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

[Blazed]

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.

Never really got why you were so upset with the DT list as it never really hurt your score or anything. Being in the trusted network does not make any difference for your trades (you have excellent history... and I have, and would send to you without escrow any day of the week). What do you expect other DT members to do for him? QS is added by TC and BadBear - they are the only ones who can help.

Back on topic:

Your situation is unique tspacepilot with that scam accusation from so long ago. I can not really say if you scammed TF or not back then, but it does sort of look like you did. Back then TF was not so questionable so his ratings were pretty valid for most of us at that time. I personally would not have left you a negative, but I am not really a scam buster here either. QS does do a good job with scammers here so I do feel he is good for the DT network. He does sometime ruffle some feathers (as expected for what he does). I think you have done pretty much all you can do in this situation. You have also handled it very well by keeping your cool, and overall you seem pretty legit to me. I think you getting a neutral rating from him would be a good call for both parties as everyone here is pretty aware of what went down back then. Anyways good luck with all this.

[1714637600]

1714637600

[1714637600]

1714637600

[1714637600]

1714637600

[tspacepilot]

[snip]
What do you expect other DT members to do for him? QS is added by TC and BadBear - they are the only ones who can help.

Anyone on default trust who sees this kind of abuse going on can add ~Quickseller to their trust lists and that fixes the problem.  TC is the only one vouching for his bad behavior at this point.  There may be some kind of gentleman's agreement on the default trust list not to question each other's judgment, I don't know.

Back on topic:

Your situation is unique tspacepilot with that scam accusation from so long ago. I can not really say if you scammed TF or not back then, but it does sort of look like you did. Back then TF was not so questionable so his ratings were pretty valid for most of us at that time.

That may be the case.  However, what actually happened on coinchat so many years ago is that I was working on an answerbot for the first time, with TF's explicit help. I was new to asynchronous coding and something went down which made TF think I was trying to scam him.  I reached out to him to try to figure out what happened but all I got from him was "pay me back __ BTC or go to hell".  As the figure of BTC he was demanding changed literally every time he asked, I certainly was not very amenable to this.  On several occasions he was asking for more BTC than I even had to my name, it was clearly not calculated or careful in any way and I wasn't even sure what had happened.  I tried to ask him how he was coming up with these numbers but he would not talk to me.  So, that was that, we walked away from it.  Two years later you can see what kind of person he was and I'd like to say that you can see what kind of person I am.

I personally would not have left you a negative

 In fact, nobody at the time who reviewed the discussion thread gave me a negative except for Tradefortress himself.  This stood as my only negative until 6 months ago, when QS decided to try to murder my account.  Since then, I've received 3 more negatives, all from him.

, but I am not really a scam buster here either. QS does do a good job with scammers here so I do feel he is good for the DT network.

 Does he actually do a good job with scammers?  I know he self-promotes like crazy.  It's not hard to find him tooting his own horn every 10 posts or so and whenever he gets kicked off of default trust he shouts about how many people have been scammed because he's not on the default list.  However, I haven't seen any definitive proof that he's actually catching anyone.  I know that he echoes whatever negative ratings other people come up with.  But when it comes to his own "discoveries" it seems there are more false positives than actual scammers.  See the case with ndnhc, who he neg-repped twice and twice was proven wrong.  See the case with worhipper, where he neg-repped a guy just for refusing to work with him.  As far as I've seen, every single time that QS was the one coming up with the neg-rep, it has turned out to be either a mistake or else it was a newbie who clearly decided that it's impossible to try to war with QS and they merely created another account.  I think I'm the first person to try to stand up to him for my own reputation and you can see where it's gotten me: 6 months of trolling and sockpuppet ratings.  You say this is good for the DT network?!

He does sometime ruffle some feathers (as expected for what he does). I think you have done pretty much all you can do in this situation. You have also handled it very well by keeping your cool, and overall you seem pretty legit to me. I think you getting a neutral rating from him would be a good call for both parties as everyone here is pretty aware of what went down back then.

I think it's important to note that last time TC added him, QS was forced to change his rating on me to neutral in order to be put onto TCs list.  It's very strange to me that TC was so proactive in fixing this the first time and so absentee this time. 

Anyway, I do appreciate you weighing in.  And I guess I can add your name to the ever-increasing list of people calling for QS to end this.  As far as I can tell, nearly everyone on the forum is now falling into three distinct classes:

1) People calling for QS to end these shenanigans.
2) People who are ignoring the thread (Tomatocage, Badbear, Quickseller)
3) People who don't care and never will.r

Crucially, I can't seem to find anyone in a fourth class who is saying that QS is right, that it's okay for him to use sockpuppets to neg-rep many times, that he should keep his false rating against me until the end of time.  For me, the most shocking thing is that someone who acts as QS has acted could be put on any trusted list.  Anyone who looks at this case can see what QS was doing here, he went after me with a vengence because I called him a hothead and and asshole.  I said to him directly that he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him and his response was to open an all-out arms race against me.  You guys remember the original scenario, right?  He logged in as his alt, "ACCTSeller" and threatened me,  then he went trolling through my past looking for something to hold against me.  He finally found the Tradefortress negative and necrobumped a 2 year old thread on it with ACCTSeller so that he could log back in as Quickseller and "find" this necrobump and neg-rep me with his main account.  It's crucial to realize that this was before ACCTSeller was outed as a QS alt.  Does this kind of dirtly little sockpuppet game really fit with someone on default trust?  Logging in as an alt to make threats and do dirty work just to log back in as a trusted account and "find" the problems discovered by the alt.   I have to admit, when I saw him doing this, and all of it based on the word of a known scammer Tradefortress, I basically thought to myself "well, he made a mistake there, his reputation is going down the tubes for this one".  The clear vengence, the lack of any wrong by me, the lack of any prompt to attack me, and all of this for nearly a half-a-year and somehow people are putting him onto a default trust list?!  To me, this seems absolutely nuts.

Nevertheless, I'm not out to fix all of the problems of the world, I'm merely fighting for my own reputation against a false accusation and a smear campaign that has lasted waaaaay too long.

Anyways good luck with all this.

Again, thanks Blazedout419.  I wonder if you could send QS a PM and try to get him to listen to reason.  As I posted above, he will not talk to me, apparantely.  He has posted in the past that he respects you so perhaps you can place the peacemaker here as Tomatocage is apparantely not interested in fixing the collateral damage he's causing at this point.

[TECSHARE]

Never really got why you were so upset with the DT list as it never really hurt your score or anything. Being in the trusted network does not make any difference for your trades (you have excellent history... and I have, and would send to you without escrow any day of the week). What do you expect other DT members to do for him? QS is added by TC and BadBear - they are the only ones who can help.

I expect people on the default trust to not just stand by silently while this kind of abuse goes on. Usually it is the complete opposite and they join in on the abuse to earn themselves brown nose points, and occasionally actual positive trust. The default trust is a broken system pretending to be distributed while in reality operating for a centralized position of authority unwilling to enforce or publish uniform rules of use, and some times actively participating in the abuse. I don't think other users would be allowed to use multiple alts to spam a users trust, and people have been removed for far less.

Being on the default trust is like a magnet for money, because people have a direct incentive to trade with those on the default trust in order to increase their own ratings, but that would be invisible to you if you don't trade or until you are removed from it. Additionally, when you are on the default trust list it increases the number of ratings that are counted as positive towards your total visible green rating because of the people in your own trust network rating you (making you appear to be a more appealing trading partner). Then if that is not enough centralized control, all it takes is two high ranked users to make sure no one else can add you to the default trust. That doesn't sound at all decentralized system of merit to me, it sounds more like a political party where those that speak up suddenly find themselves on the outside with little or no explanation.

People who are on the default trust list will not open their mouths when they see abuse like this, because as I said it is like a Mexican standoff, no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out for something that doesn't directly affect them. As a result the system is abused over and over, and no one gives a shit until they are the target, then they get ignored like everyone else does. The ones who have influence are afraid of losing it, and the ones who don't are completely dismissed. This is exactly what is happening in tspacepilot's case.

Since the introduction of neutral ratings, I see no excuse whatsoever for people on the default trust being allowed to throw negatives around like candy without some kind of factual basis or personal involvement in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The excuse of warning other users of potential issues holds no water any more, because a neutral rating can achieve that perfectly well. The "trust list" no longer has anything to do with trust, but is simply a popularity contest and a ranking of the biggest ball-washers, because anyone who doesn't polish those balls gets removed or excluded at the drop of a hat regardless of how long they have been trading, how much they have been trusted with, or how honestly they transact.

[tspacepilot]

People who are on the default trust list will not open their mouths when they see abuse like this, because as I said it is like a Mexican standoff, no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out for something that doesn't directly affect them. As a result the system is abused over and over, and no one gives a shit until they are the target, then they get ignored like everyone else does. The ones who have influence are afraid of losing it, and the ones who don't are completely dismissed. This is exactly what is happening in tspacepilot's case.

It does seem like this is exactly what's going on.  Not a single peep from anyone high up in the trust list on this---despite the fact that it's clear abuse.  Only a few brave souls who are daring to sheepishly say "why don't you guys just shake hands and make up" (well folks, I'd like this as much as you would).

I've sent a message to high-ups and mods, not a single reply.

Here's what everyone else gets told when they cry trust abuse: "don't worry, just bring it up in meta, the person will fix it or they won't be on default trust for long".

Here's what's going on with me: Quickseller is ignoring this thread with all his might because he really can't explain his behavior.  As you said, no one else will step up because apparantely there's some kind of gentlemans agreement that you don't fuck with someone else's trust choices.

Without retyping the whole saga, the current state of affairs is that everyone who is willing to speak up is calling for Quickseller to stop this behavior.  Quickseller is ignoring this thread and my reasonable request that he explain his negative feedback, that he consolodate his sockpuppet ratings, and that he leave me alone.

If you weren't completely flabberghasted that this guy is allowed to do this to someone with no accountability, you might or might not find it shocking that it quite shocking that someone who engages in such puerille and vindictive shenanigans would be put into a position of responsibility.

After all of this, if his behavior is somehow defensible, why won't he speak up to defend it?  If those who trust him really vouch for his actions, why won't they speak up?


EDIT: OP updated to include list of people calling for Quickseller to end this.  If you're brave enough to publically call for Quickseller to end this saga of childishness, feel free to PM me or post in the thread and I can add your quote to the OP.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Like I said in my earlier posts, I think QS should change negative feedback to neutral. If he suspects tsp that much, it is probably better for him to keep an eye on tsp. But for now, although tsp did withdraw those coins, he is not worthy for a negative trust feedback/score.

[tspacepilot]

Thanks again MZ.  I believe I included you in the list of quotes in the OP.

The only think I have to take issue with is this:

Like I said in my earlier posts, I think QS should change negative feedback to neutral. If he suspects tsp that much, it is probably better for him to keep an eye on tsp. But for now, although tsp did withdraw those coins, he is not worthy for a negative trust feedback/score.

In fact, if TradeFortress had been able to talk calmly and rationally about whatever mistake happened when I was working on the bot with his approval, we might have been able to figure out if there were actually any coins which I should have returned.  What actually happened was that he demanded varying random amounts (including amounts I didn't even have to my name) so there was no way to figure out if he was actually interested in making this right or if he was just trying to blackmail me.  Because I couldn't figure this out, there was no way to move forward.  Nearly three years later, we know what kind of person he was and I think people can imagine why I wasn't able to work with him.

I hope that if people keep on unanimously calling for a resolution to this, eventually QS and Tomatocage will have to address it.

Since you're here, I wonder if you'd like to comment on one of the other outstanding issues.  For example, do you think it's okay that QS is using sockpuppets to leave me many negative feedbacks?

[tspacepilot]

I believe we're allowed a daily bump on these types of issues.  Mods, please correct me if this is wrong, I'm not trying to cause trouble.

However, I can't really understand how someone on default trust is allowed to use sockpuppetry to trust-spam me with alts, is allowed to accuse me based on the word of a known liar, and is not required to explain himself.

As someone said to me in a private message recently "I don't know how to deal with quickseller, either he has a valid response to my points or he ignores them".  We can see which mode he's in now.

It's quite clear that he wishes this would just go away without having to explain himself---I can imagine why he doesn't want to be drawn into this.  But then again, if he can't explain his negative rating and everyone is calling for him to remove it (see list of extensive quotes in the OP) then isn't that a clear case of abuse?  Why will no mod or staff speak up?  Is techshare right that there's some sort of backroom club whereby no one on default trust will ever cross another one publically.

To refresh everyone's memory, the last question addressed to quickseller was this:

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

It's been nearly a week and a half.  If Quickseller has some sort of extra-sensory perception to see into my mind and my actions back in 2012 such that he knows what I did better than I know myself, isn't it time for him to go ahead and tell us how this is the case?  It's been a week and a half, surely he can at least speak up and say something.

If Quickseller refuses to take responsibilty for his smear attack (and you'll note how he's never once addressed the issue of his trust-spamming alts), isn't it time for a mod to question his role on default trust?

I don't want this to go on forever, but QS simply shouldn't be allowed to wage this kind of unrepentant war on someone for so many months using so many accounts without having to say something for himself.

[ndnh]

I do believe tspacepilot deserve to get the negative trust feedback removed and QS has not been right in doing this.

Edit: Post was restored.

[tspacepilot]

I guess it's time for me to do my regularly scheduled bump of this discussion back to the top.

Mods, isn't there a thing where someone abusing the trust system is supposedly supposed to be required to make some sort of answer to an accusation that his ratings is abusive?

Here we have a guy who would not explain his rating either in PM or in this thread.  And he's left sockpuppet ratings too.  Quickseller, I can see that you're trying to avoid explaining yourself, please look at the OP of this thread and consider doing the reasonable thing that everyone is calling for you to do.

It's time to listen to reason and walk away from this stupid attack on me.  You may get away with this for a time, but this kind of action isn't going to help you or your reputation in the long run.



Even more shocking, apprantely the mods are disallowing people to comment in this thread now.  ndnhc wrote to me in a PM that the tried to post this in the thread, but was deleted by a mod?!

I do believe tspacepilot deserve to get the negative trust feedback removed and QS has not been right in doing this.

Those arguments before makes me convinces me that QS simply used a trust feedback as the next level of attack?

^^^Thanks, ndnhc, I'll add your post to the ever-growing list of quotes in the OP.  I hope that QS will start listening to reason soon.  @mods, why would you delete such content?

[BitcoinEXpress]

@tspacepilot


You thread title is misleading.

Everyone is not calling QS to end your imaginary war.

You're just pissed over some well earned negative feedback.

It might have been two years later you were indeed running bots on Coinchat.

You got caught, deal with it.


~BCX~

[dooglus]

I think the negative feedback should be removed. It appears that tsp made attempts to resolve the old coinchat issue with tradefortress at the time, but that tradefortress was unwilling to discuss it.

I'm now told that tsp has been banned from posting on this forum for 5 days. That also seems unfair, but I'm sure I don't have the full story.

Is there more to this than the bullying of tsp? What's the motivation for banning him like this?

[subSTRATA]

I think the negative feedback should be removed. It appears that tsp made attempts to resolve the old coinchat issue with tradefortress at the time, but that tradefortress was unwilling to discuss it.

I'm now told that tsp has been banned from posting on this forum for 5 days. That also seems unfair, but I'm sure I don't have the full story.

Is there more to this than the bullying of tsp? What's the motivation for banning him like this?

maybe from QS's perspective, the fact that tsp tried to abuse coinchat in the first place is enough to warrant a lack of trust, but either way, there are multiple  threads started by tsp regarding this issue, which might be the cause for his ban.

It might have been two years later you were indeed running bots on Coinchat.

Everyone is not calling QS to end your imaginary war.

not everyone frankly cares all too much either, and yeah, there isnt a war, except in tsp's head.

[Quickseller]

I think the negative feedback should be removed. It appears that tsp made attempts to resolve the old coinchat issue with tradefortress at the time, but that tradefortress was unwilling to discuss it.

I'm now told that tsp has been banned from posting on this forum for 5 days. That also seems unfair, but I'm sure I don't have the full story.

Is there more to this than the bullying of tsp? What's the motivation for banning him like this?

In this post TF claimed that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew .5BTC from coinchat. As much as I dislike taking TF's word for anything, that was the only amount ever presented and tspacepilot never disputed the amount he stole (note: the conclusion that tspacepilot stole money from coinchat was based solely on statements made by tspacepilot and my understanding of the rules of coinchat, and the words of TF were relied upon 0%).

I had suggested to tspacepilot that he could return the money he stole from coinchat however he was not interested in discussing this but rather claimed that he never did anything wrong. (A very good explanation as to why it is appropriate to conclude that tspacepilot stole from coinchat is here.

Assuming that tspacepilot were to repay one of TF's victims (which I would highly doubt he will ever do based on his previous statements, and his apparent ethics), there would still be the issue that he used intimidation tactics to get m to remove my rating, which I am unsure how he can resolve. 

Regarding tspacepilot's ban: he was (most likely) banned for posting many off topic posts, derailing threads, and creating multiple/duplicate threads when the conversation of the first thread didn't go his way (he would lock threads when others did not agree with him), and overall trolling. He has been doing this for months and I would say that if this is his first ban for this behavior and if he was only banned for 5 days then he has gotten off very easy.

[shorena]

-snip-
Regarding tspacepilot's ban: he was (most likely) banned for posting many off topic posts,
-snip-

I talked to them and yes they have been banned for "offtopic posting". Nothing else. 5 days is a typical duration if BadBear is under the impression that something like this will not be needed again. I dont have a quote ready.

[dooglus]

In this post TF claimed that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew .5BTC from coinchat. As much as I dislike taking TF's word for anything, that was the only amount ever presented and tspacepilot never disputed the amount he stole (note: the conclusion that tspacepilot stole money from coinchat was based solely on statements made by tspacepilot and my understanding of the rules of coinchat, and the words of TF were relied upon 0%).

I had suggested to tspacepilot that he could return the money he stole from coinchat however he was not interested in discussing this but rather claimed that he never did anything wrong. (A very good explanation as to why it is appropriate to conclude that tspacepilot stole from coinchat is here.

As I remember it, coinchat was a site that paid you coins in exchange for posting chat. That's clearly a silly idea and will only lead to people posting nonsense to earn money. The incentives are all wrong and encourage just what you don't want on a chat site. It's much the same as companies running "signature campaigns" which pay forum users for each post they make. You end up with thousands of garbage posts and the quality of the forum drops as a result. In other words what you reward is what you get. TF was paying for chat, so he got it. And of course people are going to automate that if they can.

I don't think writing a bot to take advantage of a poorly thought out incentive scheme is "fraud" or "dishonest" and certainly doesn't require punishment years later. What needed fixing was the incentive scheme. Stop paying people to post crap and they will stop posting crap.

Regarding tspacepilot's ban: he was (most likely) banned for posting many off topic posts, derailing threads, and creating multiple/duplicate threads when the conversation of the first thread didn't go his way (he would lock threads when others did not agree with him), and overall trolling. He has been doing this for months and I would say that if this is his first ban for this behavior and if he was only banned for 5 days then he has gotten off very easy.

I don't spend enough time here to have noticed any of that (other than a bizarre tendency to defend DaDice, but that's probably a result of them paying him for his signature). Do you have URLs for offtopic posts?

Edit: tsp messaged me on Just-Dice as follows. If what he says is true it certainly doesn't sound like he is deserving of any kind of negative trust rating:

12:04:46 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> anyway, what he says is factually false, i did dispute the 0.5 and fwiw, that was one of the main sticking
                                          points in trying to resolve what happened
12:05:07 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> TF first said I owed him 1.5BTC, at the time, I only had like 0.4 or 0.5 to my name. so that was outlandish
12:05:26 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> then he changed it to 0.5, then he changed it o 0.54, i kept asking him where he was getting these numbers, but
                                          he wouldn't tell me.
12:05:55 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i don't know if you remember anything about coinchat, but it was a site where people chatting got rewards of
                                          tips at random moments.
12:06:08 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> there were many bots running services there for gambling and whatnot
12:06:31 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i was trying to learn about node and asynchronous programming and i started making a bot intended to look things
                                          up in the wikipedia
12:06:56 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> apparantely, at one moment, the bot was looping or something and it looked like an abuse.
12:07:20 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> TF banned me but because he wouldn't discuss with me about what happened from his end, how much the bot might
                                          have made (i estimate on the order ofa few ksat)
12:07:32 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i was never able to make it straight with him and that was basically that.
12:08:14 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i never had any other problems with anyone for the next 3 years (until QS came along) and did his thing where he
                                          was trying to dig up dirt with me in a thinly veiled attack using his at-the-time unrevealed alt ACCTSeller.

[Hazelnut]

The best solution is for TC to put TSP in his trusted list. That way both QS and TSP can fight between them on level ground and not trouble anyone else.

[erikalui]

As far as I read dooglus's post, the TM doesn't seem to have robbed any money from the website but he broke the TOS. Similarly there are many others who get fake referrals and fake views to their YouTube accounts and they get banned for the same. Banning them is the punishment they deserve but that doesn't make them a scammer. Just like spamming here earns a person a ban, the ban doesn't make the member a scammer nor can a person from another forum call the banned member a scammer or leave the person a negative trust because he was banned there. It's more like an unethical thing to do but isn't selling DT accounts too called unethical? I don't find anything different over here as one broke the TOS of a website (that isn't related to this forum neither can be accounted as scamming) while the other is taking a risk which can help scammers to scam newbies (on this forum itself). Who's wrong and who's right here? I support none.

[Quickseller]

In this post TF claimed that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew .5BTC from coinchat. As much as I dislike taking TF's word for anything, that was the only amount ever presented and tspacepilot never disputed the amount he stole (note: the conclusion that tspacepilot stole money from coinchat was based solely on statements made by tspacepilot and my understanding of the rules of coinchat, and the words of TF were relied upon 0%).

I had suggested to tspacepilot that he could return the money he stole from coinchat however he was not interested in discussing this but rather claimed that he never did anything wrong. (A very good explanation as to why it is appropriate to conclude that tspacepilot stole from coinchat is here.

As I remember it, coinchat was a site that paid you coins in exchange for posting chat. That's clearly a silly idea and will only lead to people posting nonsense to earn money. The incentives are all wrong and encourage just what you don't want on a chat site. It's much the same as companies running "signature campaigns" which pay forum users for each post they make. You end up with thousands of garbage posts and the quality of the forum drops as a result. In other words what you reward is what you get. TF was paying for chat, so he got it. And of course people are going to automate that if they can.

I don't think writing a bot to take advantage of a poorly thought out incentive scheme is "fraud" or "dishonest" and certainly doesn't require punishment years later. What needed fixing was the incentive scheme. Stop paying people to post crap and they will stop posting crap.

My understanding of coinchat, which was corroborated by others in this thread is that you were allowed to use bots, however if you did then the bot needed to post from an account with "bot" (all letters) in it in order to avoid receiving payment for messages from the bot.

The name of the account that tspacepilot's bot was posting from had the substring "b0t" (notice the number instead of the letter), which is something that I would argue shows malice on tspacepilot's part, as I believe it was designed to make a casual onlooker believe that it was properly named while the mechanism that excludes "bot" posts would be tricked into not excluding posts.

I would speculate that coinchat sold advertisements which were priced according to how many messages were written.

Regarding tspacepilot's ban: he was (most likely) banned for posting many off topic posts, derailing threads, and creating multiple/duplicate threads when the conversation of the first thread didn't go his way (he would lock threads when others did not agree with him), and overall trolling. He has been doing this for months and I would say that if this is his first ban for this behavior and if he was only banned for 5 days then he has gotten off very easy.

I don't spend enough time here to have noticed any of that (other than a bizarre tendency to defend DaDice, but that's probably a result of them paying him for his signature). Do you have URLs for offtopic posts?

Many of his off topic posts have been deleted (that is what happens to off topic posts), however he created two threads about posts of his that were deleted (one, two). In both of those posts, he even acknowledged that he was posting off topic in the post itself. There are others that have not been deleted if you really needed to see more.

Edit: tsp messaged me on Just-Dice as follows. If what he says is true it certainly doesn't sound like he is deserving of any kind of negative trust rating:

12:04:46 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> anyway, what he says is factually false, i did dispute the 0.5 and fwiw, that was one of the main sticking
                                          points in trying to resolve what happened
12:05:07 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> TF first said I owed him 1.5BTC, at the time, I only had like 0.4 or 0.5 to my name. so that was outlandish
12:05:26 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> then he changed it to 0.5, then he changed it o 0.54, i kept asking him where he was getting these numbers, but
                                          he wouldn't tell me.
12:05:55 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i don't know if you remember anything about coinchat, but it was a site where people chatting got rewards of
                                          tips at random moments.
12:06:08 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> there were many bots running services there for gambling and whatnot
12:06:31 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i was trying to learn about node and asynchronous programming and i started making a bot intended to look things
                                          up in the wikipedia
12:06:56 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> apparantely, at one moment, the bot was looping or something and it looked like an abuse.
12:07:20 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> TF banned me but because he wouldn't discuss with me about what happened from his end, how much the bot might
                                          have made (i estimate on the order ofa few ksat)
12:07:32 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i was never able to make it straight with him and that was basically that.
12:08:14 (1157905) <tsp> → (1) <@dooglus> i never had any other problems with anyone for the next 3 years (until QS came along) and did his thing where he
                                          was trying to dig up dirt with me in a thinly veiled attack using his at-the-time unrevealed alt ACCTSeller.

Based on what happened in thisthread, it looks like TF had originally claimed that 1.5BTC was stolen, and then here it was updated to .503BTC with the explanation that this was the amount that tspacepilot withdrew from coinchat, this matches the risked amount in tspacepilot's trust rating from TF. Later in the thread the .503 amount was generalized to .5, however I don't think this is truly a different amount. In this post, it was explained that the original 1.5 BTC amount was an estimate and that the .503 amount was accurate based on TF's records (again I do not like relying on what TF said, however I doubt that tspacepilot has any interest in paying back what he stole).

I don't see any other amounts that are claimed to have been stolen by tspacepilot and I do not see a .54 amount anywhere. I also do not see tspacepilot claim that he withdrew a lesser amount in the above thread, but rather was claiming that he was not allowed to receive a trust rating over something that happened outside of the forum.

Although I do believe that I can prove that tspacepilot had more then .5 btc at the time of the original claim against him, I am not going to do so because it is a red herring, plus I would hope that you would well know it is possible that anyone can have btc in addresses that are not known to others.

Tspacepilot is also grossly exaggerating how long ago the incident was. He had opened a thread complaining about the negative rating from TF in September 2013, and I originally left him a negative rating in April 2015 which is closer to 18 months later.

In the chat message that you posted, he seems to outright admit to withdrawing funds from coinchat that he was not entitled to. Only that he now says it was much less then claimed originally.

[shorena]

I was asked to add another point that I noticed in a recent exchange about this.

Quickseller you left negative ratings with several of your alt accounts. While they are not on default trust, I think its still considered spam.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
Since you're here, I wonder if you'd like to comment on one of the other outstanding issues. For example, do you think it's okay that QS is using sockpuppets to leave me many negative feedbacks?

TC should maintain his trust list and remove any user who abuses his/her power. I don't want QS to be removed from default trust list because he does a good job and I think that's why TC is not willing to remove him. Maybe TC can talk with QS but the best he can do is either tell QS his opinion or remove QS from his trust list. Latter is probably not gonna happen.

See below about QS' multiple feedbacks.

I was asked to add another point that I noticed in a recent exchange about this.

Quickseller you left negative ratings with several of your alt accounts. While they are not on default trust, I think its still considered spam.

I agree. IIRC, his explanation was that tsp does not deserve a negative trust score because of that feedback but still deserves negative feedback. IMHO, if he thinks his score should not be affected, that means that action does not deserve a negative feedback.

I suggest him to change negative feedback from QS to neutral and sum up other negative feedback in 1 neutral feedback and delete negative feedbacks.