Quote from: dogie on April 20, 2015, 05:19:48 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 20, 2015, 04:12:41 PM

>110 megashill / megaspammer
80-110 likely shill
60-70 spammer / 'main' shill account
30-40 normal people
<30 sensible people

-snip-
We could discuss this in a spinoff thread if people are interested, propose some variants to increase accuracy / usefulness. Sorry for the derail.
Here are some random PPDO's of the people in the thread:
tspacepilot 206
LaudaM 173
TerminatorXL 72
erikalui 71.4
redsn0w 60.7
Blazedout419 44.3
quickseller 34.7
dogie 16.3
ACCTseller 12.5

Then this is horrible. I don't know how I achieved this. I'm thinking back at the inputs.io days where one didn't get banned for spamming (I had no idea what I was doing).
Anyhow it's quite obvious that ACCTseller is the second account to quickseller who is on the default list according to me. I also see negative rating for tspacepilot.

Quote from: Vod on April 20, 2015, 07:56:14 PM

IMO, I don't think anyone should trust TF's word. He was a liar and a scammer.

Also there is something worse. One doesn't bring up things that happened so long ago for an apparent reason. Quickseller it looks to me like this was intentional. I mean it is pretty obvious.
If I was tspacepilot, I probably wouldn't even remember what happened back then.

Quote from: tspacepilot on April 20, 2015, 07:52:42 PM

Quote from: ACCTseller on April 20, 2015, 07:35:33 PM

[snip]
You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP or how having an alt account is against any rule. The fact remains that the OP scammed and there is no reason why the community should not be warned when they are potentially dealing with scammers.

-snip-
EDIT: can anyone help me figure out if Quickseller is on default trust directly (level 1) or he's merely trusted by someone on default trust (level 2)? I imagine that if it's the former then I'll have to talk to Theymos or one of the forum moderators (does anyone know who, exactly, I should approach?). If it's the latter then pointing that person to this thread may be enough to get this straightened out. It's seems pretty clear that using default trust as a way to carry out a personal vendetta using the accusations of a known scammer as evidence is not how default trust is intended to be used.

I've checked. On the default trust list he is under BadBear.