QS Merit Source Application

[cryptohunter]

To those who are saying I will use my sMerit to my own alts, this is not only libelous but is illogical. I have demonstrated that I can earn merit with my own well thought out and insightful comments in my posts. There is no need for me to give merit to myself nor will I. I would request that anyone who has suggested this to either provide evidence of this implication or retract your statement.

And I would request that you publish a full list of all accounts that you've ever posted with on this forum and keep us updated when you acquire new ones.

You're a known liar, account farmer/trader/puppeteer, and scammer, so you shouldn't be surprised when these things are brought up in the context of asking to be trusted with a function that can be abused. We can keep an eye on you if you're appointed, but on the other hand - why bother scraping the bottom of the barrel when there are non-scammer applications still pending.

I do not think you suchmoon can bring these points up to prevent QS when you enable and support people who are proven liars, scam pushers, sock puppet sig spammers, probable extortionists who got busted and trust abusers on to DT directly? Actually you support/include ALL of them onto DT.

Thanks for again demonstrating clear double standards when it suits you, what an excellent member you are.

This post is highly relevant and on topic because it demonstrates that a counter argument and criticism to quicksellers application is invalid/ disingenuous  coming from this member suchmoon,  the readers of this thread must understand that suchmoons motives for denying QS are not because he wishes dishonest people kept from merit source and dt but rather only those that he does not collude directly with.

These things are very important to consider when you are reviewing such an application. It is fine to put up a reason for supporting or denying but these reasons will come under scrutiny when people want to reach the optimal solution.

[1715026607]

1715026607

[1715026607]

1715026607

[1715026607]

1715026607

[cabalism13]

This is now turning into a Reputation Thread of QS. Let's just leave this up to theymos, he is the only one who can decide whether he is capable of being one or not. Criticizing QS because of his past won't do us anything good, though I know the point of everybody here and more or less everybody has his/her opinion about a certain user.

Not being a Jackass here but this isn't going anywhere. Let's all have a piece of mind, just as suchmoon said, you can just stick your eyes to him if he becomes a source.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Not being a Jackass here but this isn't going anywhere.

With all due respect, the community voicing its opinions is what these application threads basically are--that's what it's always been, and I think it's a good idea as well.  The other source application threads I've seen have had lots of posts giving either support or criticism of the applicant, which I think is entirely appropriate.  Yes, it is ultimately up to Theymos but the community ought to be able to talk about whether someone should be a merit source or not, as we all have to deal with it afterwards if the person gets accepted.

I said my piece on QS, and I'm not going to keep ragging on him for his past misdeeds.  They do need to be mentioned, however.  Some newer members might not be aware of his shady history, and it certainly is relevant to whether he can be trusted to be a merit source.

[suchmoon]

The basis for my claim is your history of suckpuppeting and lying.

It seems you are unable to back up your suggestion.

But you do it so well yourself:

Very few criminals will do something only one time.

This makes me believe your prior statements (and others in this thread) were politically motivated, with the hope of gaining influence/power. On its face, your various stats may indicate you are a helpful forum member, however to anyone who is paying close attention, you are a toxic person, and should be avoided.

Nope, it's still your perverse interpretation of some badges and stats as "influence/power". One more reason to not let you near said "power", especially when there are so many deserving users with a non-transactional approach to their forum activities and their contributions to the community.

[bones261]

This is an example of a post being given merit for political reasons by a merit source.

      Stingers was removed from being a merit source because he stated that he was going to give merits for the sole purpose of getting his allies enough merit to have votes in the current DT selection process. I don't see how Vod & Lauda meriting my post has anything to do with ensuring that I have enough votes to vote in their allies or themselves. If you believe theymos' ruling against stingers extends to meriting any post that you happen to think makes a good point and you happen to agree with, or from time to time meriting something that you find as entertaining satire, being a merit source might not be for you. After all, I would hate for you to fret over every merit that you dole out, wondering if it can be construed as "political." If you do become a merit source, you should also prepare yourself for being under extra scrutiny since many members here simply don't trust you. I suspect Timelord and many others are going to be all up in your Kool-Aid. (Although they already are.)
   Good luck with your application.

[El duderino_]

Quickseller be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

suchmoon, Vod, & Lesbian Cow be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Tiz6INF7I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5Ug1OW5O4

who is who ?? LoL
merit sources in action ??

[bill gator]

I thought QS was a merit-source, too ?

[bones261]

I thought QS was a merit-source, too ?

Are you sure your not confusing him with QA? QuestionAuthority was a merit source, but lost the privilege by staging a merit giveaway in the WO thread that only required people to ask for it. Only being quick on the draw mattered, not quality of the post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5050263.0

[bill gator]

I can't speak for everyone else who thought that QS was already a merit-source, but I know better than to confuse them with QA.

That's a shame about QA, I didn't know about that situation.

[Lesbian Cow]

I can't speak for everyone else who thought that QS was already a merit-source, but I know better than to confuse them with QA.

That's a shame about QA, I didn't know about that situation.

Quickseller is an old school dodgy douche-canoe from the forum; self escrowed on trades, stole the escrow fees, sold accounts he farmed.  All around turd; not sure how you thought he was a merit source.

[bill gator]

I thought he was a source too.

For some reason I thought Quickseller was made a merit source back in September

I'm not the only one

[Lesbian Cow]

I thought he was a source too.

For some reason I thought Quickseller was made a merit source back in September

I'm not the only one

It would seem crazy to me to have a known account farmer and seller as a merit source.  Wack-a-doodle even.

[tbct_mt2]

The point is theymos stated that past mistakes should not be counted all the time, and users should have other chances to show that they are really changed and have better attitude or have actually changed to contribute more to the forum.
I have not been there for too long to comprehensively known about QuickSeller, so it's just the point, as you and theymos wrote.
(I read the trust page of QuickSeller, but just read for overview, and I don't have intention to look so deep at his past history).
I saw some cases that DT members lift negative trust when people changed, and it is what theymos wanted, I believe.
Whichever systems implemented in the forum, the ultimate objectives are making the forum and forum users better, not solely putting them down.

I said my piece on QS, and I'm not going to keep ragging on him for his past misdeeds.  They do need to be mentioned, however.  Some newer members might not be aware of his shady history, and it certainly is relevant to whether he can be trusted to be a merit source.

[El duderino_]

I thought QS was a merit-source, too ?

Are you sure your not confusing him with QA? QuestionAuthority was a merit source, but lost the privilege by staging a merit giveaway in the WO thread that only required people to ask for it. Only being quick on the draw mattered, not quality of the post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5050263.0

Its pity cause QA has an excellent mind on BTC and so on itself... he would be a good source if he didn't did those giveaways ....

[TECSHARE]

While I personally wouldn't trust Quickseller farther than I can throw him, IMO he does serve a purpose around here. While I don't condone any of his past behavior, or even like him as a human being, the scamming element was largely exaggerated simply to get him to stop being such a stalker as he was one of the earliest forms of "trust police" around here. While he certainly was dishonest, he can only be said to have gained inconsequential amounts form this duplicity indicating to me his primary goal was not theft. I think he also understands that if he were caught abusing merit he might as well be the forum leper at that point. I would say making him a merit source and keeping a close eye on him would be a reasonable thing to do and a net positive for the forum.

[Quickseller]

as he was one of the earliest forms of "trust police" around here.

While yes, I did monitor the various marketplace subs, and did put a lot of effort into research in stopping various scams, I largely followed the standards you are advocating for, perhaps also including when someone *attempts* to do any of what you believe is acceptable for negative trust -- if someone makes a serious attempt to steal, but are unsuccessful, I think in most cases others should be warned. I can't recall any instances in which I added a new "rule" that others had to follow to avoid getting negative trust, as many on DT1 have done in recent time.

I would say making him a merit source and keeping a close eye on him would be a reasonable thing to do and a net positive for the forum.

Thanks.

That's a shame about QA, I didn't know about that situation.

I looked at the situation when it was posted in this thread. My opinion on the situation is QA should have resigned from his position as merit source instead of doing something he (should have) knew would get himself fired. From the looks of it, he had concerns about the merit system, and about the forum in general -- he could have voiced his concerns to theymos privately, or publicly, and they may have been addressed if theymos agreed, and if QA was still not satisfied, he should have resigned, or otherwise stopped giving out merit.

His underling concerns appear to be around the newer users of bitcointalk (who needed merit) to be more focused on various altcoins (and ICOs) than on bitcoin. The only way this could be addressed would be to limit the ability to discuss altcoins, and/or limit the ability to run ICOs and bounty campaigns. However both of these generate a lot of page views (ad revenue). I believe a lot of these people come to bitcointalk because of the altcoins, and if the altcoin discussion and ICOs/bounties were not allowed, these people would migrate to other platforms, however being on bitcointalk can give these people exposure to  bitcoin they might not get on other platforms.

[eddie13]

I think QS can be trusted to be a merit source..
I'm pretty sure QS has a decent stash of coin so it's not like he is going to sell them to try to make a few satoshis, and he has proven that he can accumulate his own merits just fine without the need to cheat the merit system.

I personally would also trust QS to hold loan collateral or trust him in a trade to higher amounts than I would trust many green trusted members but that would be my own money. I do not think QS is trying to scam and even if he was I imagine he would probably be doing it under a different account more suitable for that purpose.

Everyone likes to call QS an "escrow scammer" but that isn't the entire story. He was running an anonymous escrow service at the same time as he was running separate anonymous sales services and would escrow his own trades, from 2 different businesses/accounts, while at the time they were not believed to be under the control of the same person.
I agree that it is a somewhat shady practice but he never blatantly scammed anyone, and others have admitted to self escrowing the same way QS did and still are trusted because they didn't lie about it and stopped when it became unacceptable.
He is not the only one who did it. It was the wild west back then, similar to the account sales situation.

The problem with QS is that he was caught lying about the self escrowing and lying is a good reason to lose your trust around here.
More problems with QS ever sense, and probably continuing to this day, his personal vendettas and fights back and forth with other forum users, mostly over the escrow scandal, where QS has taken fights too far, and came from unreasonable and malicious positions at times.

Where I do not trust QS is, though he is highly intelligent, articulate, and "in the know", he is very biased against certain other users so if he makes a good point it may be exaggerated towards his favor and not the entire story. He knows a lot of stuff but is very onesided at times, so when you read what QS says be sure to do your own research about the entire situation because it may be part of his agenda.

I also think that QS has made some progress in the last year or so towards being good for the community and stopping his fighting. It is a shame that he has made his mistakes and bad decisions because he has the intelligence to have been a great asset to the forum otherwise.

Also I commend QS for continuing under his ruined account, but I would not doubt that he has other unknown accounts, possibly even DT accounts if he wanted, because he is smart enough to pull it off..
If QS is going to scam it will be bigger than what he can pull off from the QS account I would think. If QS is a scammer he is a very dangerous scammer because he has the ability in his knowledge and intelligence.
QS is a great scambuster because he understands the social engineering behind them, and therefore understands how to social engineer a scam.. I saw this post in another thread..

Scammers would most likely choose part two (trading) for their scams because part one (scammer research) takes too much time and effort.

I disagree with that because the person that does the scammer research and the scambusting will have a great education in all the ways to scam, what to do to cover your tracks, avenues and scenarios to set up a big scam, social and trade engineering, and how to get away with it. They would be much less likely to try some petty scam but if they were trying to scam they would be a very dangerous enemy, a mastermind.

I do understand other people's anger toward QS, those who have been in a fued with QS where QS has resorted to unreasonable tactics, and do not blame them if they never forgive him. I doubt he will ever be completely trusted but I do think he is/could come to be a positive asset for the forum.
If anyone can spot a scammer, or a possible scam situation, it is QS..

In conclusion I do not think that we need to worry too much about QS trying to sell merits, it being such a petty scam, where merit is so transparent, and Theymos has the ability to stop it immediately and reverse it at any time.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Is that to say that you have no basis to backup your claim that I would give merit to my hypothetical alts? I will again demand a retraction.

Is that to say you will not disclose your alts?

The basis for my claim is your history of suckpuppeting and lying. Good luck retracting that.

I still think this is the best argument against making QS a merit source. He is known for having (a large amount of) alt accounts. We can endlessly debate on wether or not he should be a merit source but that decision is upto Theymos. I assume Theymos knows about QS and his history so he'll be able to make a fair judgement on his own.

[suchmoon]

In conclusion I do not think that we need to worry too much about QS trying to sell merits, it being such a petty scam, where merit is so transparent, and Theymos has the ability to stop it immediately and reverse it at any time.

I'm more concerned about him propping up his army of alts with his free source merits and using those to stuff DT ballots. He's well known for attempting to get into DT in roundabout ways and still has that unhealthy obsession with the "positions of power" as he calls them.

If theymos wants to expand the list of merit sources I think there are better candidates to choose from.

[cryptohunter]

In conclusion I do not think that we need to worry too much about QS trying to sell merits, it being such a petty scam, where merit is so transparent, and Theymos has the ability to stop it immediately and reverse it at any time.

I'm more concerned about him propping up his army of alts with his free source merits and using those to stuff DT ballots. He's well known for attempting to get into DT in roundabout ways and still has that unhealthy obsession with the "positions of power" as he calls them.

If theymos wants to expand the list of merit sources I think there are better candidates to choose from.

Let's examine this fear that you have and have a sensible genuine debate.

How does anyone know for sure who is who's alt?

The dangerous people here will NOT make any mistakes and reveal their puppets. I suspect many DT's have other alts in DT's already. We can all suspect and guess.

I mean how you, tman, lauda, owlcatz, pharmacist, and the close knit group of about 10-15 users all observably cycle merits to each other and all include each other on DT and all observably gang up and pile into every single thread where one of you is questioned or all make most extreme excuses for each other when observable wrong doing is present in your post histories. I mean pharmacist was busted with a sock puppet account already who is to say who has puppet accounts here. I mean this is the equivalent of having alts in fact it is better because you have the energies and time of several different colluding persons to battle against any that come against them.

These seem like very strange excuses to prevent someone who you know will NOT collude with you guys from the start. I see NO reason for him NOT to become merit source or DT any more than I see any reason for many of those you support in DT being merit sources. Actually less reason.

Also it is laughable to claim these are NOT positions of power and control. It is actually impossible to deny. They have the power to control a persons paid2post and trading capacities on this board. You pretending they are not positions of power just makes you look foolish and more sneaky.

I notice in the h8bussesbicycles thread there was lots of laughing at them saying they do not have the "power" to do anything because they do not have enough merits.... which is true

I say this even though I am not a  pal of QS and he says I'm an unproductive member ( i do not agree obviously) , I don't think he has given me any merits ever (again seems like an oversight) . This is simply a post to demonstrate that your argument seems to demonstrate double standards and that you only want people in positions of power that you know you can force to collude with your group. You must be more honest suchmoon.

NO, that is not a good idea. If we can not have a strict set of criteria for merit allocation or trust positions then you want people that are unlikely to collude at the very least.  

I notice you simply don't like QS and he does not like you that is why you do not want him there. If anything after reading his posts I can see that your critical reasoning is far weaker than his, so if anything he stands a better chance of helping create a real meritocracy. When I meet you in debate I feel comfortable and very relaxed since you have quite a feeble mind once you start pulling it apart and make many mistakes because you are emotional and far from objective.
I am shocked that someone who can say openly in public " that is is incorrect and foolish to believe that some of the 99.87% of the board can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%" is allowed to be merit source. I mean if you think about that statement you made it is ludicrous.

I think the reader should be privy to what I consider to be the REAL reasons for you trying to prevent QS being a merit source so that they make an informed decision and then voice their own opinions.

Please realise that if we want a real meritocracy then it matters not who gives the merits, it is only how merit worthy the post is in its own right and how accurate they are at analysing that post for its contribution to the optimal outcome/solution.

Both you and QS don't like cryptohunter so I have no real advantage to QS being merit source myself . However it is only fair the reader gets some background to measure your post against and not take it at face value.