Pages:
Author

Topic: QUICKSELLER Vs. LEGENDSTER, LIVE NOW on Pay Per View, ROUND 1 - page 7. (Read 10417 times)

copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I primarily do not trust the negative ratings that you leave. Although I also don't trust the positive ratings you leave for people like WC (who is pretty clearly a scammer).

Yeah but, which actual ratings do you find questionable? I didn't just leave WC a positive rating, I transacted with him and he delivered what was promised. Why shouldn't I leave him a positive rating for that? It is not like it changes much anyway.

As far as negative ratings, I have left 13 total in the 4 years I have been trading here. Of those 13, 10 were for unique users (some users I left negatives for twice, usually as an update due to their activities). Of those 10 users, 6 were marked negative by other high ranking members for their fraudulent or questionable activities (confirming that others agree the negative trust was justified). Of the four remaining users I left ratings for, one was left for some one who skipped out on a loan from me, one was left for a user that decided to dox an Infinitecoin development team member with no cause or reason because he was angry that he was hacked by a 3rd party, two were left for Nubbins for negative rating me for being critical of his behavior, and the last one was left for Armis for harassing me in my own market place threads. Which of these ratings do you find questionable?

I try to only leave ratings (positive or negative) for people I have personally transacted with, or at least have had some direct interaction with. I don't hand out ratings as favors or use them as a tool to harass people I don't agree with. I consider myself one of the more conservative users of the trust system. You have on the other hand left more negative ratings than I have the free time to count, many of them questionable, and that is just on one account. I am not sure you are the person to criticize my use of trust ratings.
The negative rating that you had left for armis is clearly based on a person dispute and has nothing to do with how much he should (or should not) be trusted. If I was an outsider and has no prior connection to you then there would be no reason why I should have to take additional precautions when trading with armis just because you do not like him.

The same goes for your ratings you sent to Vod and nubbins. I think it is pretty clear that you do not like either of them (at least as of when you left the ratings). Granted they did leave you negative trust first (I think), however I think anyone who leaves retaliatory trust ratings against someone should not have their sent trust ratings trusted. You should only leave a negative rating if you strongly think they are a scammer, and leaving an inaccurate rating is not scamming (nor is "trust abuse"). 

Regarding the rating that you left WC, I would say that it is a fair rating as you appear to have traded with him (I have no reason to believe the trade was faked, nor do I think you would do something like that). With that being said, I think you were probably defending him for longer then you probably should have. At first when WC was first accused of using a laser to make his pieces when he was claiming to hand carve them, I could understand you defending them as some of the points he was making was somewhat valid, and I could see you relating to the points he was making. However after a while, it became more apparent that he was scamming, yet you were still supporting him. Even when it got to the point where he had essentially admitted to scamming and when he admitted that he was simply trolling, you were still supporting him.


The ratings that I have left were left because I have found evidence of either a scam or of scammy behavior (i.e. an attempt to scam). Although I may not agree with some of the people who I left negative ratings for, that does not mean that the negative rating is connected to my disagreement with them.

Of course there are plenty of people who are more then willing to claim that my negative rating I left for them is because of a personal opinion, however that is just an attempt to get my rating to either be removed or to get my rating to not show up by default. 
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
Okay I'll take that challenge give me the holidays let us see how anecdotal observation holds up to close scrutiny shall we. The point is bias in the application of the rules where "friends" and likely alt accounts of our mods skate free. The patterns exists let us see.

New Meta thread.

Who is Quickseller?  Nobody knows... number 1 reason he shouldn't be on any trust list.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
What assurance do you have to back up that Badbear is Quickseller 100%? I think all if not most of your arguments are either wrong or irrelevant.

Rather than starting a thread, you could have checked the default trust list to see that Quickseller is trusted by Tomatocage, and then Pmed Tomatocage asking for a reason why they added Quickseller.

Better question who the hell is Quickseller and what other accounts does he control?

For someone to gain a Default Trust place through anyone or to act as an escrow or be a pillar or paragon of the community why should he hide behind several anonymous ID's? That is circumspect and the height of hypocrisy given how many times Quickseller is quick to call out shill accounts as scam artists. Why should we trust anyone that hides his identity?

Will this get deleted as well? I suppose it will.

===

Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.


Come now, you aren't one of the trolls who calls censorship abuse when a rule is broken and a post is deleted or a line is censored.

You shouldn't have to give up your pseudonymity/anonymity to be on default trust. You don't have to trust anyone who hides their identity. You can trust everyone or no one if you wish, that's up to you. Why does it matter what accounts someone has? If one of their accounts does something untrustworthy, then that should carry over to their other accounts as well. Persecute Quickseller when someone finds that one of their accounts has done something they shouldn't have.

You are welcome to think whatever you want, but I still don't see how this relates to Staff at all. The only correlation I see is that Staff tend to respond to threads in Meta as that is sort of in the job description. Tomatocage has added Quickseller to their default trust list, Tomatocage is not staff. If you have a problem with Quickseller being on default trust again, talk to Tomatocage about it. I'm baffled by the fact that people are fighting "preferential treatment", but don't respect individuals rights to make their own opinion. Would it not be abuse if someone forced Tomatocage to remove Quickseller? Provide Tomatocage with a list of reasons why Quickseller shouldn't be on default trust, if Tomatocage doesn't agree, then its on him.

I really have a hard time rationalizing what your complaint is. I guess I should first try to understand a few points.

Who is in charge of giving preferential treatment to people?
Why must Tomatocage listen to you?
And who is or should be responsible for counteracting trust of people you don't approve of?
legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1094
Finally one person will stop hounding me from now on.  Cheesy

In any case, the entire DF system is being misused and immature ratings are being left on accounts. So many ratings are due to personal reasons. With the recent changes in the trust system, I can expect Huh ratings for many accounts and the ratings can have the following comments:

"I don't like the avatar of this person. Oversmart person."

"This person openly stated to be Obama himself. Very suspicious."

"He's a psycho. Don't deal with him."

"He called me mad. I call him mad now."

"He is a big fat liar."

"This person is making fun of me and now I am making fun of him."

And positive trust can be as sensible as "I love his hairstyle and hence I trust him."

Continue with such ratings as trust system isn't moderated and people can leave ratings even without any evidence and just spam. It will not benefit the bitcoin community for sure but will give peace to the members who want to personally attack others. I don't know what's the meaning of having a trust system which itself cannot be trusted.

DF now seems to consist of members who are treated as ministers and have the power to rule over the forum and the best thing is that they are appointed without conducting any elections. What can be worse than this?
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
I'm pretty sure Quickseller is also a moderator. He has every negative comment that I have to say about him removed by a moderator.

He'll probably have this one removed as well.

Since he buys and sells accounts for a living, thus enabling a pervasive culture of fraud and untrustworthiness that is now considered inherent in this particular forum, there is no way his ratings should have actual sway on peoples' trust levels.

If Quickseller were to suddenly disappear, the forum would instantly become a more honest, trustworthy place. I am quite certain of this.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
-snip-
Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

I knew it. Cheesy When I posted in mprep's thread, I knew you would drag me into this. I am not willing  to discuss about your theories in this thread because that will be an endless discussion. I am post here to ask how is TECSHARE's words applies to me? I am not in DF, not a staff or a person who have power and is not a person who is highly trusted. I am also not a spammer. How is staff protecting me?

I just wanted to comment that even though Muhammed Zakir is very opinionated, so much so he might not think everything though as much as he should, but IMO he is a reasonable person. We had a momentary conflict but it was easily resolved with a short private discussion. I don't believe he belongs grouped in with the others you mentioned. I don't really find him abusive (at least not that I have witnessed).



I primarily do not trust the negative ratings that you leave. Although I also don't trust the positive ratings you leave for people like WC (who is pretty clearly a scammer).

Yeah but, which actual ratings do you find questionable? I didn't just leave WC a positive rating, I transacted with him and he delivered what was promised. Why shouldn't I leave him a positive rating for that? It is not like it changes much anyway.

As far as negative ratings, I have left 13 total in the 4 years I have been trading here. Of those 13, 10 were for unique users (some users I left negatives for twice, usually as an update due to their activities). Of those 10 users, 6 were marked negative by other high ranking members for their fraudulent or questionable activities (confirming that others agree the negative trust was justified). Of the four remaining users I left ratings for, one was left for some one who skipped out on a loan from me, one was left for a user that decided to dox an Infinitecoin development team member with no cause or reason because he was angry that he was hacked by a 3rd party, two were left for Nubbins for negative rating me for being critical of his behavior, and the last one was left for Armis for harassing me in my own market place threads. Which of these ratings do you find questionable?

I try to only leave ratings (positive or negative) for people I have personally transacted with, or at least have had some direct interaction with. I don't hand out ratings as favors or use them as a tool to harass people I don't agree with. I consider myself one of the more conservative users of the trust system. You have on the other hand left more negative ratings than I have the free time to count, many of them questionable, and that is just on one account. I am not sure you are the person to criticize my use of trust ratings.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
-snip-
Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

I knew it. Cheesy When I posted in mprep's thread, I knew you would drag me into this. I am not willing  to discuss about your theories in this thread because that will be an endless discussion. I am post here to ask how is TECSHARE's words applies to me? I am not in DF, not a staff or a person who have power and is not a person who is highly trusted. I am also not a spammer. How is staff protecting me?
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads.


They are just egoistic assholes on the forum ,and the whole scenario is mis-interpreted but a lot of people on here. What most people see here is a negative trust on a scammer and who was spotted by Quickseller or someone and they follow him like scammer spotting god. What they don't realize is the other side of the argument and how they also do unethical things on here. Quickseller gave me a negative trust for something clearly I didn't do , and despite providing all the proof he disregarded all of it. But there happened to be another guy with the exact same case as mine, and he got his rating removed from Quickseller, because apparently Quickseller acted as an escrow on the deal and got 1$ out of it.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
What assurance do you have to back up that Badbear is Quickseller 100%? I think all if not most of your arguments are either wrong or irrelevant.

Rather than starting a thread, you could have checked the default trust list to see that Quickseller is trusted by Tomatocage, and then Pmed Tomatocage asking for a reason why they added Quickseller.

Better question who the hell is Quickseller and what other accounts does he control?

For someone to gain a Default Trust place through anyone or to act as an escrow or be a pillar or paragon of the community why should he hide behind several anonymous ID's? That is circumspect and the height of hypocrisy given how many times Quickseller is quick to call out shill accounts as scam artists. Why should we trust anyone that hides his identity?

Will this get deleted as well? I suppose it will.

===

Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

I think it is addressed above or am I wrong? No matter how many positive feedback you get *before* negative feedback, rating will be ???. The next positive feedback negates it and make rating 0. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Code:
else
score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
if score >= 0
start_time = time of first negative
score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time
I see your point. Maybe it is addressed.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

I think it is addressed above or am I wrong? No matter how many positive feedback you get *before* negative feedback, rating will be ???. The next positive feedback negates it and make rating 0. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Code:
 -snip-
else
score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
if score >= 0
start_time = time of first negative
score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time

P.S.

There is no decay. Ratings grow in weight from 1 to 10, then stay at 10 forever. (If the rated person has no negatives.)
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
-snip-
I am not sure why your trust score shows as zero when you have so many positive ratings. My interpretation of how trust scores are calculated means that your trust score should increase by 12 points every month. Maybe theymos can comment as to why your rating is not 100+ that it appears you should have. (The formula is somewhat complicated ) - he can comment if he wants to but I figured it out. When you have a negative rating, only ratings since after your first negative rating are counted for your trust score.

-snip-
Doesn't that mean if someone receives a positive and a negative rating, they'll go negative if the negative is newer?

If someone has 1 positive and 1 negative, then the time doesn't matter. They'll have a score of -1.

Examples:
Old -> New
+ - : -1
- + : -1
+ + - : ???
+ - + : 0
- + + : 1
+ + + : >=3
- - + : -3
+ - - : -3
- - - : -8

 -snip-
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 9709
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
I'm so glad I don't trade on here, I've seen so many arguments between some of you guys on here.
I appreciate scammers should be given negative trust but do you guys sometimes have feuds with each other & just give each other negative trust for no reason?
Come on guys, can't we all just get along?
We're all in bitcoin for the same reason aren't we, to make money ethically?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.



Bahahaha, I just saw that as well. Bit ironic that the person who tries to stand up for you and prevent you from having a TWC tag is the same person who you decide to insult for being put back onto DefaultTrust.

That said, I've been away for a while, but I never had an inherent problem with QS. He did leave the occasional weird negative trust but generally his ratings were (are?) accurate.

QS: This was the insult.

Quickseller didn't fix anything, all he did was make it so I don't have ? ? ? any more. I still have a ZERO trust rating after hundreds of trades and 4 years of activity because Vod feels it is appropriate to destroy peoples trust ratings because he does not like what was said about him. Him leaving a rating for me doesn't change my opinion of him, and if anything I would prefer he had not left it, because we have never traded or even hardly had any direct interaction. Furthermore he calls my left ratings into question. I am curious which actual rating(s) he takes issue with, because unlike you jamokes I try to limit my ratings to people I have had direct interaction or trade with and have used negative ratings sparingly. Additionally my posts have noting to do with the default trust, but with how the rules are selectively enforced regarding it (specifically Vods systematic abuse of it). I don't consider this a favor, even if he intended it to be.
I left the rating because you had previously expressed legitimate concerns about your ability to trade effectively and efficiently due to what is essentially a de facto trade with caution rating due to vod's negative.

I do think that you do want to be put back in the default trust network although a good number of your posts reflect your wish to do away with the default trust system.

I am not sure why your trust score shows as zero when you have so many positive ratings. My interpretation of how trust scores are calculated means that your trust score should increase by 12 points every month. Maybe theymos can comment as to why your rating is not 100+ that it appears you should have. (The formula is somewhat complicated ) - he can comment if he wants to but I figured it out. When you have a negative rating, only ratings since after your first negative rating are counted for your trust score.

You are welcome to have your own opinion of me. If you want the positive to be removed then confirm and I will remove it.

If you don't agree with Vod's rating then I would suggest contacting TC with your concerns.  He may or may not ask Vod to change it to a neutral however I would consider him to be fair and IMO he is a very good moderator of the trust ratings sent by people on his trust list, he really should teach a class or something on how to moderate the trust ratings of people on his trust list.

I primarily do not trust the negative ratings that you leave. Although I also don't trust the positive ratings you leave for people like WC (who is pretty clearly a scammer).

Edit: it looks like that Vod removed his rating so I will remove my positive that countered his negative.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
*Mod Edit threat removed* -SaltySpitoon

Under my trust score I see -3, and him being on trusted feedback again. I give zero shits about badbear and vod's rating but seeing Quickseller trusted again...brings out a fire in me.




Did no one read how childish and unethical the guy is? And how he has no life besides being on here? Seriously, would you like to trust your $ in a person who is obviously a child.

Also, how ironic, Badbear is a college student. Quickseller is an account that randomly popped up a YEAR AGO having MANY accounts as old as 2011...coincidence? Around same time Badbear got into Bitcoin. Quickseller acts likes a child, badbear is in college....Quickseller gets default trust quicker then anyone before him...coincidence? I think not.

Quickseller = Badbear. 100%. Calling this bullshit for what it is.

This was bound to happen, sooner or later he was going to be readded to the list , but this can't be helped. The Quickseller - Badbear theory could be possible looking at how things went but is highly improbable.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1118
But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

Sorry but I don't see anything about DiamondCardz in there... and I don't find it funny, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, even if you are pretending that it was just a joke.

I'm aware, but I'm not really talking about me. If you're going to pick out things from my grammar or use of pronouns then you don't really have a valid argument in the first place. And well, yes, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, I could've easily put it in another way. I just decided to throw in a touch of humour to freshen it up, if you like, eh? You don't like that...well, I'm not really bothered.

I'm more sticking up for Vod with that statement, I don't really need to defend myself from you like that.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

Sorry but I don't see anything about DiamondCardz in there... and I don't find it funny, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, even if you are pretending that it was just a joke.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1118
But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

P.S. Thanks for taking the time to look up the definition of jamoke and pasting it. That gave me a good laugh. At least we are on the same page now.
Pages:
Jump to: