Quote from: Quickseller on April 28, 2015, 02:04:16 PM

Quote from: erikalui on April 28, 2015, 01:58:00 PM

Quote from: alani123 on April 28, 2015, 01:44:01 PM

The case that he dug into a persons posts to give him a negative rating for something he did 2 years prior got already buried with irrelevant posts.

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on April 27, 2015, 06:05:04 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on April 27, 2015, 05:59:03 PM

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me. He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?). His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy. He says "avoid interacting with me at all". Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction? Seems like immature trolling to me.

Holy shit! Just looked at your ratings, did that idiot give you negative trust for something you did two years ago? How objective of you Quickseller, it's not like you targeted because you hate him, not at all. He really deserved a negative trust rating 2 years after no one else had complained about what he did.

No wonder that you think accts seller is his alt, he necroposted on your scam accusation from 2013 2 years afterwards just to target you from what is seems. Way to abuse his position in default trust.

People that have Quickseller in their trust lists should seriously reconsider their choice, his abuse is getting out of hand.

It's not that Quickseller is leaving a negative trust for personal reasons but his ratings are mostly based on assumptions and extreme cases which may not be true (although they can be a possibility) and hence one cannot trust his ratings. If he negates an account for scamming there are 50% chances of it being true and 50% untrue. Unless there is a solid evidence or the person attempts scamming, it's not right to make assumptions.

The people who trust him may blindly trust his ratings but they need to even read the reasons which is not the case always. I too find many people suspicious here but I can't claim anyone to be a scammer without having any proof.

He won't be removed from the trust list for these reasons.

Proof is not always publicly provided because providing such evidence would allow scammers to evade detection in the future, however evidence is retained and validated prior to calling someone out as a scammer.

In my case, there wasn't any proof. Never has been and never will be (because the accusations were false and they weren't even from you and they didn't even have anything to do with you).

Quote

I have been wrong in the past and when this happens I do remove such negative feedback,

Quiickseller, can you give one (1) example of a time when you removed negative trust?

Quote

although I tend to gather sufficient evidence to make sure I am correct prior to leaving a negative and as a result I do not often need to remove negatives.

Try to stop with this public masterbation. Let the facts speak for themselves. When you conclude every other post with "and that's why I'm so cool" it just looks ridiculous.