Topic: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... - page 14. (Read 16226 times)

I agree fully with this.

I don't think Wohiper was trying to scam. Just wasn't 100% clear on everything. Not worth a negative trust rating imo.

Imagine going to a retail store and you asked to verify if they had an item and if it matched the description. you asked many questions if they had discounts if they offer insurance etc, Before buying but than you decide never mind you don't want it any more for what ever reason or maybe the reason was they offered insurance and when your at the check out the insurance price they quoted was different at the time of purchase.  And then the store manager  called you names and stated false information about you then kicked you out of the store for not buying item, when you were interested.



Yea that is what Quickseller basically did.

He is the store manager.



quickseller didn't like him wasting his time, so the best thing to do was to say negative feedback here you come.

It seems pretty universal in this thread (and I agree too) that backing out of a deal because you don't agree to everyone's terms is certainly not a breach of trust (no harm was done and no money/info was lost) and doesn't deserve negative feedback.  However, as others have also reminded us, the trust system is not moderated so really the only thing we can do in this situation is modify our trust lists accordingly:


Sorry, worshipper, for your experience.  I certainly wouldn't have gone through with a deal if I didn't agree to all the terms.

In defence of Quickseller, its sometimes needed to change the rules in order to not get in risks as the escrow. Because you never know if buyer and seller are actually the same person and this person tries to scam you. Though those all are things cleared before the trade actually starts.

At the end i will explain risks to the party at risk and if its fine for him/her then i proceed with the way they want.

Saying that... i would not give a negative trust if buyer and seller had an agreement and not all rules were on the table. I would neg rep when a deal is broken between buyer and seller. Not if they want to use another escrow only for example. (I would take out the part in your template about neg repping everyone who steps out a bit. This sounds like a threat and a risk one cant overview.)

You should have stated it earlier in the proof you posted that the account was verified , if he backed out after terms were full-filled , it's upto you if you want to remove neg trust because he backed out or not

by letting some people know the account username that you are selling that is actually a harm, people wish to stay anonimous with their alt that is for sure


Try to send again or open a thread in meta and ask tm2013 to confirm there, this will be the best thing you can do as they might have couple of PM sent to them, they might have miss your PM

I just read the whole thing, and I disagree with Quickseller on this. The buyer here never scammed anyone, he just backed out of the deal, because he didn't agree to your terms. He wasn't aware if the password has been changed or not. And just because he would get to know the name of the account, does not make it a scam and no wrong use could come out of it in future.

Also, I feel its not you who should decide to give him the negative rating or not. Ask the seller if he wants him to give it. If they are still going ahead with the deal without you as an escrow, doesn't mean you feel bad and give the rating, just because you didn't get 0.008 BTC from the deal.

I just feel you are giving negative ratings around so people later come to you to buy your accounts.
You should seriously put off the arrogant egoistic behavior, that seems to be reflected in your posts

-Peace

I did.


It is a trust system - not a trade feedback system - you can trust or distrust anyone for any reason.


It looks like it's only an issue between OP and Quickseller and if it's a problem for anyone else it's still in the wrong forum section.

I think the correct section is this (Scam Accusations) we are not talking about a service but of the negative trust that worhiper_-_ received by Quickseller.

Doesn't this affect the future reputation of all three parties here (buyer, seller, escrow)?

I am not dumb enough to send him someone else's property without first receiving payment.

The OP lied. Big surprise, that is what scammers do. The details were checked, he was notified and still backed out.


The negative stays

But the OP said you dint check:

Back to the events on a chronological order, afetr the seller agrees with my terms, you send me terms saying that I should pay on your escrow address first, disregarding my terms without a thought. Your excuse was that the transaction wouldn't be secure. Let me tell you something, you couls ask the user for a link to his profile and a sign message, custom post or anything similar. This way you could verify that he owns the account and just check if what he said about the account's rank was valid just with a link.

So you have no excuse when you say that you wouldn't check on the account just with a link, I told you to do it, I didn't though I'd have to tell you how to do it since you're supposedely experienced with that kind of stuff. No password change=no public logging, but you could still, securely check the account with the term I set.

*******************

Anyways, if the account was checked and the OP still backed out of the deal, does it mean he wasn't interested in paying you? It appears as if he wasn't happy with you as an escrow and found you unprofessional. He neither cancelled the deal after sending you the payment nor bought the account and took the details from you and then cancelled the deal. If it was the latter, the trust rating would be right.

At the end, it's your wish whether to remove or not the trust rating and I just gave my POV.

The account was checked. The OP still backed out of the deal. This was stated multiple times in the past. The issue of it being a good idea to check the account first is a moot point.

No one can get scammed. You just return the account back to the seller. I've never had a problem, and people who have used myself have always preferred to send the money directly. It's not the most confidential way as someone can find out the name before purchasing this way, but this is all agreed in advance. If someone does want me to hold the money, then that isn't a problem. That comment I included because I normally let the seller decide which they would prefer. I do agree though, and that's why the seller is given an option.

From what I understood, the OP just wanted the escrow to confirm if the profile of the account being sold matches with the information provided to the OP. It could be done by the escrow just getting the profile link and the escrow could tell the OP that he has checked the details and they match/do not match the description and also mention that he does not have the username nor password yet. Then the OP was OK to send the bitcoins to the escrow after which the escrow would confirm the transaction, get the username and password from the account owner and change the password. If the account owner provides the escrow with a different account whose details don't match with the account profile link he had given earlier, the transaction would be VOID and the escrow could provide the bitcoins back to the OP saying that account seller was a FRAUD else the transaction would be complete.


I don't get why the OP was given negative feedback when he had made his terms clear that he just wanted the escrow to have the profile link and verify the details with just the profile name and not take hold of the password. I know that the escrow's terms did not let him check the details of the account before funding his account but if he does not agree to it, there is no reason to give a negative feedback. It is just that the deal dint work out and in no way it proves anyone was not trustworthy.

That is actually a complicated and risky step

By holding the account it means to change the account password, it will then show up in the seclog, there is harm that the buyer will back out after noticing the username of the account. best thing to do is tht escrow hold both bitcoin and account . Bitcoin will be release after the buyer confirm that he got full control of the account

Even if he knows the account name after changing password, there is no harm since he sent payment already

I don't agree on giving a negative for backing out of terms of an escrow. There was no Bitcoin/information stolen. Because someone disagrees on terms doesn't mean it merits a negative rating. At most I would put a neutral with a warning that a successful escrow wasn't completed (even though that's probably not needed)  So, I don't think it's the correct decision to give a negative for simply backing out of a deal. Yes it's not very professional or ideal for the buyer/seller but it doesn't seem like any damage was done or there was any intent of a malicious action.

I guess my point is that there was no risk involved with this, because terms weren't agreed on. Although having said that, the buyer did act very unprofessional in the way of dealing with it and he should understand that a escrow must have separate terms to the buyer/seller to cover their arse too. If you didn't change the password, then the account could be taken back by the seller. But, without changing the password you can't verify that they are selling the account that they claim to be. If the terms had been agreed and the an issue had occurred then a negative is fully justified. But simply not accepting terms doesn't justify a negative.

I don't think Quickseller was doing anything wrong, he's probably gone about it the correct way in most parts, some parts I would do differently. But, he's trying to make sure that both parties are safe and because worhiper wanted no password change that basically means the seller can claim that account back whenever he likes. Quickseller has in his terms that a password change is necessary which I totally agree on.

It seems worhiper initial thoughts might of been, Quickseller stating in his terms that a password change is not going to happen, therefore worhiper will not hold Quickseller responsible if the account is reclaimed by the seller after the initial escrow is completed (sending/releasing and confirming the account is accessible by the buyer). However, there is a flaw in that thinking, that as a buyer they can claim that they have not received the correct credentials for the account, even though they might have access to it and the buyer might ask for the escrow to not be completed and have his money transferred back to him. Quickseller because he hasn't had the credentials himself can't confirm  that worhiper has access to the account. This is the whole point of having a escrow in this sort of transaction. So, all Quickseller at this point can only assume and he would probably need to return the money back to the buyer, meaning the seller might have held up to his side of the deal, but because Quickseller can't verify that himself he would end up being scammed. There is a workaround for Quickseller, he would need to put into is terms that the seller agrees to this and that he completely understands the risk involved in this sort of process and that he will not hold Quickseller responsible if the deal does go sour because of the reason stated above. Although, personally I wouldn't want to do this. This has the potential to cause problems and isn't using a escrow to it's complete potential.

I can understand why Quickseller wouldn't want to do this to avoid future problems. I wouldn't want to go ahead with this sort of deal. Maybe that's why Quickseller has justified his negative because of the reason above, but that's acting on assumption rather than evidence. I like to think innocent until proven guilty.

Unless, I'm not completely understanding what went on. Obviously, we as the community are only receiving partial information. I do believe that Worship might of misunderstood the process, and the risks of not changing the password.


The accepted practice of doing a money, for account trade is this:

1. Seller, buyer & escrow state their terms and are agreed upon by all parties. This includes the buyers sending address & the sellers receiving address.
2. Seller sends the credentials to the escrow.
3. Escrow confirms that the account has been sent and the credentials and the stated terms are met.
4. Escrow changes the account credentials and notifies the buyer that the payment can be sent.  
Now, in my opinion, the escrow doesn't need to hold the money, all he needs to do is hold the account details. The money can be transferred from the buyer to the seller. Because the escrow has confirmed that the terms have been met, e.g activity, posts and feedback. So there is no need for the escrow to hold any Bitcoin.
5. Buyer/Seller notify the escrow that the money has been sent/received.
6 Escrow checks whether this is true. If it is he releases the account to the buyer.  


Anyone who doesn't agree to those terms, doesn't use myself as a escrow. I wouldn't give them a negative for not agreeing to the terms. Seems that Quickseller was following these steps.

You'll have to admit that your rating is partly innacurate though. Probably the most important part(s) about it is/are innacurate.

I think that it mostly leans to the personal kind of trust rating of the type "I don't trust this person". And you can't say that I was the only one at fault in our trade, although I admit on letting my anger overcome logic. But I'll never admit to scamming or even attempting to.

Quickseller, if you don't trust me, it's fine. You can add a comment on my profile saying that. This in my opinion is more appropriate for personal opinions. Since I din't infact scam anyone. Nor it would be possible for me to scam someone out of money through our trade.

Quickseller, let's clear some things up shall we?

I sent you a message asking you to escrow this transaction (this was only the begining) specifically stating that I want you to check on the acount BEFORE asking me for money, seller agrees.

Now let me stop right here, you're thinking that what I do is fishy and finally even give me a negative trust rating. What lead here was you thinking that I'm trying to scam or expose the seller. And I ask, why would I do this? Why would I pretend that I want to buy an account just to know the name of the account and ruin it's reputation? Would I earn money from that in some way? Logically speaking, I would have no motivation to ruin an account's reputation, you were being overly protective clearly. But let's just say that this is normal with bitcoin and forget it.

Back to the events on a chronological order, afetr the seller agrees with my terms, you send me terms saying that I should pay on your escrow address first, disregarding my terms without a thought. Your excuse was that the transaction wouldn't be secure. Let me tell you something, you couls ask the user for a link to his profile and a sign message, custom post or anything similar. This way you could verify that he owns the account and just check if what he said about the account's rank was valid just with a link.

So you have no excuse when you say that you wouldn't check on the account just with a link, I told you to do it, I didn't though I'd have to tell you how to do it since you're supposedely experienced with that kind of stuff. No password change=no public logging, but you could still, securely check the account with the term I set.

And even if you couldn't, you could have not accepted the fucking trade. Plain and simple. Why accept a trade by changing the terms. See where this lead to?

So after I saw your terms I messaged you, tellink you how they don't comply with the ones I sent, you reply with this:


3. There was no good reason for me to try and "scam" or hurt the reputation of the seller. (But you have every right you want not to believe this)

If anything quickseller, you made things much more difficult. I don't know why you would give me a negative trust rating for not wanting to complete a deal with you. You know that backing off from a deal is not scamming. I had no intention to scam anybody, and I think that it's not right for you to use your good trust like that. Honestly, do you want people to be scared for backing from deals even if you don't treat em right? Because that's what I feel you did to me.

After Reading all of it! It appears to me what the buyer wanted was just for you to get the profile link and see if these details are correct

I don't suppose seller can send you wrong info which would be matching so much of the description , after receiving link and confirming it you can just proceed with the Escrow , and as per terms you'll have the account first so you can re-check that the account is same which was mentioned before and you proceed . I don't really understand here what there was to make it such complicated.

Edit:
Also , you state he tried to change terms which would result in scam , he clearly stated that you check it with Profile link and you won't need to change password and thus it won't appear up in Seclog