Quickseller using intimidation tactics to reinforce disputed trust ratings

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

I wouldn't put anything past that asshole he supports Dogie's fraud and tagged my trust rating like he thinks it matters or something.

If only what your saying wasn't just speculation then you would have something to really shake the default trust as well as remove some admins.

Thanks for the insight it is worth contemplating given the way Quickseller seems to be immune given and conversely how quickly someone like Canary In The Mine lost his Default Trust with Dogie pushing that agenda. Obviously Theymos needs to rethink the system again if that is possible. Something really stinks in all this and it isn't going away that is for sure.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 19, 2015, 02:48:20 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on May 19, 2015, 02:36:11 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 19, 2015, 02:27:53 AM

Quickseller feeds information to Badbear about who is buying and selling accounts, which usually ends up in them being banned, and the users buying even more accounts from him. Works out great for him, and just like that one coke dealer the cops let operate so he can be an informant, Badbear lets this regular and flagrant violation of the rules by Quickseller go ignored for similar reasons.

Evidence?

That would certainly KILL any sales for QS immediately don't you think?

That would be an ethical breach of trust for the seller / broker to give that information to the forum administrators without the knowledge of the buyer. Also couldn't the admins just read the PM's of name sellers to gather information like this on fraudsters and non-frausters alike?

Just speculation, especially considering Badbear is the one who added quickseller to the default trust list. But there is motive, means, and opportunity. No it wouldn't hurt his sales, because as I stated this creates a situation where MORE of a supply is needed. Scammers probably steal enough to make up for the cost anyway. Also I am sure they keep it on the downlow. They probably wait a few weeks to make it look less suspicious. Of course it is a breech of trust, but so would the admins reading pms randomly fishing for information wouldn't it? Quickseller has already demonstrated questionable morals, why put this past him?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Bicknellski on May 19, 2015, 02:36:11 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 19, 2015, 02:27:53 AM

Quickseller feeds information to Badbear about who is buying and selling accounts, which usually ends up in them being banned, and the users buying even more accounts from him. Works out great for him, and just like that one coke dealer the cops let operate so he can be an informant, Badbear lets this regular and flagrant violation of the rules by Quickseller go ignored for similar reasons.

Evidence?

That would certainly KILL any sales for QS immediately don't you think?

That would be an ethical breach of trust for the seller / broker to give that information to the forum administrators without the knowledge of the buyer. Also couldn't the admins just read the PM's of name sellers to gather information like this on fraudsters and non-frausters alike?

Just speculation, especially considering Badbear is the one who added quickseller to the default trust list. But there is motive, means, and opportunity. No it wouldn't hurt his sales, because as I stated this creates a situation where MORE of a supply is needed. Scammers probably steal enough to make up for the cost anyway. Also I am sure they keep it on the downlow. They probably wait a few weeks to make it look less suspicious. Of course it is a breech of trust, but so would the admins reading pms randomly fishing for information wouldn't it? Quickseller has already demonstrated questionable morals, why put this past him?

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 19, 2015, 02:27:53 AM

Quickseller feeds information to Badbear about who is buying and selling accounts, which usually ends up in them being banned, and the users buying even more accounts from him. Works out great for him, and just like that one coke dealer the cops let operate so he can be an informant, Badbear lets this regular and flagrant violation of the rules by Quickseller go ignored for similar reasons.

Evidence?

That would certainly KILL any sales for QS immediately don't you think?

That would be an ethical breach of trust for the seller / broker to give that information to the forum administrators without the knowledge of the buyer. Also couldn't the admins just read the PM's of name sellers to gather information like this on fraudsters and non-frausters alike?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quickseller feeds information to Badbear about who is buying and selling accounts, which usually ends up in them being banned, and the users buying even more accounts from him. Works out great for him, and just like that one coke dealer the cops let operate so he can be an informant, Badbear lets this regular and flagrant violation of the rules by Quickseller go ignored for similar reasons.

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 18, 2015, 09:48:54 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 18, 2015, 09:42:54 PM

I am not using intimidation tactics. I am merely stating facts. The fact is that at this point da dice is paying a scammer to advertise for them. If necessary, I will dig up the threads/posts where evidence is provided that shows based on what you yourself stated, would make a reasonable person conclude that you admitted to scamming TF. This would not really on in any way the word of TF.

At this point da dice is paying you to troll, and flame me. This as well as the fact that they are paying a scammer to advertise is absolutely unacceptable, and shows a very poor use of judgment, and shows ver poor business standards and ethics.

I would opine that any business that hires scammers to advertise for them and to represent their brand image is not deserving of my business, nor any one else's business. How can a business claim to be fair and honest when they are having scammers represent them?

Just because you decide that you don't like like someone doesn't make them a scammer. It's one thing to neg-rep someone (since, as we all know, trust is unmoderated), but following them around and trying to intimidate people not to do business with them is a whole 'nother level. And you say you're not doing it, but what else do you call it when you're posting in the bitmixer thread warning them not to work with Twippple because you have decided he is a scammer. Or where you post in the dadice thread just 24 hours before neg-repping me with an alt saying "i'm going to get you kicked out of here". If that's not indimidation, what is? These are just 2 examples I've seen recently, there may be more.

Correct.

Have a look at what he did to my rating. I have NEVER dealt with him at all and the more I know about his anonymous business the more I would never do business with an escrow that has access to 100s or 1000s of accounts on these forums that he could easily slip in and out of as we have already seen with the one account we know about. How the hell he is on a trust list to start with is a mystery and it probably means that he is actually known IRL by those who gave him trust. That to me is the more worrisome part of this that there is an account hiding an identity that is on the Trust List. That is unacceptable and it should not be standard practice by those on the default trust to allow people like this to have cover. Is he really trustworthy? For all we know it is Josh Zerlan? Or say Adam Allcock or Loshia or others who have a propensity for unethical behavior that is well documented.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 18, 2015, 09:48:54 PM

It's one thing to neg-rep someone (since, as we all know, trust is unmoderated), but following them around and trying to intimidate people not to do business with them is a whole 'nother level.

Trust is unmoderated, unless you are on the default trust list, in which case it is, unless you are one of the special few who do not have any consequences to their actions, like everyone else does for exhibiting the very same behavior, only less often.

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: Quickseller on May 18, 2015, 09:42:54 PM

I am not using intimidation tactics. I am merely stating facts. The fact is that at this point da dice is paying a scammer to advertise for them. If necessary, I will dig up the threads/posts where evidence is provided that shows based on what you yourself stated, would make a reasonable person conclude that you admitted to scamming TF. This would not really on in any way the word of TF.

At this point da dice is paying you to troll, and flame me. This as well as the fact that they are paying a scammer to advertise is absolutely unacceptable, and shows a very poor use of judgment, and shows ver poor business standards and ethics.

I would opine that any business that hires scammers to advertise for them and to represent their brand image is not deserving of my business, nor any one else's business. How can a business claim to be fair and honest when they are having scammers represent them?

Just because you decide that you don't like like someone doesn't make them a scammer. It's one thing to neg-rep someone (since, as we all know, trust is unmoderated), but following them around and trying to intimidate people not to do business with them is a whole 'nother level. And you say you're not doing it, but what else do you call it when you're posting in the bitmixer thread warning them not to work with Twippple because you have decided he is a scammer. Or where you post in the dadice thread just 24 hours before neg-repping me with an alt saying "i'm going to get you kicked out of here". If that's not indimidation, what is? These are just 2 examples I've seen recently, there may be more.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

I am not using intimidation tactics. I am merely stating facts. The fact is that at this point da dice is paying a scammer to advertise for them. If necessary, I will dig up the threads/posts where evidence is provided that shows based on what you yourself stated, would make a reasonable person conclude that you admitted to scamming TF. This would not really on in any way the word of TF.

At this point da dice is paying you to troll, and flame me. This as well as the fact that they are paying a scammer to advertise is absolutely unacceptable, and shows a very poor use of judgment, and shows ver poor business standards and ethics.

I would opine that any business that hires scammers to advertise for them and to represent their brand image is not deserving of my business, nor any one else's business. How can a business claim to be fair and honest when they are having scammers represent them?

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on May 18, 2015, 08:37:18 PM

Quote from: Vod on May 18, 2015, 07:31:13 PM

Is yours? You are one of the biggest scammers around

Citation needed.

Trust: -608: -16 / +20(20)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

/point
/match

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: Vod on May 18, 2015, 07:31:13 PM

Is yours? You are one of the biggest scammers around

Citation needed.

/point

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Vod on May 18, 2015, 07:31:13 PM

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on May 18, 2015, 07:30:00 PM

tspacepilot is stalking Quickseller and trolling threads with off-topic personal attacks, based on disputed facts.

As here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11348612

And in another incident I've personally experienced, tspacepilot loves stirring up drama and trolling and has committed fraud.

Is his opinion even remotely valid?

Is yours? You are one of the biggest scammers around and will be featured on my new PICISI education website.

Why are you stalking tspacepilot ?

And why am I stalking Vod ?

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on May 18, 2015, 07:30:00 PM

tspacepilot is stalking Quickseller and trolling threads with off-topic personal attacks, based on disputed facts.

As here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11348612

And in another incident I've personally experienced, tspacepilot loves stirring up drama and trolling and has committed fraud.

Is his opinion even remotely valid?

Is yours? You are one of the biggest scammers around and will be featured on my new PICISI education website.

Why are you stalking tspacepilot ?

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

tspacepilot is stalking Quickseller and trolling threads with off-topic personal attacks, based on disputed facts.

As here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11348612

And in another incident I've personally experienced, tspacepilot loves stirring up drama and trolling and has committed fraud.

Is his opinion even remotely valid?

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

As here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11327364

And in another thread I've seen, QS is attempting to use intimidation to further alienate people he has neg-repped. Because he's currently on default trust, these people already have to wear an "extreme caution" tag on their accounts. In both of these situations that I've seen QS's rating are under dispute in Meta but he refuses to change them. Then, when apparantely, the person is still able to get work as an advertizer, that makes QS mad and he threatens the advertizer not to work with people he has neg-repped.

Is this okay behavior for someone on Default trust?

EDIT: this post has the other item where he tries to intimidate dadice for working with me: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11371229

Topic: Quickseller using intimidation tactics to reinforce disputed trust ratings (Read 697 times)