly re-added later by some of these same people. Additionally I explained how this strategy was used to abuse the trust system by the individual abusers themselves. It is a process of temporary appeasement until the crowd stops looking, then continuing with the same abusive policies once they are not.

[tspacepilot]

UPDATE:

Private talks with Quickseller to try to resolve this 6 month long trust-abuse saga have ostensibly broken-down.  QS has not replied to a simple request that he explain his negative feedback.  I honestly don't know the etiquette with respect to prosting private messages, so I won't do that unless QS has okayed it.  Instead, I'll simply summarize the conversation.  If QS objects to this characterization, then hopefully he'll allow me to simply publish his messages and my replies.  What I'm doing for the moment is trying to summarize his replies without quoting them, and I'm publishing my comments to him in full.

My first message to QS:

Hi QS,

I have a feeling this won't work, but I thought I should at least try PMing you to see if there's something we can work out privately.

Can we end this nonsense? I think you know in your heart that I never did anything wrong and that I'm no danger to anyone.  What can we do to stop this?

--TSP

2) QS replies that "the fact" that I've stolen from coinchat means others must be warned about me.  And he says something about paying back one of TF's victims as some sort of retribution.

snip QS quote

If you have "determined" this, then you have fooled yourself because in fact, I never stole anything from coinchat.

snip QS quote

Calling it intimidation isn't helping.  I'm merely doing exactly what I've been doing for the last six months, which is trying to defend myself from your smear attack.  Surely you realize that you can make a mistake.  I hope you'll look harder at the facts and consider your own reputation here.  Hanging on to this personal grudge isn't going to make you look better.  If anything, I'd call what you were doing to me intimidation (you've not only called me a millon bad names, you've threatened and intimidated me with multiple accounts.

I could really make the same argument to you that you're making to me---that people should be warned of the kind of intimidation and smear tactics that you've used on me.  But if you look at what everyone is saying to you, they're asking that we drop this.  I can't drop it if you won't leave me alone.

Lets end the nonsense, please.  How long will this have to go on, for years?  It's been half a year already.  I won't stop talking about this publically until you withdraw the false accusation.  I don't want to have to keep defending myself forever.  Please, it's time to listen to reason.

I hope you'll consider this.

--TSP

4) QS replies that if I can explain or have someone else explain how I didn't steal from coinchat then he will remove his rating.  He brings up the fact that he offered money to have someone explain to him how I didn't steal from coinchat.  He says he thinks I will always troll him.  He says he will not remove his rating for no reason. 

My reply:

snip QS quote

I think you and both know that this was you attempting to make a mockery of me.  I really wish you would drop the theatrics.  The idea of talking privately is that you don't have to show off and you can be honest and hopefully we can solve this problem.

snip QS quote calling me a troll

Personally, I find you to be a disgusting individual on some sort of power trip.   However, it's not my calling in this world to fix all the problematic people I encounter.  And you'll note that while your character traits make me think that you are a dangerous person that people should avoid dealing with, I'm not running around saying you are a scammer when I have zero evidence that you have scammed.

My goal in using this forum is to try to learn about bitcoin and cryptography, to help others when I can (as others have helped me), to find small jobs here and there (I have other work, but side jobs for bitcoin are a nice way to acquire some).  Crucially, I'm quite tired of having to deal with lies and lies and more lies being spread about me.

I also think that you know that you are the one who started this with me.  You and I both know that one day, out of the blue, you logged into the dadice thread as acctseller and started saying that you were going to have me kicked out.  I've always assumed that you did this because you didn't like me calling you out as a hothead.  If there is honestly some other reason why you started this, I think it would be great if you would tell me.  However, if you don't want to talk about that, I'm not trying to press you on it.  My goal here is to find out how to appease you so that you will leave me alone.

snip QS quote

Again, I wish you would explain how you came to this conclusion that I'm a scammer. In fact, I've never scammed anyone and I do my best to warn others about scams when I see them.  It's my belief that you don't actually think that I'm a scammer but that you were annoyed at me for insulting your temper.  I believe that you went looking for some dirt to hold against me, and latched onto TF's false accusation.  But at the end of the day, you and I both know that TF's word isn't credible.  I know this in a very personal way because he falsely accused me long before he stole everyone's money and ran away.  You say you are not taking his word for it, but what are you taking?  I really think that you explaining this in some rational way is important.

snip QS quote asking me to explain myself to him

Again, I think it would be real starting point for this discussion if you could explain how you think that you know that I did scam coin chat.  I was there, I know that I didn't scam.  I don't think you were there so I have no idea how you think you have any knowledge of that situation.

The best I've been able to come up with is that you've been repeating "tspacepilot is a scammer" so many times to yourself that you're starting to believe it as some kind of mantra or unthinking truth.  I know that I've been very aggressive and public in trying to defend myself against you and this must have set you into a defensive mode yourself.  Now, no one is looking, it's time for you to engage your cognitive brain once again and consider the facts here.  Please.

Again, I'm pleading with you that you'll think hard about this and listen to the reason of your peers.   Everyone on the forum now is clamouring for you to be done with this.  Ask yourself this, man: if I am so obviously a scammer, then why on earth is it the case that you are literally the only one who is neg-repping me other than TradeFortress.  Do you really feel like you have some sort of insight that no one else who looked into this can see?  If so, what is it?  Why is everyone else missing it?

Please don't just reply calling me a scammer again.  Please reply with some comment about why you think I'm a scammer so that I can address that.  I know I'm not a scammer and I honestly have no idea why you think I am (to be completely honest, I've always assumed that you don't really belive it yourself but were just using TF's attack as a way to try to smear me---so if you really do believe I am a scammer, it's time to say why you think so).  It's really not possible for me to address your issue until you speak up about what it is.

Best,

--TSP

I never heard back from him after this.  3 days later, however, I wrote to him again:

Dear Quickseller,

If you're working on a long reply then please take your time, I will be patient.   If you're planning on not replying then maybe you could at least let me know why.

I'm really trying to avoid going back to the public fighting which I find quite useless.  I hope that you feel the same way and you're willing to work this out.  At the end of the day, however, if you refuse to talk privately about this then what recourse do I have other than to go back to the public to try to set the record straight.

To clarify, what we're waiting on is for you to say in concrete terms how it is that you think you know what happened at coinchat in 2012.

Best,

--TSP

Now, several more days have passed and I still haven't heard from him.  I think that leaves me with no choice but to go back to the sisyphean task of asking the rest of default trust (and others) to look closely at this matter.  Quickseller has left me a negative feedback which interferes with my ability to use the forum and he is on default trust.  He literally refuses to explain his rating.

Furthermore, it's quite a shame that three topics have to be shoved into one thread, but the other two topics here are also crucial:

Quickseller is trust-spamming me, having left 3 negative feedbacks from 3 accounts.  This is a bannable offense in other threads, why is QS allowed to use sockpuppetry to continue his smear campaign against me?  More to the point, why is someone who does this kind of thing on the default trust list?

Tomatocage is normally quote judicious and fair with his ratings, but he is literally vouching for this abusive behavior.  Why is he so nonchalant about the damaging behavoir that's being perpetrated in his name?

I also note that I have written to a collection of 7 mods/staffs/default-trusters about this issue 3 weeks ago and I have not received a single reply.

What can I do to resolve this?  Am I going to have to spend the entirety of 2015 fighting against Quickseller abuse?  How can you guys go on supporting someone who behaves in this way?  Let's bring it back to the beginning, what started here is that I told quickseller he was being and asshole for calling people idiots who disagreed with him.  I told him this is not the way to behave.  6 months later i have 3 negative feedbacks from 3 of his accounts and he has been promoted to default trust.  (Note that I have asked QS to please let me know if there's some other motivation for this, he has not replied).  Note clearly that I am not trying to get onto any trust list, I never trade on here and my goal is simply to stand up for myself in this random, abusive attack from a guy that at this point, bitcointalk default-trust is vouching for.   Why are you guys supporting this terrible, childish, vindictive behavior?  If QS cannot explain his magical knowledge of something that happened on coinchat in 2013, something which no other forum member who was active at the time took issue with, how is it okay for him to use that as a proxy for starting some kind of a sock-puppet smear attack that's now lasted half a year?

It's time to end this issue, if QS cannot explain himself, default trusters needs to exclude him.

[BrianM]

Why don't you and Quickseller shake hand and make up. Endless strems of text and explanations. I doubt anybody read it. Come on, life is too short for this type of fights.

Make love not war <3

[tspacepilot]

This is a strategy often used by those in control of the default trust list to protect their pals. They wag their finger at them, remove them for a short time, then re-add them again knowing no one will listen to the complaints a second time. VOD loved taking this strategy with his own ratings removing them after public pressure is applied, then adding them back later after everyone moves on.

I'm sorry, but who else besides myself has ever been added to Default Trust Network after being removed? The only other example I can think of is TBZ, however he was put back on because he had removed the negative rating that got him removed in the first place.

Interestingly, you had to remove a false negative rating in order to be added, then after being removed, you replaced the rating which you originally had to remove in order to be added.  It sounds a little like the opposite of TBZ's situation.  It certainly is a curious situation that TC allows the false rating to stand this second time around.  I can't explain it and TC's only comment on it suggests apathy.

Why don't you and Quickseller shake hand and make up. Endless strems of text and explanations. I doubt anybody read it. Come on, life is too short for this type of fights.

Make love not war <3

BrainM:  I'd love nothing more than this.  QS has no real grudge against me (that I can tell).  And I have no real grudge against him (other than his attack on me).  I'm standing here holding out an olive branch and asking him to stop and fix this (really for his own good as much as for mine).  But if he's not going to withdrawal his attack, what can I do but continue to draw attention to it.

I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that it's time for him to end this.  But I have to emphasize, he's the aggressor here, not me.

What would you do if you were in my situation, BrianM?  Imagine that QS suddently turned on you and started neg-repping you left-and-right using sockpuppets and false charges, what would you do?

[BrianM]

What would you do if you were in my situation, BrianM?  Imagine that QS suddently turned on you and started neg-repping you left-and-right using sockpuppets and false charges, what would you do?

I would turn off the computer, open a bottle of rum, smoke a cigg and say fuck' it.

Hope you guys find a way to bury the hatchet. Peace, over and out.

[tspacepilot]

What would you do if you were in my situation, BrianM?  Imagine that QS suddently turned on you and started neg-repping you left-and-right using sockpuppets and false charges, what would you do?

I would turn off the computer, open a bottle of rum, smoke a cigg and say fuck' it.

Hope you guys find a way to bury the hatchet. Peace, over and out.

BrianM: maybe you would.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what QS expected me to do about 5 months ago.  As far as I can tell, he makes his way to the top by slashing and burning and not looking back.  I believe he thought he could smear me off of the forum and just use me as another stepping stone in his power-trip.  I'm pretty convinced he's a dangerous guy.  But anyway, I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of just going away.  If he's going to persist in throwing false accusations that even he can't explain, using sockpuppets to bump my negative feedback once every two months, etc, then I'm going to have to persist in calling him out.

His stated goal when he started this with me was to get me kicked off a signature ad campaign.  Again, I ask you, would you really let some random guy who buys and sells (default trust) accounts hurt your hero account in the pocketbook?  You would just say fuckit?  I guess I'm not willing to let him get away with it and while I'm sorry that I have to drag everyone else into this, it's really the default trusters who are vouching for his behavior who ought to answer this thread.

Still, I'll register you as yet another in the long list of people asking QS to listen to reason and drop the false accusations (or at least explain them).

[TECSHARE]

Why don't you and Quickseller shake hand and make up. Endless strems of text and explanations. I doubt anybody read it. Come on, life is too short for this type of fights.

Make love not war <3

This sums up the problem with asking people on the default trust to help in situations like this. No one gives a shit unless it personally affects them, and they will not risk their position on the default trust or their reputation to do what they know is right because they know these people will attack them as well. Like a Mexican standoff they all have their guns pointed at eachother, so they all tow the line right or wrong.

It is like a perfect recipe for nepotism. All the ones on the default trust have all the sticks and all the carrots, so they literally have zero incentive to enforce uniform rules. You have no problem telling people with no sticks or carrots to just let it go after they have been whipped with that stick for no reason though when literally their only option for resolution is to make such disputes public. If you don't like seeing these public disputes, then maybe it is time to change the trust system and time to support the removal of the default trust list. It is pretty shitty to suggest people just let it go after the trust system literally gives them zero influence in the first place, and those with influence actively use it as a tool of retribution.