I apologize for locking this topic so quickly last night and disappearing. It was a last ditch effort to stop me from losing my cool.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/remains-of-missing-alberta-girl-found-suspect-in-custody-1.2563540
I've been following this since the Amber Alert was first issued - happened close to where I lived. I'm very upset about it. I took part in a rally from 8am-9am yesterday morning.
This 2 year old girl was kidnapped, assaulted and killed.
If I caught someone in the act of raping a child, I would probably come close to killing them. Quickseller would invite them for a coffee to discuss their point of view.
This thread has run it's course. The community has overwhelmingly voted that Quickscammer is a fraud and not to be trusted.
Topic: Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK? (Read 13136 times)
If someone were to engage in a discussion on the subject of pedophilia being "okay" then yes someone's opinion that it is okay should be listened to and their viewpoint should be attempted to be understood.
Like I said - no thanks - I don't find pre-pubescent children to be sexually attractive.
And you will never convince me otherwise, you pervert.
If someone were to engage in a discussion on the subject of pedophilia being "okay" then yes someone's opinion that it is okay should be listened to and their viewpoint should be attempted to be understood.
No thanks.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads
makes sense.
the idea that's it ok to pretend to be a neutral ambassador to a trade when you're actually one of the trade participants is pretty much laughable.
I listened to your logic.
I found it to be unconvincing rationalizations.
The crowd may not always be right, but it's not always wrong, and I think you
might have an easier and more fun time being on the side of reality.
Then bad things don't happen like getting removed from DT.
Or do you think this is some big injustice?
If someone were to engage in a discussion on the subject of pedophilia being "okay" then yes someone's opinion that it is okay should be listened to and their viewpoint should be attempted to be understood.
No thanks.
Right, so instead of listening to the logic of those who have a different viewpoint that you do, you make a mockery out of them.
4 people out of 200 (2%) think pedophilia is OK. The same number that thinking escrowing for yourself is OK.
Are we supposed to listen to their logic as well? Understand their viewpoint?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106
If someone were to engage in a discussion on the subject of pedophilia being "okay" then yes someone's opinion that it is okay should be listened to and their viewpoint should be attempted to be understood. Otherwise then you are just bashing whoever does not agree with you. With that being said, is my personal viewpoint that pedophilia is wrong going to change after engaging in a discussion on the matter? I can say that the chances of this changing are as close to zero as they get.
If you do not listen to their logic and attempt to understand their viewpoint, then they will not take your opinions into consideration, and no matter how strong your argument is against pedophilia, their stance will most likely not change. If however you do respect their opinion, and make a strong enough argument to convince them to change their mind, then maybe they will hold an opposite viewpoint then what they did at the beginning of the discussion. And maybe, just maybe, this will prevent at least one additional person from falling victim of a pedo.
There were 30 "no" votes in the first 30 minutes of the poll, the identities of those who voted and how are not being disclosed making it difficult to look into how many potential sockpuppet accounts had voted on each side (even with this disclosure, it would be difficult to tell one way or another), and the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads
Still, 95% of accounts said what you did was wrong. When we consider your alts, there were probably only 3-4 actual people that said what you did was ok.
3-4 out of this entire community...
You claim that only 3-4 people in the entire community oppose your viewpoint is speculation because 1) the identities of those who voted and how are not public, and as a result, there is zero basis for such speculation and 2) only around 200 accounts voted, this is out of over 1,600 that are online now, and many times that are a part of the community.
If you seriously want an accurate representation of the stance of the community on this issue, then you would need to draft a neutrally leaning question that is without preexisting bias as your question is, and then randomly select a number of members of the community to get their viewpoint and then not publish any of the results until all of the votes are tallied.
Right, so instead of listening to the logic of those who have a different viewpoint that you do, you make a mockery out of them.
4 people out of 200 (2%) think pedophilia is OK. The same number that thinking escrowing for yourself is OK.
Are we supposed to listen to their logic as well? Understand their viewpoint?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106
the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads
makes sense.
the idea that's it ok to pretend to be a neutral ambassador to a trade when you're actually one of the trade participants is pretty much laughable.
There were 30 "no" votes in the first 30 minutes of the poll, the identities of those who voted and how are not being disclosed making it difficult to look into how many potential sockpuppet accounts had voted on each side (even with this disclosure, it would be difficult to tell one way or another), and the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads
Still, 95% of accounts said what you did was wrong. When we consider your alts, there were probably only 3-4 actual people that said what you did was ok.
3-4 out of this entire community...
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads
makes sense.
the idea that's it ok to pretend to be a neutral ambassador to a trade when you're actually one of the trade participants is pretty much laughable.
Poll Auto Closed
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
This poll was really useless. It was obvious that was going to be the result. A simple Yes or No didn't really help. Now we need to know how bad the community thinks it is. We still don't know if most people thinks it deserves a negative feedback or when exactly it does: whenever fees are charged, even if no fees are charged, only when problems arise, only when malicious collusion happens, etc. The poll doesn't mean any similar action deserves a negative feedback (it neither says it doesn't of course).
Personally I really dislike this practice as I've already said but I consider a deeper analysis could be required on every case before leaving a negative.
Poll Auto Closed
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
This poll was really useless. It was obvious that was going to be the result. A simple Yes or No didn't really help. Now we need to know how bad the community thinks it is. We still don't know if most people thinks it deserves a negative feedback or when exactly it does: whenever fees are charged, even if no fees are charged, only when problems arise, only when malicious collusion happens, etc. The poll doesn't mean any similar action deserves a negative feedback (it neither says it doesn't of course).
Personally I really dislike this practice as I've already said but I consider a deeper analysis could be required on every case before leaving a negative.
Poll Auto Closed
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Not people, accounts, which might be controlled by the same person, but still argued by indefensible bullshitters to be third-parties.
Poll Auto Closed
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
I hope theymos will take care about all this in his new forum.
Not even a winky-face?
Why is selling account bad? What if you get one as a loan collateral?
I don't lend any money nor do I care about receiving any accounts as collateral. It's an unethical thing to do IMO and people scam using bought accounts. Hence I consider it bad but the forum allows it.
I wouldn't call it unethical. Otherwise every pawnshop owner in the country, who is lets say, taking in a $20,000 Rolex watch for $5,000 and sell it if you default to pay back for $12,000 would act unethical as well. A collateral for a loan is a collateral that can and should be used in case a loan is on default.
I think the unethical part is if you sell an account with 'trust' intact. The new owner receives an account with positive ratings and may as a result be trusted by people thinking he actually earned those ratings rather than simply having bought them.
Instead of pawning Rolexes, think of pawning diplomas. The new owner looks as if he has worked for something whereas in fact he only bought a piece of paper.
I hope theymos will take care about all this in his new forum.
Why is selling account bad? What if you get one as a loan collateral?
I don't lend any money nor do I care about receiving any accounts as collateral. It's an unethical thing to do IMO and people scam using bought accounts. Hence I consider it bad but the forum allows it.
I wouldn't call it unethical. Otherwise every pawnshop owner in the country, who is lets say, taking in a $20,000 Rolex watch for $5,000 and sell it if you default to pay back for $12,000 would act unethical as well. A collateral for a loan is a collateral that can and should be used in case a loan is on default.
I think the unethical part is if you sell an account with 'trust' intact. The new owner receives an account with positive ratings and may as a result be trusted by people thinking he actually earned those ratings rather than simply having bought them.
Instead of pawning Rolexes, think of pawning diplomas. The new owner looks as if he has worked for something whereas in fact he only bought a piece of paper.
Why is selling account bad? What if you get one as a loan collateral?
I don't lend any money nor do I care about receiving any accounts as collateral. It's an unethical thing to do IMO and people scam using bought accounts. Hence I consider it bad but the forum allows it.
I wouldn't call it unethical. Otherwise every pawnshop owner in the country, who is lets say, taking in a $20,000 Rolex watch for $5,000 and sell it if you default to pay back for $12,000 would act unethical as well. A collateral for a loan is a collateral that can and should be used in case a loan is on default.
Why is selling account bad? What if you get one as a loan collateral?
I don't lend any money nor do I care about receiving any accounts as collateral. It's an unethical thing to do IMO and people scam using bought accounts. Hence I consider it bad but the forum allows it.
Jump to: