Quickseller is a dangerous person to deal with - avoid

[suchmoon]

not a lot of evidence.

Let me know when you have some, particularly if a victim of the alleged scam comes forward to accuse Hhampuz.

[Quickseller]

not a lot of evidence.

Let me know when you have some, particularly if a victim of the alleged scam comes forward to accuse Hhampuz.

Oh, so you think the scam accusation against Hhampuz is frivolous because the victim is potentially in jail, or is running from the authorities? Or do you have a problem with it because the scam accusation stands to reduce the income of some of your friends?

It’s funny you didn’t feel this way when you were harassing many other companies over the years.

[suchmoon]

Oh, so you think the scam accusation against Hhampuz is frivolous because the victim is potentially in jail, or is running from the authorities? Or do you have a problem with it because the scam accusation stands to reduce the income of some of your friends?

I think the accusation is frivolous because it lacks proof. Nice try arguing that with more made-up stuff. Is the victim really in jail? Is the victim really running from the authorities? Do I have friends even?

It’s funny you didn’t feel this way when you were harassing many other companies over the years.

Well, if you want to start an accusation against me on behalf of Homero Garza (who is actually in prison) - feel free to do so. In your own thread of course.

[TECSHARE]

You will notice, before belief part it says "Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic", and I don't see you substantiating any risk of theft. I do however see you making lots of claims based on his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited.

The flag doesn't say anything about risk of theft. We can play word games all day long. I believe the presented facts point to Quickseller's intent to cause harm in retaliation to Hhampuz. You don't. Sounds like an excellent case to oppose.

You play all the semantic games you like. I still don't see any evidence of him losing anyone money, or him engaging in trade activity that would result in that.

"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it.

[suchmoon]

I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it.

The yellow box is specifically designed to warn newbies and guests. Based on the comment below I feel more justified to use it than e.g. old-school negative trust, which had a red warning visible to everyone. I believe newbies and guests should be made aware of Quickseller's bad business habits and that is not a punishment but rather information to help them make informed choices.

There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)

[TECSHARE]

I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it.

The yellow box is specifically designed to warn newbies and guests. Based on the comment below I feel more justified to use it than e.g. old-school negative trust, which had a red warning visible to everyone. I believe newbies and guests should be made aware of Quickseller's bad business habits and that is not a punishment but rather information to help them make informed choices.

There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)

You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Objective facts are relevant. That is the entire purpose of this new flag system, you have to provide something more than your beliefs.


"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

[suchmoon]

Time to start making some phone calls

Hawaiian for me. Thanks.

You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

[...]

suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe

Due largely to the frivolous accusation against Hhampuz, I believe users dealing with Quickseller have a high risk of losing money, directly or indirectly, as a result of Quickseller's unpredictable and dangerous actions.

[Quickseller]

Time to start making some phone calls

Hawaiian for me. Thanks.

You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

[...]

suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe

Due largely to the frivolous accusation against Hhampuz, I believe users dealing with Quickseller have a high risk of losing money, directly or indirectly, as a result of Quickseller's unpredictable and dangerous actions.

That is ridiculous. If anyone needs an example of a frivolous flag, this is it.

Also, FYI, reporting possible crimes is protected speech under libel laws, so your rational doesn’t hold water.

[suchmoon]

Also, FYI, reporting possible crimes is protected speech under libel laws, so your rational doesn’t hold water.

I'm not suing you, I'm just saying (based on the lack of proof in your accusations) that I consider your frivolous accusations a dangerous behavior pattern with intent to harm.

[MoparMiningLLC]

@suchmoon - I believe what the others are trying to say is that YOU need evidence to back up your claim that people dealing with QuickSeller are at risk of losing their funds - you made that accusation yet show nothing in relative evidence to back up that people will lose their money to QuickSeller - your basing your claim solely on the fact that Quickseller made an accusation against someone.

Amazing that for just yesterday you bashed me for leaving negative feedback on someone who falsely (with no evidence) accused me and 5 other forum members of scamming him - and here you are trying to put one on Quickseller simply because he made an accusation against someone and you dont like it....

edit - without reading all of QuickSeller's post on his accusation against Hhampuz - there is one difference between his accusation and yours - he is providing proof, will need to be verified of course. All you are providing is that you BELIEVE there is risk because of his accusation....

[suchmoon]

@suchmoon - I believe what the others are trying to say is that YOU need evidence to back up your claim that people dealing with QuickSeller are at risk of losing their funds - you made that accusation yet show nothing in relative evidence to back up that people will lose their money to QuickSeller - your basing your claim solely on the fact that Quickseller made an accusation against someone.

Amazing that for just yesterday you bashed me for leaving negative feedback on someone who falsely (with no evidence) accused me and 5 other forum members of scamming him - and here you are trying to put one on Quickseller simply because he made an accusation against someone and you dont like it....

I didn't "bash" you, I just said that retaliatory red trust is frowned upon and tried to explain why I think so. You're free to do what you like.

Quickseller's case is not comparable to yours. He didn't merely spam someone's trust feedback from a sockpuppet account, he created a frivolous scam accusation thread in retaliation to getting fired and has explicitly stated that he's aiming to cause business problems for Hhampuz.

You're welcome to oppose the flag if your disagree.

[MoparMiningLLC]

@suchmoon - I believe what the others are trying to say is that YOU need evidence to back up your claim that people dealing with QuickSeller are at risk of losing their funds - you made that accusation yet show nothing in relative evidence to back up that people will lose their money to QuickSeller - your basing your claim solely on the fact that Quickseller made an accusation against someone.

Amazing that for just yesterday you bashed me for leaving negative feedback on someone who falsely (with no evidence) accused me and 5 other forum members of scamming him - and here you are trying to put one on Quickseller simply because he made an accusation against someone and you dont like it....

I didn't "bash" you, I just said that retaliatory red trust is frowned upon and tried to explain why I think so. You're free to do what you like.

Quickseller's case is not comparable to yours. He didn't merely spam someone's trust feedback from a sockpuppet account, he created a frivolous scam accusation thread in retaliation to getting fired and has explicitly stated that he's aiming to cause business problems for Hhampuz.

You're welcome to oppose the flag if your disagree.

ok maybe bash is not the right term- the point is you were saying my justified feedback about a guy who accused me falsely as well as several others was retaliation when it was not retaliation.  He left a false statement and I left feedback stating as such.

And by no means am I backing QS here either - I am simply stating that QS has provided some "evidence" to back up his claim - whether that "evidence" is valid or legitimate is not for me to decide nor do I plan to even review it. I am simply pointing out that is simply retaliation - you stated that people will lose their money when dealing with QS - and your "evidence" is his accusation.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This appears to be a vindictive attack on QS merely because he has presented some observable instances that cast suchmoon, and suchmoons possible alt lauda in a bad light.

Hell no.  If anyone is to be tagged under a new trust system, it is Quickseller and his alt accounts.  I don't have a link to the thread where his escrow scam got exposed, but I'm sure you're aware of it.  The huge problem IMO is that he doesn't even realize what he did was wrong to this day--and he's been known (AFAIK; will retract this if proven to be false) to use alt accounts as sockpuppets to strengthen his arguments in threads, which is very dishonest.  

This is not a vendetta.  This is a long-standing issue with Quickseller and his reputation.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that suchmoon started this thread.  If it wasn't suchmoon, it would have been Vod or someone else.

I don't feel threatened by QS, however.  The reason for that is because it would appear that very few people of note take him seriously unless he's got very hard evidence of something.  If he does something retaliatory, it's very obvious and laughable even.  Frankly I'm not sure why someone with such a disgraced reputation would even be here anymore.  Ah well, it will remain a mystery.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see some evidence of QS scamming someone and not anything that points to his accusation of Hhampuz

[bones261]

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see some evidence of QS scamming someone and not anything that points to his accusation of Hhampuz

 If anyone is to be tagged under a new trust system, it is Quickseller and his alt accounts.  I don't have a link to the thread where his escrow scam got exposed, but I'm sure you're aware of it.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0





And I'm certain there are plenty of delightful piles of "goodness" strewn about the forum, to step in.

[Quickseller]

@suchmoon - I believe what the others are trying to say is that YOU need evidence to back up your claim that people dealing with QuickSeller are at risk of losing their funds - you made that accusation yet show nothing in relative evidence to back up that people will lose their money to QuickSeller - your basing your claim solely on the fact that Quickseller made an accusation against someone.

Amazing that for just yesterday you bashed me for leaving negative feedback on someone who falsely (with no evidence) accused me and 5 other forum members of scamming him - and here you are trying to put one on Quickseller simply because he made an accusation against someone and you dont like it....

I didn't "bash" you, I just said that retaliatory red trust is frowned upon and tried to explain why I think so. You're free to do what you like.

Quickseller's case is not comparable to yours. He didn't merely spam someone's trust feedback from a sockpuppet account, he created a frivolous scam accusation thread in retaliation to getting fired and has explicitly stated that he's aiming to cause business problems for Hhampuz.

You're welcome to oppose the flag if your disagree.

Your entire statement is a lie....

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Hell no.  If anyone is to be tagged under a new trust system, it is Quickseller and his alt accounts.  I don't have a link to the thread where his escrow scam got exposed, but I'm sure you're aware of it.  The huge problem IMO is that he doesn't even realize what he did was wrong to this day--and he's been known (AFAIK; will retract this if proven to be false) to use alt accounts as sockpuppets to strengthen his arguments in threads, which is very dishonest.  

This is not a vendetta.  This is a long-standing issue with Quickseller and his reputation.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that suchmoon started this thread.  If it wasn't suchmoon, it would have been Vod or someone else.

I don't feel threatened by QS, however.  The reason for that is because it would appear that very few people of note take him seriously unless he's got very hard evidence of something.  If he does something retaliatory, it's very obvious and laughable even.  Frankly I'm not sure why someone with such a disgraced reputation would even be here anymore.  Ah well, it will remain a mystery.

It was tspacepilot who uncovered it, I remember him, I used to speak with him privately quite often.

May I be of service with the link - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

[suchmoon]

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see some evidence of QS scamming someone and not anything that points to his accusation of Hhampuz

He would have a red box if a victim of his actions came forward. As it stands now, he is a high risk individual with a yellow box warning.

Perhaps if Hhampuz has a loss of business or a certain person in socal gets harrassing phone calls we can put a proper red box on him but for now this will have to suffice.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see some evidence of QS scamming someone and not anything that points to his accusation of Hhampuz

He would have a red box if a victim of his actions came forward. As it stands now, he is a high risk individual with a yellow box warning.

Perhaps if Hhampuz has a loss of business or a certain person in socal gets harrassing phone calls we can put a proper red box on him but for now this will have to suffice.

ok and if no victims have come forward - on what evidence do you base your statement that people will lose money if they deal with QS? I will read the other posts above about QS when I get home. I again do not back either side in this. I am just curious what actual evidence there was. If there is valid evidence, I would back the flag.

[suchmoon]

ok and if no victims have come forward - on what evidence do you base your statement that people will lose money if they deal with QS? I will read the other posts above about QS when I get home. I again do not back either side in this. I am just curious what actual evidence there was. If there is valid evidence, I would back the flag.

Hhampuz had a business deal with QS. The link is in the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129675.msg51116576#msg51116576

The deal ended with QS being fired. A few days later QS started the accusation with no proof whatsoever based on the mere fact of coins being moved by Hhampuz and makes bold claims such as "Hhampuz has stolen the excess money from the BestMixer campaign for his own personal use". Note that he didn't use the trust system (old or new) to label Hhampuz and when called out on this he said this:

I did not say that I wanted others to tag him as a scammer. I said I believe him to be a scammer, and the reason he has not been tagged is due to tribalism.

I do think he should be tagged, but due to the trust system being broken, I don't think anyone tagging him will have any affect any anything. In lieu of tagging him, I will leave this thread open and any potential customers of his (and his current customers) can look at the evidence themselves, including the fact that many of those defending him are being paid his advertisers money by him.

Which makes me think he's seeking to damage HH's business and doesn't have an actual concern or proof of a scam, which would necessitate feedback/flag.

Here is a partial list of other frivolous accusations QS has brought up over the years about people he has grudges against:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.msg51387395#msg51387395

He took 20 BTC from a known scammer to sue Vod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12406963#msg12406963

There is a clear pattern.