Quickseller vs cleaning up the forum

[TECSHARE]

It's not the first time we have seen a member lose his/her way when they have gotten into the spotlight of controversy, I have seen lesser known members like digaran, mdayonliner/S_Therapist on the same situation and they did some untrustworthy things just because they are on the spotlight at the same time losing the battle. The same thing can be said to Quickseller, I know it was hard for him to get his reputation back up and now he got into another mess which I think the damage is far beyond repair that is why he is doing some unbelievable accusations against you and to other members here that brought him down.

Huh. It is almost like there is no way for any of these users to ever get redemption over relatively small issues, so instead of being incentivized to reform, they are incentivized to tell everyone to go fuck themselves. Who would have thought?

[Theb]

~snip~

I think Quickseller is far more capable of rebuilding his reputation than those other users you mentioned. He can certainly do good work like his recent thread about stake.com shows. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to refrain from making stuff up and that casts doubt on everything else he's doing and on his motives. I don't know if it's about personal grudges or some perceived insecurities or something. I don't recall if I harmed or offended him in a particular way before his attacks started but looking at some of his other conflicts it doesn't seem to take much to set him off.

What he need to do now is to separate thoughts from reality, because what he is doing right now is just damaging his reputation more with the farfetched connections and foolish assumptions he is making to members like you. But with the damage already done I do think that the only way Quickseller can fix this is by talking to you personally (and to the rest of the members affected) and hopefully clear some things out, it would be his biggest move to possibly get everybody's trust back with him.

Huh. It is almost like there is no way for any of these users to ever get redemption over relatively small issues, so instead of being incentivized to reform, they are incentivized to tell everyone to go fuck themselves. Who would have thought?

Nothing can really be fixed if you chose the latter, I don't think that the issue can be resolve by throwing threats, false claims, and blatant lies to each other. It would do you more harm than good, even if you think you are winning you'll just later find out that you just dig your grave deeper with the mistakes you already made which are avoidable.

[TECSHARE]

Huh. It is almost like there is no way for any of these users to ever get redemption over relatively small issues, so instead of being incentivized to reform, they are incentivized to tell everyone to go fuck themselves. Who would have thought?

Nothing can really be fixed if you chose the latter, I don't think that the issue can be resolve by throwing threats, false claims, and blatant lies to each other. It would do you more harm than good, even if you think you are winning you'll just later find out that you just dig your grave deeper with the mistakes you already made which are avoidable.

You seem to be missing the point. From the perspective of those users nothing can really be fixed. Period. Full stop. I am not excusing any of that behavior, but perhaps instead of complaining about the symptoms, maybe you should be looking at the cause.

[The-One-Above-All]

@theb

you seem to suffer from a typical ailment that afflicts most people here in that you are

a/ either extremely low functioning ..or
b/ you are simply an ass licker to perceived authority.


There are 2 possibilities

a/ QS appears trustworthy, has not scammed and is credible in terms of being DT (position of trust)

b/ The opposite.


These are unrelated to his ability to present valid verifiable statements and arguments (that require no trust you can verify them for yourself)


Now you just saw that we presented observable instances that added a LOT of weight to QS statement that suchmoon selectively enforces rules and is selectively interested in wrongdoing.  These are verifiable. There is no need of trust. Therefore QS has a strong case and it is probable he is correct. You seem to be ignoring THAT PART.


SUCHBLOB comes along and now says. If QS makes a few more posts that are very useful and he kisses the correct asses in DT gang (like her own lard ass) and stops making observably strong arguments that they are corrupt. He can regain his "reputation".

You see the entire thing is bogus. If she claims QS is a liar, a scammer, an account seller and this is all UNTRUSTWORTHY then a few good posts and looking the other way on their double standards does not reinstall someones "reputation" especially in terms of trust.

She wants it both ways.  To take his credibility away by calling him a liar and scammer then use that to leverage him into falling inline with her and the gang. This does not work.

Snackmuch does not care about lying, scamming, account selling or any of that shit. We have clearly PROVEN this by showing you she is aware of laudas lying and scamming and nutildahs account selling and still being pals and including them on DT. She rewards these types.

QS is correct here. Suchmoon cares about that only when it suits her agenda. For you to say these are EXTRA FALSE ACCUSATIONS and making it worse for himself is moronic considering we just presented you with clear evidence that this is her general MO.

In this instance QS is correct. Suchmoons arguments do not hold water as usual and in addition to that she blatantly does selectively enforce and punish for her own ends.

So theb you saying QS only hope is to kiss observably corrupt and devious DT ass if net negative.  QS has done nothing more than those you are saying he should kiss ass to and hope they forgive him or actually you are saying you believe he no chance of redemption now LOL  ?? redemption with who? and for what?  people that are guilty of worse??

Start looking for observable instances and real hard evidence. Not just proliferating garbage you heard from fellow fortune jack scumbags. You add weight to observably false bullshit like this you are part of the problem.

[bones261]

Snackmuch does not care about lying, scamming, account selling or any of that shit. We have clearly PROVEN this by showing you she is aware of laudas lying and scamming and nutildahs account selling and still being pals and including them on DT. She rewards these types.

    If you are going to put an argument together, you should have all of your facts straight. suchmoon has not included nor excluded either lauda or nutildah in her trust list, although it appears both have included her. Lauda has excluded nutildah.  LoyceV has some wonderful statistics that he keeps updating every week. Please learn to use them.

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/234771.html (suchmoon's trust stats)
http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/101872.html (lauda's trust stats)

[The-One-Above-All]

Snackmuch does not care about lying, scamming, account selling or any of that shit. We have clearly PROVEN this by showing you she is aware of laudas lying and scamming and nutildahs account selling and still being pals and including them on DT. She rewards these types.

    If you are going to put an argument together, you should have all of your facts straight. suchmoon has not included nor excluded either lauda or nutildah in her trust list, although it appears both have included her. Lauda has excluded nutildah.  LoyceV has some wonderful statistics that he keeps updating every week. Please learn to use them.

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/234771.html (suchmoon's trust stats)
http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/101872.html (lauda's trust stats)

INTERESTING.

HAS not ? or is not at this very moment?

Please pull up the historical trust inclusions on daily since the start of this new messed up DT mechanism was put live. I think you will find we were correct.

This is an interesting new development though. Nice to see a few people distancing themselves from lauda of late. We are certain she had the holy trinity of extortionists on there at one point.  I wonder if it is REAL effort to distance herself from trust abusers and scammers without causing too much of a rift or some effort to disguise the collusion but still ensure the same gang remain on DT. Hmm will be interesting to watch.

When she starts making anti lauda and nutildah threads we will take another look at her. When she stops trying to snitch in REAL legends who have made a REAL difference here on bullshit tell the teacher inconsequential crap then we may provide her with a real diet plan.

Either way. Thanks for the tip to keep appraised on this constant switching of who people think are trustworthy.


For now our point stands. She is selectively interested in wrong doing depending on who you are. This adds weight to QS statement or claim regarding on her weaponizing this C&P crap. We have noticed other legends claim the same previously.

[Lauda]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

[Quickseller]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were.

Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[Lauda]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

Flag support can be added here by the way:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020;page=iflags

[nutildah]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

Flag support can be added here by the way:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020;page=iflags

"Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015."

The link is to this thread. What is the "specific act" and who are the "victims"? I suppose you're referencing the self-escrow thing. When writing a flag, it says this:

You must create a topic describing the specific acts which damaged you. It must not be self-moderated.

It also says this:

On my honor, I affirm the following: 1) This user violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages; 2) I have not been made whole by the user; 3) no existing flag covers this same incident; 4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic; 5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above. Furthermore, I promise to withdraw my support for this flag if this user makes me whole in the future.

I don't care for QS but I can't sign off on this if the format is not followed.

[Lauda]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

Flag support can be added here by the way:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020;page=iflags

"Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015."

The link is to this thread. What is the "specific act" and who are the "victims"? I suppose you're referencing the self-escrow thing. When writing a flag, it says this:

You must create a topic describing the specific acts which damaged you. It must not be self-moderated.

It also says this:

On my honor, I affirm the following: 1) This user violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages; 2) I have not been made whole by the user; 3) no existing flag covers this same incident; 4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic; 5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above. Furthermore, I promise to withdraw my support for this flag if this user makes me whole in the future.

I don't care for QS but I can't sign off on this if the format is not followed.

The format is followed, the flag system is just broken. Once OP updates the initial first posts, then the flag will link to this thread which links to multiple violations (one of which will be the escrow scam). You can't link to a locked thread which is absolute nonsense.

You must create a topic describing the specific acts which damaged you. It must not be self-moderated.

This is fundamental flaw in the flag design and can be skipped. I'm not letting scammers like Quickseller go because I just didn't happen to be a victim too. If mr. Theymos really insists, I can make a duplicate thread of an existing thread from 2015 just to link that in the flag. What does this accomplish exactly? Nothing.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

The format is followed, the flag system is just broken. Once OP updates the initial first posts, then the flag will link to this thread which links to multiple violations (one of which will be the escrow scam). You can't link to a locked thread which is absolute nonsense.

You must create a topic describing the specific acts which damaged you. It must not be self-moderated.

This is fundamental flaw in the flag design and can be skipped. I'm not letting scammers like Quickseller go because I just didn't happen to be a victim too. If mr. Theymos really insists, I can make a duplicate thread of an existing thread from 2015 just to link that in the flag. What does this accomplish exactly? Nothing.

You are blaming the new system without giving it much time. The previous system was not good enough and that was proven hundred or thousand times. Give this new flags system enough time before justifying it.

I will also second my brother nutildah, the format has not followed.

[Lauda]

You are blaming the new system without giving it enough time. The previous system was not good enough and that was proven hundred or thousand times. Give this new flags system enough time before justifying it.

I will also second my brother nutildah, the format has not followed.

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format.

[TECSHARE]

This is fundamental flaw in the flag design and can be skipped. I'm not letting scammers like Quickseller go because I just didn't happen to be a victim too. If mr. Theymos really insists, I can make a duplicate thread of an existing thread from 2015 just to link that in the flag. What does this accomplish exactly? Nothing.

Since when did Lauda become the admin and get to decide the metrics by which the forum is run?

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

You heard it here folks. It is now time for any respectable users intent on using the trust system as designed to start excluding Lauda. It didn't make the DT less relevant, it just made you less relevant.

[Lauda]

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format.

There, you can have your shit format by using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153480. The system is a joke, yet the right people remain excluded (that's something).

[TECSHARE]

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format.

There, you can have your shit format by using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153480. The system is a joke, yet the right people remain excluded (that's something).

You are soon to join that list since you insist on dictating your own rules upon the entire forum.

[Stedsm]

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format.

There, you can have your shit format by using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153480. The system is a joke, yet the right people remain excluded (that's something).

Well, sorry for putting my nose in between.
Who are those ^right people^ you're talking about?
System had already been a joke since implemented, it was for the trade purposes and people started giving wrong (false) ratings to people for spamming and everything as I don't really count spamming to do anything with trust ratings but an accusation thread could serve much better for those purposes (my point of view, honestly kitty).  

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format.

There, you can have your shit format by using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153480. The system is a joke, yet the right people remain excluded (that's something).

Well, sorry for putting my nose in between.
Who are those ^right people^ you're talking about?
System had already been a joke since implemented, it was for the trade purposes and people started giving wrong (false) ratings to people for spamming and everything as I don't really count spamming to do anything with trust ratings but an accusation thread could serve much better for those purposes (my point of view, honestly kitty).  

I say the current system is better now. The previous system was too easy to misuse (abuse whatever you say). One single person could change a trust rating with only one negative feedback. Example: Vod vs OgNasty, anduck vs VOD, Lauda vs others drama

But in this current system we will be seeing it's not going to happen very easily.

[Stedsm]

I say the current system is better now. The previous system was too easy to misuse (abuse whatever you say). One single person could change a trust rating with only one negative feedback. Example: Vod vs OgNasty, anduck vs VOD, Lauda vs others drama

But in this current system we will be seeing it's not going to happen very easily.

Is the current system having flags going to make any difference? Let's see if it could actually turn this thing into a system that makes me and many others believe in it. Let's see if this system doesn't really get manipulated by those big parties who were believed to be the "most right people" of this forum who abused their power and made the forum a centralized place at first look.