-snip-
Please take a moment to read the OP and consider whether it's okay that tomatocage can reply to me
The post in question by tomatocage is on topic for the given thread.
I think you're reading more into QS's messages than there actually is. Hexcoin's primary concern is not that he and his alt accounts were discovered -- it's how they were discovered and how he might avoid this with his next round of accounts.
#directly towards the threads main topic
I don't have any more say over what QS writes than I do over which way the wind blows, but while he may offend some people, I much prefer that situation than the one where scammers slip through the cracks and end up stealing peoples' money. I hope you understand this.
#More general, but still within the threads topic (why does QS give me bad rating).
This is a general reply to a topic you consider yourself personally involved and thus feel[1] addressed.
in that thread but I cannot reply to him asking him to move his reply to another thread.
-snip-
Lets see your part now:
I appreciate your reply. I surely wouldn't have even thought twice about QS' mockery and taunting if it weren't the case that I'm still suffering from it myself (after 5 months). You suggest that the only wrong he's doing is offending people. Let me ask you directly, is it okay that he's also using alt account to leave multiple sockpuppet trust ratings on my account? That seems a lot more shady than just being mean. And, while I have your attention, one more question if I may, what happened to the idea that people on your trust list shouldn't be leaving trust ratings vindicitively and without evidence? In my case, he's not only called me all kinds of mean names for months, he's left me a false rating which he refuses to explain.
This is about you and your case. Almost everything here is offtopic as you have a thread about it. You dont get the answers you want, but that does not make it ok to hijack other topics that might be related. The only part that is within the threads topic IMHO is the one in italics as you address what you perceive as a change of politics in the way tomatocage handles things. Yet you quickly come back to your personal case.
If he can't explain it and you trust him, perhaps you can explain it? If you can't explain it, maybe it's time to look at what kind of people you're trusting.
IMHO still offtopic and focused on you, but that might be because I see references to the written above that are not intended.
Given the large group of "scambusters" who seem to be able to constrain themselves to addressing situations where some actual shady behavior that has occurred, why would you add someone to your trust list who leaves negative ratings just because he doesn't like someone? And worse, someone who goes to shady methods of using alts and sockpuppets in order to try to disguise what he was doing?
I have the feeling (sic) that this is right along your personal rating and you would not have written this without your personal involvement. Sure that is just speculation, but I think you can see how it can be seen that way in the light of what you wrote above. Its a complete paragraph it would be very unlikely if you switched topic in the middle.
Surely you've seen the situations with worhipper (in which he neg-repped someone for simply refusing to do business with him), or the one of ndnhc (in which he apparantely tried to use an alt to frame him to give him negative trust---quite similar to what he did to me using his ACCTSeller alt, which wasn't at the time exposed as one of his alts). Or there's the whole deal with the dadice people, somehow dooglus, Shorena, DiamondCardz seem to have been able to write feedbacks like "refuses to show cold wallet", whereas QS shows up once a week in the dadice thread and trolls and shouts about how its a scam site (except that there hasn't been any scam, and no one else seem to feel the need to go to such extreme measures and tactics). Surely you're aware of all this, right? These are just cases I happen to have run across for one reason or another, I'm not spending any time trying to follow around QS and see how many others of his "scambusting" situations are actually just smear campaigns.
And after some examples we are back at Quickseller and the way they leave ratings. The whole paragraph can IMHO be considered offtopic as it is hardly about the rating towards Hexcoin or their question (
can I see the proofs plox? Your proof is bs!!!111)
But, then again, maybe we should go ahead and have this conversation in the proper thread (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.0). If you wouldn't mind, I think I'm owed and explanation to these questions, and there's a thread that you and QS seem to have been ignoring with all your might just next door. I apologize if I seem a little irritated, it's just that I kinda am. I apologize if you feel like I've hijacked this conversation. I admit that I'm quite frustrated at the lack of replies from the involved parties in my own situation and the mocking tone of QS was all too familiar. Seeing how well Shorena was able to handle the inquiry, I thought I would offer him my plaudits while trying to ask people to contrast that with the bile of Quickseller.
Will you please reply here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.0 so that we can continue this conversation in the proper place? Or, send me a PM so that we can chat privately? Assuming you are the same person I communicated with under the username tomatocage 2 months ago, I would have thought we would have resolved this privately right off the bat.
Best,
--TSP
EDIT:
PS: I just wanted to add that I don't really understand what you stand to gain by ignoring my thread and my concerns and refusing to communicate with me. It seems to me that if we talk about this, we may successfully resolve the situation. If we don't talk about this, the situation just continues to drag on and on and on, and as far as I can tell, it makes people trusting quickseller look very bad because they refuse to address this concern. I understand why Quickseller refuses to reply or address this, as his current status quo is acceptable to him; he's back on the trust list and his slander stands and if he has to try to explain it, it just draws attention to it when he can't do so. But for you guys who are trusting him, it seems like your vested interest would be to resolve the issue. You don't stand to lose any credibility by addressing the issue, and it seems like you do stand to lose credibiilty by avoiding it.
Hopefully we will talk soon.
Straight offtopic, you even address it yourself.
I hope you have read until here, because reading what I wrote again it might come off harsh. Its not intendet to be that way, but I also dont see a reason to sugar coat it. This post is about your single post and not about your overal case, lets try and keep them separated.
[1] this is of course my interpretation as well as everything else regarding your feelings or those of other people.
