Topic: Quickseller accuses me without proof!? (Read 4053 times)
Hey people. My story is now irrelevant since it's old and outdated. Please create your own topic to discuss.
Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........
[...]-iver is justified.
Thanks in advance!
Same here, zero evidence, I don't even know the guy, and he goes out of his way to accuse me.
What a day Today , I can see a lots of Threads Revised in meta about Quickseller.
I think user turtlehurricane is providing an equal opportunity to argue.
Same here, zero evidence, I don't even know the guy, and he goes out of his way to accuse me.
Quickseller feels himself like some kind of weird superhero who can predict future actions of persons and also read what they will do next. He gave me a negative trust without dealing with me, so I am not surprised.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here
I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.
It is true that your activity does make it seem, you might potentially scam someone with paypal, as you yourself were selling guides to chargeback, but still you could request them to change it to Neutral. As for selling illegal stuff like that, I think its banned on the forum, and that might be the reason for it. I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here
I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.I don't know the whole history with kingofbitcoin but I can say that tomotocage has aslo left negative feedback. It's not clear to me whether this is something that tomatocage turned up and quickseller just echoed or vice-versa. In any case, it seems a distraction to the issues in this thread, which are about quickseller's attempts to inflate his own importance by going after anyone who he seees as less powerful than him and offering no recourse. When it comes to people more powerful than him, he's completely polite and understanding and doesn't in any way act disagreeable. For those below him, it's his way or the highway or "you're an idiot scammer/spammer"!
Finally a hero member in which the logic speaks before his mouth. Regarding my guides it is true I was selling them, I just wanted to make a quick coin back then, didn't have much BTC, now I have and I stopped selling them, together with a file with 15.000 TOR/ONION websites in which you can cheat, scam people in an instant, even if you are a complete newbie. Still this doesn't give the right to someone to post negative feedback about me without the slightest evidence, just based on assumption, because quickseller, did left negative feedback for me much much later than the time of Tomato guy.
Quickseller feels himself like some kind of weird superhero who can predict future actions of persons and also read what they will do next. He gave me a negative trust without dealing with me, so I am not surprised.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.
It is true that your activity does make it seem, you might potentially scam someone with paypal, as you yourself were selling guides to chargeback, but still you could request them to change it to Neutral. As for selling illegal stuff like that, I think its banned on the forum, and that might be the reason for it. I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here
I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.I don't know the whole history with kingofbitcoin but I can say that tomotocage has aslo left negative feedback. It's not clear to me whether this is something that tomatocage turned up and quickseller just echoed or vice-versa. In any case, it seems a distraction to the issues in this thread, which are about quickseller's attempts to inflate his own importance by going after anyone who he seees as less powerful than him and offering no recourse. When it comes to people more powerful than him, he's completely polite and understanding and doesn't in any way act disagreeable. For those below him, it's his way or the highway or "you're an idiot scammer/spammer"!
Quickseller feels himself like some kind of weird superhero who can predict future actions of persons and also read what they will do next. He gave me a negative trust without dealing with me, so I am not surprised.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.
It is true that your activity does make it seem, you might potentially scam someone with paypal, as you yourself were selling guides to chargeback, but still you could request them to change it to Neutral. As for selling illegal stuff like that, I think its banned on the forum, and that might be the reason for it. I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here
I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.Maybe he does support him. I saw that as well. That's the only conclusion that I can come up with. Other than just random posts for sig campaign.
He does support him for sure. Which is why I'm pointing it out, so many randoms come out of the blue to 'support' him. If it's not just sig spam I'm not surprised that others are having suspicions about this mob of supporters.
Probably he is just an alt of Quickseller or something. But as a reply to him saying
Quote
Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.
If Quickseller thought his terms were unsafe for both, then he should have denied the escrow, than rather saying it is for sure a scam. He could also have left him a neutral trust. But to top it all of, he went ahead to find his alts, by sending a PM to another account seller, just for his personal revenge sort of mindset.
Quickseller feels himself like some kind of weird superhero who can predict future actions of persons and also read what they will do next. He gave me a negative trust without dealing with me, so I am not surprised.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here
I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved. 
Maybe he does support him. I saw that as well. That's the only conclusion that I can come up with. Other than just random posts for sig campaign.
He does support him for sure. Which is why I'm pointing it out, so many randoms come out of the blue to 'support' him. If it's not just sig spam I'm not surprised that others are having suspicions about this mob of supporters.
Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.
Thought that we have moved on from this case? Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.
P.S : $2 is not much and you couldnt almost get anything nowadays with that amount
Maybe he does support him. I saw that as well. That's the only conclusion that I can come up with. Other than just random posts for sig campaign.
Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.
Thought that we have moved on from this case? Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.
P.S : $2 is not much and you couldnt almost get anything nowadays with that amount
Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.
Thought that we have moved on from this case? Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.
P.S : $2 is not much and you couldnt almost get anything nowadays with that amount
Is not trading at all scammy behavior "Period"? Because it seems like that's exactly what happened. No trade went down because people couldn't agree on terms. QS negreps because he can do so with no consequence to people who are "below" him.
Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.
Thought that we have moved on from this case? Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.
P.S : $2 is not much and you couldnt almost get anything nowadays with that amount
Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........
Dodging the deal after suggested escrow is a good reason for a red flag, if QS has evidence that accounts are linked/alts of one another, then -iver is justified.
But i don't agree its ok to flag anyone without evidence. Since reputation is public, negative comment is public, then so should evidence proving claim also be public, and not something held back.
Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.
Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........
Dodging the deal after suggested escrow is a good reason for a red flag, if QS has evidence that accounts are linked/alts of one another, then -iver is justified.
But i don't agree its ok to flag anyone without evidence. Since reputation is public, negative comment is public, then so should evidence proving claim also be public, and not something held back.
It's quickseller's mo. He doesn't feel that he needs evidence. He goes after the people he wants to go after and considers himself to be some sort of amateur detective at it. He went after me without ever having done any trading with me and he tried to ruin my reputation with exactly 0 evidence.
Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........
Dodging the deal after suggested escrow is a good reason for a red flag, if QS has evidence that accounts are linked/alts of one another, then -iver is justified.
But i don't agree its ok to flag anyone without evidence. Since reputation is public, negative comment is public, then so should evidence proving claim also be public, and not something held back.
Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........
[...]Quickseller is [...] only doing it to that extent because of his personal grudge.
Not against the forum rules. Quickseller is doing exactly what you're all doing, scraping out some change from this forum.
He's just better at it
Its not, but he is in the default trust list. It won't be justified if someone like badbear or theymos goes about giving negative trust just because they want to. Being in the default trust list, has to make him take some responsibility.
To be clear, he's in "default trust" because badbear currently trusts him. Badbear is away at the moment so we can't expect him to answer this until he returns and has a chance to see what's been happening. The way the trust system works is that because QS is intransigent and doesn't answer for his actions, the responsibility goes upstream to badbear. If, in an outlandishly surprising turn of events, badbear is okay with this, it would eventually go up to Theymos, who trusts badbear. If, in a nonsensical turn of events, Theymos didn't care then the only recourse would be to live with the abuse or go off to another forum. In the end, this forum is a privately run benevolent dictatorship, the buck eventually stops with Theymos. But there are a couple of levels between Theymos and Quickseller.
The only thing I forsee happening is more argueing and fighting. I do not see a reasonable end to this no time soon unfortunately.
Well that is not true. Negative trusts can be explained and usually happen for a reason. It is pretty evident that worhipper had no extent of scamming , and Quickseller is treating him like a scammer, and even going to the degree of contacting you and getting information of his alt accounts. Quickseller is not doing this to keep the community safe. He is only doing it to that extent because of his personal grudge. Twipple, while I don't think that you're wrong, I do think you're treading on dangerous ground. Calling out quickseller for this kind of behavior is essentially why he went after me. On the other hand, it's usually better to be on the right side of history because in the long-run, he won't be getting away with this stuff forever.
I don't think he does a poor job of spotting scammers, Pointing out 10 scams, and getting 1 wrong doesn't make him look bad, but he thinks it does. And you will almost never see him agree to an incorrect reputation argument.
Also, he is not right, because he agreed to remove negative trust from someone else's account, who almost exactly, had the same thing like me. And he did it, just because while selling, he was used as an escrow.
Jump to: