Topic: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... - page 10. (Read 16226 times)

Scammer will often agree to use escrow and then disappear once escrow is set up with the hopes that escrow will take too long to respond so their trading partner will simply agree to send first (and end up getting scammed). All of the OP's terms demands were met yet he still backed out of the deal.
no

It's more uncomfortable if the escrow doesn't discuss the changes in the terms that he things should take place with the other parties. Quickseller gave the other parties new terms without discussing the changes with them, he now claims that he had reached an agreement with worshiper while in fact there was never an agreement between them since the original terms were different with the ones quickseller presented.

And while backing off this deal seems a bit shady, it didn't cause any harm. Not it could have caused any. That's why I believe a neutral rating instead of a negative one would have been more justified since Quickseller has no evidence to support that this user attempted to scam someone. Yes, what worsiper did was unprofessional but not fraudulent. If quickseller doesn't want to deal with him again he's free to do whatever he wants. But ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required. And in the end of the day, quickseller wasn't all that professional in this transaction, he could have been the one to deny providing his service from the start instead of presenting new terms  and avoid all this.

What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this.

What if seller change password and tell it waa escrow who did it? It can't be resolved easily unless admins involve in this.


IMHO giving tips about security it good but escrowing according to their terms aren't always good. If their terms aren't good, escrow should come up with new terms which is comfortable for both. The terms Quickseller came up with were good but backing out that deal for making a safer terms is shady.

I don't think that would be an example of what I posted. It seems very arguable from the little I know about it. I will probably read that thread (and the old one) more carefully later when I have some time and comment if I think it's worth by then. But it's BadBear's decision.

I hope you are correct.  Unfortunately, I have the opportunity to put your assertion to the empirical test.

If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

Just to make it clear (in case it wasn't for you on my previous posts) I do not think it's OK to leave a negative trust if I just have a hunch someone is a scammer. But it's OK to do it if I'm 99% convinced he is trying to scam (even if he hasn't yet). As I've said I have left negative trust with only about 50% certainty but I never consider it closed on those conditions. I keep reading the replies and either keep it if that certainty goes close to 100% or remove it otherwise. Several scams are produced because of a newbie making a deal right after a scammer posts a thread. That thread usually has several red flags that older users can notice but not newbies. It's possible someone can show "false positive" red flags such as not using escrow or not providing collateral for a loan. But on those cases they will correct quite fast if someone points that out. If they do of course the negative trust should be immediately removed. I'm convinced it's OK to leave a red rating if I'm 99% sure someone tries to scam (as I also said that doesn't apply for a judge and someone accused of a crime). Although I'm not on default trust I think some people will read the feedback and I hope I prevented at least one scam.

There would be much more scams if only those who succeeded on scamming received red trust and not those with clear scammy/shady behavior. They could scam, get negative trust, create a new account and repeat knowing they won't get his account red until they scam again.

(Again your post and my response are somewhat off-topic. I'm talking in general here, not about OP.)

Edit:
Regarding this probably it's not worth commenting because I think OP's behavior was somewhat shady and you don't and that's that. However to make it clear I think it was shady mainly because the conditions he demanded didn't protect the seller and because he backed out of the deal even after all his conditions were met (OP recognized the conditions were met and he backed out just because he was angry). I don't think that's enough to tag him as a scammer but that's definitely not a professional behavior. It's like when someone bids on an auction and then cancels the deal after winning. The other party could have rejected other deals because OP already confirmed it. Personally I prefer not to deal with someone that does this kind of things.

Ding ding ding ding... we have a winner. He didn't get paid so acted like a prick.

Do not, repeat do not, do business with this guy. He is a prick.

I only speak for me but i dont bother reading anything more when someone has red trust. Because in the past it was a sign for a scammer. Simply as that.

And whats the small mistake in judgement? Am i understood it wrong that rules werent clear before the trade started?

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer, would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

I guess if the seller in this case is buying the accounts and the escrow can confirm, then it might be enough to take that trust away? But still, 50% sure that someone is a scammer. Im really not sure that he is one. So that makes it fully dependend on the user who views the case. And im sure if you move on that way that you will hurt someones justice feelings and he will neg rep you too at the end. I wonder how the scam accusation threads will read then.

Not speak meant its easy to judge a delinquent at court when he doesnt defend itself. Its obvious he cant say anything against because he is guilty. Luckily there is a rule that allows this and it cant be taken against him. Might be you dont take a red trust as a court order but look around the forums, the ones with the red trust are practically all scammers. It doesnt matter if you spread red votes on believes, its practically a scammer label. And i would not care to read what was written in there. If someone "had a feeling" that he might be a scammer. I simply wouldnt use him. And he would be out of business as long as he doesnt create a scam accusation threat.

Ok, you dont think the red trust is justified. But i think OP wasnt shady too. Only rules werent made clear before the start. The trade already started without that. I wouldnt want to be in a trade and then hear new rules being added to the contract.

There are ways to make the transfer so that it isnt revealed. For example only changing after escrow has the coins in escrow address.

Even if not, its up to buyer and seller to negotiate on a security level they feel comfortable with. Escrow only should step in when its unsecure for him or to give a tip about a potential risk. But at the end its up to them to decide what they feel comfortable with.


I dont see that problem since its easily proven that the escrow isnt in charge.


Then you might let the logins send to you only after the escrow address is funded. Its highly unlikely that it gets banned in the time after that.


Buyer funds first then. And why should the escrow release the coins to the seller before the buyer claims the accounts are secured?


Might be that scammers are often virtuous with words. Though assuming that this here was a scam attempt sounds a far fetched assumption. Its not that he posted some "Double your bitcoin"-Links, where you know with certainty whats going on.

Edit:


Then the escrow gives back the bitcoins. No risk at all. Since those things practically never happens, its not a risk at all. Even when, no harm done. The seller can get a red trust and thats it. If he later comes and claims he was in hospital then things can proceed.

He's still got it

Font size 3 text (sigh) quoted for those that want to read it

You are probably right in principle.  But in practice I suppose that very of quickseller's potential customers spend much time reading through these kinds of threads on meta.

I am not sure why you think that I sell bitcointalk accounts. I think it should be pretty clear that I do not currently sell any. I am also not sure why you created your account just to make that statement, it really isn't all that controversial (although it is incorrect). I am sure that a good number of people in the default trust network sell bitcointalk accounts, probably just not from their account that is on default trust. If you think that I am giving positive trust to any of my accounts that I am selling/have sold in the past then you are free to bring it to my attention and if I do not give you a satisfactory answer then you are free to open a thread accusing me of such (or you can just jump straight to opening a thread), however I can assure you that is not something I engage in. Your theory has also been debunked in the past.

It is factually accurate. Any dispute about my rating is solely about semantics and the substance behind my ratings is accurate. If you really want to argue about semantics then I can modify my comment to say "After an escrow agreement was sent to worhiper_-_, he demanded changes to the escrow agreement that would put both the escrow and seller at risk, after worhiper_-_'s scammy demands were me he failed to fund the escrow address.  I would avoid doing business with this person under any circumstances" however I really don't think it is necessary.

I have also reviewed your post history and it appears that you have been one of the first people to invest in various HYIP's that eventually ended up scamming, yet you always got your money back  

You may be correct in saying that that people may think that I would give a negative in the event that someone  had some kind of change in circumstances and needed to back out of a trade with mutual understanding, however that was not the case in this situation. He even admits that the only reason he backed out of the deal was because he was angry, however after having a long time to "cool down" he has not gone through with the deal. If there was a mutual agreement to cancel the deal with all parties agreeing then a negative would have not even be considered. If this means that I have more difficulty conducting business in the future then so be it, however I am not going to allow a scammer to blackmail me into removing a negative I left for a scammer and that will be the cost of calling out scammers.

Quickseller, IMO changing his rating to a neutral is in your own best interest. You know why?  Because now anyone considering trading with you in the future will see that this may happen to them if they change their minds or don't like your terms of a deal and simply not trade with you to begin with.

It's funny how you still claim that your rating is 100% accurate.

You must be extremely pretentious to go around saying that we two had an agreement while it's so clear that we never did. It's also very selfish of you to use your advantage of being in the default trust to bring down people that have bad things to say about your service but that's another story.

The negative stands. I have taken the opinions of others into consideration and they were not able to change my mind. Most of the people who are advocating for the removal of my trust are not reputable in my eyes.
Okay then. Case closed.
no

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that but there are also some inconsistencies on your part.