Topic: @PrimeNumber7 is an alt account of @Quickseller (Read 2173 times)

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.

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

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"

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/primenumber7-is-an-alt-of-quickseller-take-2-5219253.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.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/primenumber7-is-an-alt-of-quickseller-take-2-5219253


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?

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:
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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.


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.


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


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.


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.

No surprise to me.


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.

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)?

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

I don’t care about the whole argument over whether Quickseller can be forgiven, or by how much.

I do care about the question of whether an innocent man is being accused here.  I want him to have his say, I am trying to tell him that he can clear this up if it’s just a terrible misunderstanding—and it is not helpful to just repeat the case against Quickseller, which I damn well know.  That may not be the case at all here!

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

---

Symbolism and colour are added with my condolences.

---

Unfortunately, it is not merely the status quo:  To answer a false charge dignifies it with the credibility of needing an answer; and worse, as I mentioned, there is the danger that innocent words may be twisted and misquoted for “proof” of guilt.  For the Americans, “...anything you say can and will be used against you.”

But this is the Bitcoin Forum, not a police station or courtroom.  I will go out on a limb and suggest discounting those factors here.

In so saying, I will speak from experience.  As you may (cough) remember, the anonymous scam_detector initially accused me together with alia.  It was a very bad situation for me:  I was falsely accused; but due to admittedly less-cautious judgment than I usually exercise, I had unknowningly, almost literally fallen into bed with a scammer.  There I was, intimately entangled with a very bad character against whom evidence was rapidly piling up from multiple credible sources—including theymos himself.  I knew that I looked quite guilty.

There was in that case no question of “dignifying” the charge:  It was objectively credible, not proved, but certainly a reasonable suspicion.  So I answered the accusations against me, openly and honestly.  Nobody coerced me to, or could have.  I thought it was the right thing to do.

As a result, a few dozen forum pages later, scam_detector actually apologized to me for having accused me.  I thought that was unnecessary, but I dearly appreciated the courtesy after such a bad day.  He did nothing wrong to me; and moreover, the thoroughness of the investigation had the beneficial side effect of dispelling any suspicions which otherwise may have lingered about me.

Although this is in some degree an apples to oranges comparison of very different situations, it is based on this experience that I don’t think I am too naïve in expecting that people here will be fair.  If PrimeNumber7 is actually innocent, it is to his own benefit to speak up; the problem is to persuade him of that, when it does sound a bit naïve for me to say so.  Of course, if he is actually Quickseller, eh—I probably don’t need to restate my opinion on that point.

---

Well, this is not America, much less an American courtroom—much less an American criminal-law courtroom, where the presumption is innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. “moral certainty”).

I think a reasonable standard is the preponderance of the evidence:  A more or less simple balance scale, where one side need only to weigh at least a bit more than the other.  If you want to think of it in American legal terms, consider it as if you are being sued in civil court on accusation of Quickselliness—or, to the flipside, you are sick and tired of rumours that you are Quickseller, and you are suing for a declaratory judgment clearing your reputation.

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, you should step up to affirmatively clear your good name.  Although it is very difficult to prove a negative, a “preponderance of the evidence” standard means that for my part, I will be satisfied if you show that you are more probably than not not-Quickseller (with the understanding that moral certainty either way is practically impossible here, and I will also be satisfied of your guilt if others show you are more probably than not Quickseller).


Agreed.  It is zero evidence either way.

---

eddie13, ok, so you did obliquely refer to Quickseller’s longtime disrepution of the forum to make it revolve around his petty spite.

Thanks for raising this quote; I forgot to address it earlier, in and of itself:


That implies that the reason to not do wrong is to avoid negative consequences, rather than because it’s wrong—whereas it’s a “seriously heinous crime” to make yourself trouble by doing bad things.  Although I realize it is a cold reality that many people avoid wrongdoing only to avoid the consequences (wherefore “deterrence”), it is an exceedingly low standard.  Please recalibrate your moral compass.

---

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, that is absolute nonsense. You may be talking about a singular error of mine. I'm talking about all my faults so far. I try to correct my faults as soon as they occur, whilst mr. Quicksie aka PN7 never stopped, and has actually increased in intensity over the years. Have I apologized for my errors? Yes, to many people many many times. Has Quickseller apologized to me or anyone else? No, because he is not sorry. So fork off with this hypocritical bullshit.

You were already forgiven long ago.

QS was not !

That's why DireWolfM14 talking makes sense.