My account was neg trusted by Tomatocage for no good reason.

[AccountSller]

This account was marked negative from Tomatocage for no reason. He was solely judging by my name, and he had no proof that I am a scammer.

I only registered with this name because I couldn't find another suitable name. The names I wanted was all taken.

Admins, please help.

[1715016071]

1715016071

[1715016071]

1715016071

[1715016071]

1715016071

[1715016071]

1715016071

[1715016071]

1715016071

[Newar]

There's already: AccountSeller, AccountSeller2

Just leaving out a letter in a username has been used several times for malicious purposes here and hence is frowned upon. Be more creative.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Trust system isn't moderated. You should contact Tomatocage and tell him to remove it.

[bensam123]

This account was marked negative from Tomatocage for no reason. He was solely judging by my name, and he had no proof that I am a scammer.

I only registered with this name because I couldn't find another suitable name. The names I wanted was all taken.

Admins, please help.

Um... He probably thought he was Quickseller or ACCTSeller's impersonator lol.

But I'll have to say that it's an unfair and harsh judgement. Hopefully tomatocage can resolve this issue soon.

[Lorenzo]

There's already: AccountSeller, AccountSeller2

Just leaving out a letter in a username has been used several times for malicious purposes here and hence is frowned upon. Be more creative.

I was able to find AccountSeller's profile and it doesn't seem to be very active. They registered on July 2014 and made 7 posts - the last of which was posted two weeks ago. It looks like they logged into their account on March 6. I doubt there would be any point in trying to impersonate a newbie account so the Quickseller/ACCTSeller hypothesis seems more likely:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=356679

EDIT: Found AccountSeller2 too. Pretty much the same deal as above:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=389659

EDIT 2: What hilariousetc says below is correct. You're a newbie member with just one other post so starting afresh with a new account would probably be the best option. Here's another newbie who was in a similar situation and the community recommended that they should register another account:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=880429

[hilariousetc]

Just create a new account, one that doesn't look almost like an existing user. You could have isellaccounts or whatever but you can also just have any other name and still sell accounts so it doesn't have to be related.

[Tomatocage]

Oh wow you're actually a real account? I thought you were a PM hit & run impostor. I'll go ahead and change your rating, sorry about that

[Lorenzo]

Oh wow you're actually a real account? I thought you were a PM hit & run impostor. I'll go ahead and change your rating, sorry about that

Congratz, AccountSllr. Please lock the thread as this is resolved. Click 'lock topic' at the bottom-left of the thread to lock this thread.

I wouldn't say it's completely resolved since Quickseller (who also happens to be in the default trust list) has added negative trust as well:



EDIT: Anyway OP, this doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue. If somebody asks why you have negative trust, just refer them to this thread. Or better yet, just create a new account. You're a newbie anyway and it's obvious that your current account isn't your main account since you created it just to sell your main account so it's not like you'll be using it in the future.

[abyrnes81]

Oh wow you're actually a real account? I thought you were a PM hit & run impostor. I'll go ahead and change your rating, sorry about that

Congratz, AccountSllr. Please lock the thread as this is resolved. Click 'lock topic' at the bottom-left of the thread to lock this thread.

I wouldn't say it's completely resolved since Quickseller (who also happens to be in the default trust list) has added negative trust as well:



EDIT: Anyway OP, this doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue. If somebody asks why you have negative trust, just refer them to this thread. Or better yet, just create a new account. You're a newbie anyway and it's obvious that your current account isn't your main account since you created it just to sell your main account so it's not like you'll be using it in the future.

It seems that Muhammed Zakir has deleted his posts (I don't know why) .OP you should not care about this negative trust, if you were registered here for sell/buy account and not be an impersonator. If he will not remove the negative trust, you should just create another account maybe (use another type of username). Tomatocage has do the right thing .

[AccountSller]

Are you kidding me Quickseller? Do you really think that Accountsller looks the same as ACCTseller? Plus I'm a newbie, and he's a senior member. Everyone knows the difference. Same as Tomatocage, you didn't have any evidence and solely judged me by my name.

At least change the rating to neutral if you're still not entirely satisfied.

I just can't believe that I was just trying to sell my account that is not needed and a bunch of people just came and say "You're an imposter of ....". People that were enrolled in the bit-x campaign were just posting insubstantial posts on my sales thread.

I am going to close my account auction thread because of spamming and scrutiny.

[Quickseller]

Are you kidding me Quickseller? Do you really think that Accountsller looks the same as ACCTseller? Plus I'm a newbie, and he's a senior member. Everyone knows the difference. Same as Tomatocage, you didn't have any evidence and solely judged me by my name.

At least change the rating to neutral if you're still not entirely satisfied.

I just can't believe that I was just trying to sell my account that is not needed and a bunch of people just came and say "You're an imposter of ....". People that were enrolled in the bit-x campaign were just posting insubstantial posts on my sales thread.

I am going to close my account auction thread because of spamming and scrutiny.

Since you are a newbie it would be best to use escrow anyway, even without the negative. So if you use escrow then there should be no problems with you having a negative from me (assuming of course your intentions are good).

Judging by your post history your account was created for the purpose of selling whatever account that you have for sale, and will likely be abandoned once you have sold your account. If this is the case then you might as well create a new account that does not resemble another somewhat trusted member's username to sell your account(s), if this is not the case then I will reevaluate my rating sometime in the future.

EDIT: unfortunate the signature spam is an unfortunate reality right now, although BadBear is working hard in fighting it for us

[onemorexmr]

Since you are a newbie it would be best to use escrow anyway, even without the negative. So if you use escrow then there should be no problems with you having a negative from me (assuming of course your intentions are good).

lol... if you think what you write is true please tell theymos that we should neg-rate all newbies...

seriously...i know here are much scams. i hate scammers...

but neg rating newbies just because of that name (as stated.. the only possible accounts which could be impersonated are newbies too) is just abusing the trust system.

btw.. your negrating has nothing to do with the fact that he is trying to sell accounts like you do? 

[Quickseller]

Since you are a newbie it would be best to use escrow anyway, even without the negative. So if you use escrow then there should be no problems with you having a negative from me (assuming of course your intentions are good).

lol... if you think what you write is true please tell theymos that we should neg-rate all newbies...

seriously...i know here are much scams. i hate scammers...

but neg rating newbies just because of that name (as stated.. the only possible accounts which could be impersonated are newbies too) is just abusing the trust system.

btw.. your negrating has nothing to do with the fact that he is trying to sell accounts like you do? 

My negative trust has to do with the fact that his name is very similar to another account seller who has been around for a while without major incidents (and as a result people would potentially trust enough to send bitcoin first to him).

I think it is fair to say that his username is closely sounding enough to ACCTseller that someone could potentially mistake him for it.

Like I said before if his intentions are to simply sell his account and then leave then he can create another username that does not sound similar to someone somewhat trusted.

There are plenty of account sellers out there and they do not have any negatives from me with the exception of those who have either sold hacked accounts or those who engage in something unethical.

[onemorexmr]

My negative trust has to do with the fact that his name is very similar to another account seller who has been around for a while without major incidents (and as a result people would potentially trust enough to send bitcoin first to him).

I think it is fair to say that his username is closely sounding enough to ACCTseller that someone could potentially mistake him for it.

IMHO ACCTseller and AccountSller are very easy too differentiate on first sight.

impersonating an username works if they look similar on first sight. as ACCTseller has uppercases in front (which is unusual - means more people will remember it) they are easy to differentiate.

[Quickseller]

My negative trust has to do with the fact that his name is very similar to another account seller who has been around for a while without major incidents (and as a result people would potentially trust enough to send bitcoin first to him).

I think it is fair to say that his username is closely sounding enough to ACCTseller that someone could potentially mistake him for it.

IMHO ACCTseller and AccountSller are very easy too differentiate on first sight.

impersonating an username works if they look similar on first sight. as ACCTseller has uppercases in front (which is unusual - means more people will remember it) they are easy to differentiate.

We can agree to disagree on this one. As I mentioned previously, if his only intentions are to sell one (or a few) accounts and then leave then there is no reason why he would ever not use escrow for any of his deals, and as long as he offers escrow, my negative will have zero impact on him.

[shorena]

-snip-
IMHO ACCTseller and AccountSller are very easy too differentiate on first sight.

impersonating an username works if they look similar on first sight. as ACCTseller has uppercases in front (which is unusual - means more people will remember it) they are easy to differentiate.

People usually only see one name when doing business with someone and not all names that look somewhat similar. Thus someone might vaguely remember AccountSeller or ACCSElller or ACCTsElleR or something along those lines to be trustworthy. Now someone with a very similar "sounding"/looking name comes along and might be considered trustworthy because they are confused with someone else.

Yes, you should check that when doing deals.
No, not everyone does so.
Yes, its perfectly fine for someone from DefaultTrust to add a warning. It should not stop anyone from doing business with said Account, but will make sure there is no confusion. I have traded with accounts that had a warning attached in the past and never had problems.

-snip-
Numbers and red letters don't mean anything, what matters is the content of the feedback itself. The source it comes from, the reason, and the backing.

[onemorexmr]

-snip-
IMHO ACCTseller and AccountSller are very easy too differentiate on first sight.

impersonating an username works if they look similar on first sight. as ACCTseller has uppercases in front (which is unusual - means more people will remember it) they are easy to differentiate.

People usually only see one name when doing business with someone and not all names that look somewhat similar. Thus someone might vaguely remember AccountSeller or ACCSElller or ACCTsElleR or something along those lines to be trustworthy. Now someone with a very similar "sounding"/looking name comes along and might be considered trustworthy because they are confused with someone else.

Yes, you should check that when doing deals.
No, not everyone does so.
Yes, its perfectly fine for someone from DefaultTrust to add a warning. It should not stop anyone from doing business with said Account, but will make sure there is no confusion. I have traded with accounts that had a warning attached in the past and never had problems.

-snip-
Numbers and red letters don't mean anything, what matters is the content of the feedback itself. The source it comes from, the reason, and the backing.

"The person is a scammer or i think he will scam"
^ thats the reason when you give neg-trust...

that doesnt sound like a warning to me.

i've added a comment on quicksellers account...THAT is a warning... neg-trust is saying "he will scam"

[Muhammed Zakir]

"The person is a scammer or i think he will scam"
^ thats the reason when you give neg-trust...

that doesnt sound like a warning to me.

i've added a comment on quicksellers account...THAT is a warning... neg-trust is saying "he will scam"

"He will scam".

I don't think your feedback says that:

onemorexmr 0: -0 / +0(0) - 2015-03-1 - abuses trust system. please check references from people who get neg-rated by him very carefully and decide for yourself.

[onemorexmr]

"The person is a scammer or i think he will scam"
^ thats the reason when you give neg-trust...

that doesnt sound like a warning to me.

i've added a comment on quicksellers account...THAT is a warning... neg-trust is saying "he will scam"

"He will scam".

I don't think your feedback says that:

onemorexmr 0: -0 / +0(0) - 2015-03-1 - abuses trust system. please check references from people who get neg-rated by him very carefully and decide for yourself.

i think he abuses the trust system, because quickseller states in his neg-trust that op is impersonating another one AND will scam (the second part is implicit by selecting the neg-trust instead of comment)

[Muhammed Zakir]

i think he abuses the trust system,

False AFAIK.

because quickseller states in his neg-trust that op is impersonating another one

True.

AND will scam

False. Where is that part?

Quickseller 4: -0 / +16(16) - 2015-03-15 - Not the real ACCTseller

(the second part is implicit by selecting the neg-trust instead of comment)

False. Where is negative trust feedback?. Sorry! Misread it. Could you clarify what you said?

[shorena]

-snip-
i've added a comment on quicksellers account...THAT is a warning... neg-trust is saying "he will scam"

Since no one here can predict the future, thats exactly the point of Quickseller leaving said rating. In their opinion the account will be used for scams. Quicksellers opinion on these matters has more weight than the opinion of others. Whether that is good or not is a different topic and has been discussed a number of times.

[onemorexmr]

i think he abuses the trust system,

False AFAIK.

because quickseller states in his neg-trust that op is impersonating another one

True.

AND will scam

False. Where is that part?

Quickseller 4: -0 / +16(16) - 2015-03-15 - Not the real ACCTseller

the second part is implicit by selecting the neg-trust instead of comment
(as written in my post, but you failed to quote that part)

copied from the btct-page:

Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

well, if you convince me i'll remove that comment.

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago) because i really thinks he is way to fast with a scam accusation - so they are just useless to me. that's just the first time i thought it might be necessary to point it out because IMHO it has gone to far.

(btw i dont think Quickseller will scam. i just dont share his opinion about this matter; hence comment as trust abuser)

[Muhammed Zakir]

the second part is implicit by selecting the neg-trust instead of comment
(as written in my post, but you failed to quote that part)

I still doesn't understand. I think my English is so poor.

copied from the btct-page:

Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

According to the guidelines, it is okay.

=snip=
On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
 =snip=
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

well, if you convince me i'll remove that comment.

I am unable to convince you. It's better for you to check the negative feesback left by Quickseller.

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago) because i really thinks he is way to fast with a scam accusation

Only if it is confirmed.

- so they are just useless to me.

Hope you won't be scammed by anyone.

that's just the first time i thought it might be necessary to point it out because IMHO it has gone to far.

Too far?

(btw i dont think Quickseller will scam. i just dont share his opinion about this matter; hence comment as trust abuser)

His feedback is "Not the reall ACCTseller". What's wrong in it? He maybe able to scam others with that name.

[onemorexmr]

His feedback is "Not the reall ACCTseller". What's wrong in it? He maybe able to scam others with that name.

well i blame my english too... it sucks ;(

the text of the feedback is fine.
IMHO it should have been a comment and not a negative trust (please go to the form where you can trust rate someone and look at the descriptive text there).

Quickseller said: its a warning that will not affect his abilities to trade.

When a trusted member says that he strongly believes anyone will scam it is more than a warning.

well... i got scammed for 99% of my bitcoins before quickseller was here.. and i have learnt from it. one thing i learnt is always use escrow - regardless of trust.

if i see two people here offering the same for an semi-identical price i'll take the one with better trust (should be obvious) - which does affect the ability to trade of the person with the neg-trust.

[Chijio]

This account was marked negative from Tomatocage for no reason. He was solely judging by my name, and he had no proof that I am a scammer.

I only registered with this name because I couldn't find another suitable name. The names I wanted was all taken.

Admins, please help.

because with your name its like impersonating some trusted seller and maybe you did that  to scam others.. you only have 6 activity, if you are serious on selling items or goods, you can create much more unique name and start building trust on your own..

[redsn0w]

The trust system is very "abstract", this phrase "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." is true until a cert point. If you don't trust one, you should not give him a negative trust and in these days I have seen a lot of imposter/fake accounts but "that's not the case of the OP" (my personal opinion). If you don't trust someone, remove him for your trust list.

However the negative trust should not stop you to trade here.

[Quickseller]

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago) because i really thinks he is way to fast with a scam accusation - so they are just useless to me. that's just the first time i thought it might be necessary to point it out because IMHO it has gone to far.

(btw i dont think Quickseller will scam. i just dont share his opinion about this matter; hence comment as trust abuser)

I'm sorry, but who are you? Your account is two weeks old so it is not possible to have removed me from your trust list "a while ago"

The reason I ask is because I know of very few people who have removed me from their trust list, one (or more) of them is (are) someone that has carried out a lot of long term scams, stealing huge amounts of money, although as of more recently the amount of time it took to change from 'honest' to 'scam' has declined, each con has resulted in similarly large amounts of money being stolen.

[Muhammed Zakir]

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago)
 =snip=

I'm sorry, but who are you? Your account is two weeks old so it is not possible to have removed me from your trust list "a while ago"

Alt of onemorebtc*.

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=328218

[Quickseller]

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago)
 =snip=

I'm sorry, but who are you? Your account is two weeks old so it is not possible to have removed me from your trust list "a while ago"

Alt of onemorebtc*.

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=328218

Yup they are probably the same person considering they both have the exact same signature and the exact same btc address in their profile. I wonder if onemorebtc was banned as onemorexmr was created ~8 hours after onemorebtc posted last, even though onemorebtc was last online only today.

edit: his UID is not on the modlog, however that does not mean for sure that he was not banned

[onemorexmr]

but Quickseller is not in my trust list (i removed him a while ago)
 =snip=

I'm sorry, but who are you? Your account is two weeks old so it is not possible to have removed me from your trust list "a while ago"

Alt of onemorebtc*.

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=328218

Yup they are probably the same person considering they both have the exact same signature and the exact same btc address in their profile. I wonder if onemorebtc was banned as onemorexmr was created ~8 hours after onemorebtc posted last, even though onemorebtc was last online only today.

edit: his UID is not on the modlog, however that does not mean for sure that he was not banned

flower1024 (sold) -> onemorebtc -> onemorexmr

well... that you know think i will scam is a joke.. i leave this thread now. you may ofc. neg-rate me if you want.

(hint i dont use multiple accounts in parallel)

[Cryptock]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

[Chijio]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

there is no way that 2 account will have exactly the same name

the negative trust is because of impersonation and/or attemp to scam

[Superhitech]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

there is no way that 2 account will have exactly the same name

the negative trust is because of impersonation and/or attemp to scam

Yes, but as stated above, OP is a real seller and not an impersonator. Quickseller should remove the feedback. If OP does try to scam, Quickseller can easily put the feedback back.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Yes, but as stated above, OP is a real seller and not an impersonator.

We can't say for sure.

Quickseller should remove the feedback. If OP does try to scam, Quickseller can easily put the feedback back.

It will be too late. It is for preventing scam not for scamming.

[Chijio]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

there is no way that 2 account will have exactly the same name

the negative trust is because of impersonation and/or attemp to scam

Yes, but as stated above, OP is a real seller and not an impersonator. Quickseller should remove the feedback. If OP does try to scam, Quickseller can easily put the feedback back.

if he is a real seller it wouldnt be a problem for him to create new account with unique name to avoid having issues like this.. also the negative feedback is just "Not the real ACCTseller" so Quickseller is not accusing him scammer but only giving warning to people who will possibly will have a deal with him to take caution for it may do scam attemp

[redsn0w]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

there is no way that 2 account will have exactly the same name

the negative trust is because of impersonation and/or attemp to scam

Yes, but as stated above, OP is a real seller and not an impersonator. Quickseller should remove the feedback. If OP does try to scam, Quickseller can easily put the feedback back.

if he is a real seller it wouldnt be a problem for him to create new account with unique name to avoid having issues like this.. also the negative feedback is just "Not the real ACCTseller" so Quickseller is not accusing him scammer but only giving warning to people who will possibly will have a deal with him to take caution for it may do scam attemp

I think it is not so good see a red warning under your username/avatar, because a lot of users will see this phrase : Warning: Trade with extreme caution! and think that user is a scammer. They should learn to click on the trust , read the feedback and especially the reference (because a negative trust without a reference link is not "acceptable"). In this case as you said he (the OP) can create a new forum account, at the end it's not a real problem.

[Superhitech]

You should remove the negative trust, the account name is not the same.

there is no way that 2 account will have exactly the same name

the negative trust is because of impersonation and/or attemp to scam

Yes, but as stated above, OP is a real seller and not an impersonator. Quickseller should remove the feedback. If OP does try to scam, Quickseller can easily put the feedback back.

if he is a real seller it wouldnt be a problem for him to create new account with unique name to avoid having issues like this.. also the negative feedback is just "Not the real ACCTseller" so Quickseller is not accusing him scammer but only giving warning to people who will possibly will have a deal with him to take caution for it may do scam attemp

I think it is not so good see a red warning under your username/avatar, because a lot of users will see this phrase : Warning: Trade with extreme caution! and think that user is a scammer. They should learn to click on the trust , read the feedback and especially the reference (because a negative trust without a reference link is not "acceptable"). In this case as you said he (the OP) can create a new forum account, at the end it's not a real problem.

Maybe the phrase should be changed to something along the lines of this:

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Note that the trust system is not moderated.
Some feedback might be unjustified.
Make sure to check the reason and the reference as to why why the negative trust was given.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Maybe the phrase should be changed to something along the lines of this:

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Note that the trust system is not moderated.
Some feedback might be unjustified.
Make sure to check the reason and the reference as to why why the negative trust was given.

That is so lengthy. It could clutter up the posts. It will fit best in 'Trust Summary' if it is going to be added.

[bitfilliates]

Maybe the phrase should be changed to something along the lines of this:

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Note that the trust system is not moderated.
Some feedback might be unjustified.
Make sure to check the reason and the reference as to why why the negative trust was given.

That is so lengthy. It could clutter up the posts. It will fit best in 'Trust Summary' if it is going to be added.

I agree with you. Maybe adding a link to a sticky in the "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" would help?

Or, maybe there should be a new type of warning for purposes like this.

[abyrnes81]

Maybe the phrase should be changed to something along the lines of this:

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Note that the trust system is not moderated.
Some feedback might be unjustified.
Make sure to check the reason and the reference as to why why the negative trust was given.

That is so lengthy. It could clutter up the posts. It will fit best in 'Trust Summary' if it is going to be added.

I agree with you. Maybe adding a link to a sticky in the "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" would help?

Or, maybe there should be a new type of warning for purposes like this.

All the users should "build" their trust list, in that case they will start to "understand" how the trust system works. Everyone can receive a negative trust, but if there is not an evidence the trust is only be considered a "warning".