Topic: Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT - page 2. (Read 35624 times)

There is an obvious contradiction here. You're saying that you can't tell how your customers would have felt about self-escrowing but at the same time you're claiming that the poll was tainted.

I don't really understand your reasoning for why those who voted against self-escrow must have been sockpuppets or influenced by sockpuppets. For example I don't have much of what you could call "trading experience" in my trust history, does that make my opinion on the subject invalid or half-valid and how would that even indicate (or not indicate) sockpuppeting?

Anyway, how about this - can you create a thread that has a properly (in your opinion) worded question about self-escrowing. If you don't trust pseudo-anonymous polling maybe you can establish your own reasonable voting rules. For example - votes must be posted in the thread, and only certain members' votes count. Perhaps only those who registered on Bitcointalk earlier than you? Or some other rule that would reduce the possibility of heavy sockpuppeting.

It is really not possible to say how many people would have felt differently at the time of the transaction. I cannot say that and neither can you, nor anyone else.

With the exception of trust farmers (who ultimately did not get what they were looking for....positive trust from me - who was on DT at the time), my customers were very happy with my services.

The fact that one person initially said that no harm was done (the one that only requested a refund of the escrow fees after Vod pushed him to do so) would imply that he would have used me as escrow if he knew at the time I was escrowing for myself. The fact that the other person said that he would have sent first to me if he knew I was panthers, implies that he would have still used my services if he knew I was escrowing for myself (although the issue of the escrow fee is less clear in this case, however I stand by my argument that I would have charged a higher price -greater then 1%- if I was trading under the QS name, making the issue of the escrow fee a bit of a moot point).

Both sides could have used sockpuppets to influence the poll, however I think that only one side did use sockpuppets to influence the poll. If you were to look at the posts in that thread you would see a large number of very low quality posts that were all against escrowing for yourself, and many/most of those accounts had no trading experience according to their trust history. I don't have specific evidence to address the results of the poll, however I think it is pretty clear that sockpuppets were being used in the discussion, which in turn influenced the poll (assuming sockpuppets were not being used to vote, which is unlikely if they were being used to sway the discussion), and the working of the OP of the thread was written in a way to encourage people to vote the way that Vod wanted. (even people who had escrowed for themselves were arguing against doing so).

If you were to ask why people would only want to use sockpuppets to vote against escrowing for yourself, then I would say because scammers would want to discredit me because I was/am so good at finding scams, and at finding alts of scammers. There were a fairly large number of accounts that had a good reason to want to discredit me who were posting in that thread.

The two customers that I mentioned were the only ones affected. They were also the only ones to speak on the matter. I cant say how many deals I have acted as escrow for, however those two customers would make up a small percentage  of my customer base.

That's not quite my point.

at the time of the transaction is the important part. If you had the self-escrow clause in your TOS since the beginning do you think that would have affected your business or not? How many deals have you escrowed since you added that clause?

Re poll - are you implying that only ONE side of that poll could have possibly used sockpuppets? What would be the reason for that?

I also find it amusing that you're trying to downplay the poll immediately after posting anecdotes from two (2) of your customers. How many deals have you escrowed and what percentage of those deals do those two represent?

Actually one person said they would have been willing to send first to me, and the other initially said that they say no harm in what I did (although they later requested a refund at the request/encouragement of Vod).

I would hope that you know that forum polls are less then useless due to the allowance of sockpuppets (among other reasons). Even if forum polls did have some meaning, the wording of the poll you are referencing was done in a way to encourage people to vote in a certain way (this fact is another piece of evidence that would show that Vod is not impartial when it comes to disputes and that he attempts to spin things so that others will believe what he wants).

So if fraud happens but nobody complains then it's not fraud? That's seriously backwards. Even if you don't consider it fraud then consider this:

If Quickseller's escrow customers had known about potential self-escrowing at the time of the transaction would they still have chosen to use Quickseller's services?

I'm fairly certain that many would have not, therefore Quickseller'd failure to disclose this fact was a material misrepresentation. A recent poll on self-escrowing showed a significant negative opinion on the subject.

Funny thing none of them are claiming that.

Is this something you have personally verified or are you just piling on top of others post?

Have you yourself ever traded with QS?



~BCX~

The fuck? What has that got to do with anything?

He defrauded people out of money by conning them into paying for a service they did not receive.


How would you feel if we did a trade and I tricked you into paying for an escrow service where you later found out I had acted as the escrow using an alternate forum account? Would you think, "Well the deal went through so, you know, that escrow fee I paid doesn't matter"?

How many trades would you be happy to do like that?

How big of a trade would you be happy to do like that?

What's the limit of BTC you'd be happy to risk doing a trade where you pay for escrow but you aren't getting it?

How would you feel about doing, say, a trade worth 100BTC where you pay for escrow but you aren't getting it?

Is there a number you consider to be the limit of how much you'd be happy to risk on this?

That's called not committing economic suicide by inviting a SLAPP from Quickseller. Any more bullshit shilling?

I'm not a shill for anyone LOL

Just an observation that no one has come forward to complain about any deal with QS going bad and being burned on escrow.



~BCX~

There are no meds to treat dishonesty and no meds would have prevented QS from self-escrowing.  You can take it from me on that.

So what?  That wasn't the point. 

The point is he was secretly self escrowing.

That'll happen when a SLAPP looms. Any more bullshit shilling?

After thinking about this for a while, my opinion of the Quickseller Escrow Scamgate is "evolving"

One thing I have noticed in all of this is that not one person has come forward to say that QS took money for escrow and the deal went sour.

Just an observation.

Anyone else?


~BCX~

Are you dumb or just playing somebody who is?

The point is that a person is paying for a service you have conned him into thinking he is getting when he is not.

Fraud.

That might be a good comparison if escrow was insurance, however it is not therefore your comparison is invalid. Insurance is the spreading of risk across many entities who are taking similar risks and that is not what escrow is.

Sure, because when I pay for travel insurance and I don't fall sick on holiday it is perfectly fine if the insurance company never actually had me covered even when they said they did. They haven't stolen the insurance premium I paid, right?

I didn't do anything to you. I merely requested not to see your trust ratings. I don't trust your ratings, and don't wish to see red marks against people just because you've left them negative feedback. That's what the ~ thing does.


There are many reasons I don't want to see your trust ratings. I don't want to get into them all here. We're all very familiar with how you act here, but the following is a good example:


I never cheated or scammed StrikeSapphire, and they never accused me of cheating or scamming them.

They regularly offered +EV bonuses and +EV games. I took advantage of their +EV bonuses and games. They got sick of it, because obviously the promotions were intended to attract new players. You may be referring to my counting cards at their blackjack tables. That was something I did with their knowledge and blessing. You may be referring to their paranoid suspicion that I was referring myself to claim the same bonus multiple times. I wasn't. It's hard to know what you're referring to because as usual you left your accusation too vague to properly address. But in short, you're wrong.


Oh, and once again, you're wrong. I've told you before, I don't have any alts on this forum except for "Just-Dice" or something similar, which has one post.


Entirely. 100%. Totally.


If it wasn't for your treatment of tspacepilot it would have been for something else. The escrow fraud, lying about being banned, lying about your alts, twisting people's words to suit your own messed up agenda, etc., etc.


It doesn't make me look bad because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

To say that because a party was deceived by bad faith contract legalese that "legitimized" a fraudulent/self-escrow and to publicly voice their dissatisfaction of being a victim of fraud could result in punitive measures such as a SLAPP filed by the fraud/fraud's lawyer, no, that simply ISN'T "good enough".

If the trade was completed and both parties satisfied with the deal, the escrow would have been paid any way.

According to Quickseller because of this, he did not steal anything.

Isn't that good enough for you?


~BCX~

At least to me, the fact that he was stealing escrow fees seems as bad or worse than the lies about being banned.