@PrimeNumber7 is an alt account of @Quickseller

[Lauda]

You were already forgiven long ago.

Thanks for admitting in substantial essence that the hate-Lauda crowd hates Lauda for the sake of hating Lauda, and not because of any past transgressions (real and/or imaginary) which were all “forgiven”.

No surprise to me.

So fork off with this hypocritical bullshit.

Above, I told PrimeNumber7 that you are rarely mistaken; but “rarely” is not “never”.

Whilst I do agree with this, my cat sense is almost as certain if not more certain than it was with the hacked VIP account case. How many people were protesting me going after him? Was I right in the end? I strongly condemn the actions and statements of many individuals involved in this thread.

OK... But what if PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller?

Then I would be mistaken with my negative, would apologize and remove it. Errāre catum est. However, have you considered what if he is Quickseller and it ends up another case which could have trivially been prevented? Looks like little thought is given to past and potential future victims. Have you forgotten how many unjustified attacks were launched just because of his spite, against others and against me? Don't be this naive, this is exactly from his playbook. If we had a scoreboard on likely hood of someone being mr. Snowflake/Quicksie then this PN7 user would nearly maximize the score without even involving himself in reputation discussion (precisely because he would be expose himself even more quickly).
Did you also get tainted by this new-wave of apologist pretend-liberals around here (pretend, exactly because of these double-standards)?

[1715274485]

1715274485

[1715274485]

1715274485

[1715274485]

1715274485

[nullius]

Whilst I do agree with this, my cat sense is almost as certain if not more certain than it was with the hacked VIP account case. How many people were protesting me going after him? Was I right in the end? I strongly condemn the actions and statements of many individuals involved in this thread.

Your uncanny cat sense has done much good, but it is not in itself evidence as the basis for me to make up my own mind; and your admittedly incisive past performance is no guarantee that you are right in this particular case, where the case against PN7 looks quite blurry to me.

OK... But what if PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller?

Then I would be mistaken with my negative, would apologize and remove it. Errāre catum est.

Well, to reach that point, we need to examine the case carefully—and most preferably, give a fair hearing to whatever PrimeNumber7 may have to say for himself.  That last bit requires actually persuading him that he will get a fair hearing—which I will give him, and I am actively urging others including you to do, too.  The grumpy kitty speaking dog Latin is not helpful on that particular point.

However, have you considered what if he is Quickseller and it ends up another case which could have trivially been prevented?

Does not logically answer the question, what if he is not Quickseller?

If we had a scoreboard on likely hood of someone being mr. Snowflake/Quicksie then this PN7 user would nearly maximize the score without even involving himself in reputation discussion (precisely because he would be expose himself even more quickly).

As I have said repeatedly, avoiding this discussion is also what an innocent person would probably do unless we show him that he will not be shooting himself in the foot by speaking up.  Sigh.

Did you also get tainted by this new-wave of apologist pretend-liberals around here (pretend, exactly because of these double-standards)?

If you think that real, non-pretend liberalism itself is about anything but arbitrary whimsical non-standards that please the emotions of overgrown children, then it is you who may want to get a blood test/rootkit scan for liberal memes.  That malware is infectious.


After so much back and forth, I think it’s clear, at least, where people stand on this—well, except for the star of the show.

PrimeNumber7, if you can tell us something useful for clearing this up, please don’t let the grumpy kitty scare you off.  Hey, you might also get grumpy after years of having had every possible type of b.s. thrown at you by pathological liars.  I don’t think her argument is helpful here; sorry.  But it is also not helpful for you to avoid the discussion (much though I agree that silence is not evidence either way).  Help yourself.

[DireWolfM14]

Many consider his transgressions as irredeemable, and would only relish in the opportunity to tarnish his alt account.  

Up until this very day, his transgressions haven't stop and this includes this very case. Where do you see him asking or being worthy of forgiveness? Fool me once is alright, but fool me > 100 times is what we're playing now? He could/should/would have at the very least stopped what he was doing years ago were there any intent for honesty in him at any point in time. Do you believe people like this change overnight? I really wish he had stopped many years ago, but he didn't..
Would you have forgiven me for this many transgressions? Surely the fuck not. So why are we talking about this?

I can assume he's still engaging account sales, but I haven't seen significant proof of that.  I don't think account farming is as profitable or as simple anymore.  Look at the effort he put into PN7 to developed that account, it would be impractical to believe he could do that on a grand scale.  Even developing two accounts simultaneously would be difficult, or at the very least time consuming.  The self escrow thing isn't likely to happen again, I can't imagine anyone trusting CS (or PN7) for escrow services.

So the only transgression I assume he may be engaging in is account sales.  However, I don't believe that my assumptions should get in the way of PN7's ability to engage in signature bounties.  That's really the only lea-way I'm offering him.  I'm not suggesting "forgiveness" equate to DT inclusions or trusted trading.  Quite the contrary.

And when I really boil it down, all of this stems from our assumptions.  Sure we all came to the same conclusions independently, which is telling, but even a collective assumption doesn't equate to solid evidence.  As a result I'm willing to allow some lea way because their is a shred of doubt that I cannot ignore.

[suchmoon]

So the only transgression I assume he may be engaging in is account sales.  However, I don't believe that my assumptions should get in the way of PN7's ability to engage in signature bounties.  That's really the only lea-way I'm offering him.  I'm not suggesting "forgiveness" equate to DT inclusions or trusted trading.  Quite the contrary.

It's ultimately up to the campaign managers and we know that Quicksy can produce quality content when he's not fighting windmills, so if someone wants to hire a red-trusted Quicksy's alt - there is nothing to stop them. Except maybe the tantrums that ensue when he gets fired.

[TMAN]

we know that Quicksy can produce quality content when he's not fighting windmills

This - very much so, QS is entertaining and an intelligent poster when he wants to be, I actually enjoy reading some of his posts when his nickers aren't in a twist or he isn't rowing with someone (lauda)

[PrimeNumber7]

It sounds like your hate is so strong for someone, that you are refusing to exercise even basic good judgement, or allow for even basic fairness. By your own admission you are aware of no evidence, but you decided to leave a red trust for no reason other than I am accused of being someone you dislike.

Now, hold on.  I think that is an unwarranted conclusion about Lauda; you’re demanding fairness, so please be fair, too!

When you say that staying silent is a reason to tag someone, and that you "know" someone is guilty, but need them to admit to their guilt to avoid getting tagged, you are showing poor judgment and a lack of fairness. There is empirical evidence that Lauda hates QS. I will give you that I don't *know* the lack of fairness and poor judgment is caused by the hatred of QS, but the only alternative is a lack of fairness and poor judgement in all cases.

I chose those specific words intentionally and carefully. A criminal, suspected or otherwise, is given the opportunity to see, and refute if s/he chooses evidence against him/her. This is not what is happening here.

What Owlcatz posted is at least honest:

I'm done here, I know all I need to. That Primenumber7 is his alt. How Do I know? Well, I don't for sure, <>

The rating Owlcatz left is even more ridiculous, it accuses me of cheating my way onto DT, of being "butt-budd[ies]" with Trump, and of Trump cheating his way onto DT. It ends with a "fuck you QS." I have shown --nor do I have -- any interest of being on DT in large part because of my desire to avoid forum related drama. I have never met Trump, and probably never will, but he is my President, as he is the President of all of the United States.

An American civil court has no presumption of innocence, although it does, of course, put the initial burden on the plaintiff to bring a prima facie case.  If you want to think of it in those terms, I do suggest as a practical matter that, given that many high-reputation forum members think you’re guilty, <>

Courts do not care about what any witness thinks is true. A court will only consider what a witness *knows* to be true, and the witness must explain how s/he knows a fact to be true.

PrimeNumber7, if you can tell us something useful for clearing this up, please don’t let the grumpy kitty scare you off. 

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense. As mentioned in my first post in this thread, "Asking someone to respond to evidence they have not seen is almost always going to end up making the person responding look dishonest or deceitful because they cannot speak to the specifics of the evidence but would be judged as if they knew and understood the evidence". It is clear to me this has been spread by Suchmoon since mid May, this included by a trust exclusion and a neutral rating (I don't remember which one came first). This happened to be within a few weeks of getting a rule prohibiting the sale of KYC verified accounts without explaining how they are not hacked enforced. It has long been my presumption the rating was in response to my weeding out this particular type of fraud in the marketplace as a form of retaliation.

[suchmoon]

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253

It is clear to me this has been spread by Suchmoon since mid May, this included by a trust exclusion and a neutral rating (I don't remember which one came first). This happened to be within a few weeks of getting a rule prohibiting the sale of KYC verified accounts without explaining how they are not hacked enforced. It has long been my presumption the rating was in response to my weeding out this particular type of fraud in the marketplace as a form of retaliation.

Solid evidence of an utter lack of evidence but I'm fine with applying the same standard to your sockpuppeting. Are you ok with that?

[figmentofmyass]

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253

although i am loathe to get involved in this kind of forum drama, i feel it's necessary to point out the apparent weakness of that "evidence": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53658861#msg53658861

i'm disappointed in the bad judgment exhibited here and in that thread. the fact that people are tagging PrimeNumber7 on the basis of such non-evidence is disappointing.

i've always had a low opinion of the default trust system and its politics. somehow you guys have managed to lower it even more.

[marlboroza]

i'm disappointed in the bad judgment exhibited here and in that thread. the fact that people are tagging PrimeNumber7 on the basis of such non-evidence is disappointing.

I also think tagging people based on circumstantial evidence is no no no (at least I don't remember tagging someone because of that), however, that won't change many opinions about account.

Quickseller for obvious and known reasons didn't miss this thread, and as it was pointed in other thread that they both post in the same forum boards and never merited each other, I think quickseller should send few merits to PrimeNumber7 for being good poster with 443 earned merits.

Quickseller, please send few merits to PrimeNumber7.

[suchmoon]

Quickseller, please send few merits to PrimeNumber7.

I was tempted to recommend PrimeNumber7 in this thread but unfortunately he locked it before I got a chance to do it.

[TECSHARE]

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253

although i am loathe to get involved in this kind of forum drama, i feel it's necessary to point out the apparent weakness of that "evidence": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53658861#msg53658861

i'm disappointed in the bad judgment exhibited here and in that thread. the fact that people are tagging PrimeNumber7 on the basis of such non-evidence is disappointing.

i've always had a low opinion of the default trust system and its politics. somehow you guys have managed to lower it even more.

That is because they pick a target then arrange the "evidence" around them, AKA confirmation bias. This is just a convenient methodology to target people they have disputes with using the plausible deniability of "scambusting". They do it over and over again. Some one criticizes them or one of their buddies, suddenly they are all digging through all of their shit looking for anything they can manipulate to cast them in a bad light in retribution for daring to criticize one of the chosen.

[hilariousetc]

I can assume he's still engaging account sales, but I haven't seen significant proof of that.  I don't think account farming is as profitable or as simple anymore.  Look at the effort he put into PN7 to developed that account, it would be impractical to believe he could do that on a grand scale.  Even developing two accounts simultaneously would be difficult, or at the very least time consuming.  The self escrow thing isn't likely to happen again, I can't imagine anyone trusting CS (or PN7) for escrow services.

So the only transgression I assume he may be engaging in is account sales.  However, I don't believe that my assumptions should get in the way of PN7's ability to engage in signature bounties.  That's really the only lea-way I'm offering him.  I'm not suggesting "forgiveness" equate to DT inclusions or trusted trading.  Quite the contrary.

Account selling would certainly be profitable and likely actually very lucrative, but I don't think this is what he's doing because it's far too much time and effort to involve yourself in and all it takes is the account sale to go bad or someone finds out that the account was sold and then bye-bye account and months upon months of your time has been wasted and for what? A thousand dollars or however much accounts are going for. I suspect QS just wants another account not related to him to earn from it in whatever ways he can and build up a bit of trust, and also if you're lucky enough to get one on Chipmixer then you can earn that 1k a month from as long as you're on there which would obviously be very lucrative to anyone.

I think if QS comes clean and admits PN7 is his alt, some of us would allow him to continue his effort to build an account with which he can earn some income, and hopefully at the same time we can prevent any effort to build false trust.  I would prefer this scenario over any other.  But, can other members of DT commit to being so restrained?  I fear the answer is no.  Many consider his transgressions as irredeemable, and would only relish in the opportunity to tarnish his alt account.  

Conversely, if PN7 comes out and says that he's not QS' alt, I would not believe him.  In my opinion, his reputation would be tarnished beyond his current status of being not dishonest.

I'm sure many wouldn't care but all it takes is the one or two that do to ruin his rep beyond all repair so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't and QS is smart enough to know this. If he admits the account is his then he's lost the game as all doubt would be removed and those who want to get one-up on him would surely pounce on that. If he says no then people will accuse him of lying and claim therefore he is not to be trusted and tag him for that so he can't really win. In this situation there's nothing really QS can say to try prove otherwise so it's wise for him to ignore this really even if some others will make their mind up based on that, but again, it's lose-lose.

[Lauda]

I've given this a great deal of thought, considered the possibilities and their related probabilities:

• Case 1: They are alts, and he's trying to correct his ways - I will not damage his attempt.
• Case 2: They are not alts - I do not want to damage PN7.

Which case is the correct one, I do not know. I think he is not proved innocent and not proved guilty. I believe this does not require a long explanation, and will not give one publicly either. Therefore, hereby, I retract my rating.

If you indeed aren't alts, I am sorry PN7.

Signed,
Queen of Cats.

[TMAN]

I've given this a great deal of thought, considered the possibilities and their related probabilities:

• Case 1: They are alts, and he's trying to correct his ways - I will not damage his attempt.
• Case 2: They are not alts - I do not want to damage PN7.

Which case is the correct one, I do not know. I think he is not proved innocent and not proved guilty. I believe this does not require a long explanation, and will not give one publicly either. Therefore, hereby, I retract my rating.

If you indeed aren't alts, I am sorry PN7.

Signed,
Queen of Cats.

Quoted for reference.. I don't know what the fuck is going on right now but I like it - QS and the cat are having an online romantic get together... tinfoil hat "they have a common enemy and are about to fight a much darker force as the new QSCAT team"

[nullius]

I don't know what the fuck is going on right now but I like it

It just looks to me like Lauda being logical.  Why risk damage to either of the two good outcomes she stated?  If there is any bad new development in the future, eh—I do not think she is running short on red paint.

With due apologies for being such a robot.

* nullius hands TMAN another drink

[LoyceV]

• Case 1: They are alts, and he's trying to correct his ways - I will not damage his attempt.
• Case 2: They are not alts - I do not want to damage PN7.

Quoted for reference.. I don't know what the fuck is going on right now but I like it - QS and the cat are having an online romantic get together... tinfoil hat "they have a common enemy and are about to fight a much darker force as the new QSCAT team"

Since Lauda got rid of the "Grumpy Kitty" custom title (s)he almost looks like Switzerland nowadays! Needless to say: I like it

[PrimeNumber7]

I've given this a great deal of thought, considered the possibilities and their related probabilities:

• Case 1: They are alts, and he's trying to correct his ways - I will not damage his attempt.
• Case 2: They are not alts - I do not want to damage PN7.

Which case is the correct one, I do not know. I think he is not proved innocent and not proved guilty. I believe this does not require a long explanation, and will not give one publicly either. Therefore, hereby, I retract my rating.

If you indeed aren't alts, I am sorry PN7.

Signed,
Queen of Cats.

I sent you a message early this morning thanking you for this, and I also wanted to publicly thank you for this. I appreciate that you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.