Quote from: shorena on May 12, 2015, 08:46:04 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 11, 2015, 08:04:37 PM

Quote from: shorena on May 11, 2015, 07:48:58 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 11, 2015, 06:14:09 PM

-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts. In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI.

I'm not sure this is correct. Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank. Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again.

I dont think my point came across, my argument is: its not worth it for Quickseller to activly hunt scammers in the way they do. E.g. the TheGambler dox has probably taken several hours, probably weeks worth of research. From a economical perspective it would make no sense to invest so much time if the sole motivator was to sell more accounts. My guess is that its worth more to hunt spammers. They are easier to detect and their motivation to earn through a signature is obvious. They also have a chance to ROI as long as they keep it constructive.

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices. But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid. COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

Quote

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 11, 2015, 08:04:37 PM

Quote

I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.

Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc. These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable.

Yes[1], but Quickseller is also not in a position where they can just decide on a regulation that would benefit them (long term). From what I have read, they usually have evidence. There are some cases IIRC where the evidence was not publicly disclosed. The evidence might not always be rock solid, but even arguably (in)valid evidence serves a purpose within the trust system. It is vital to understand the person giving the rating in order to understand the rating and how it affects your business.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all. In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago. In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

Quote

E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.

The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them.

I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust. So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account. Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt. And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings. I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list"). Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller).

Quote

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 12, 2015, 06:50:35 PM

Quote from: hilariousandco on May 12, 2015, 06:41:54 PM

Quote from: CoinFriend on May 12, 2015, 02:59:33 PM

It's not my work to search and show evidences

If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not.

Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS?
-snip-

In another thread:

Quote from: CoinFriend on May 04, 2015, 09:21:38 PM

-snip-
See here what i wrote about the account and what i found out about his posting history.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653271.msg11280915#msg11280915
-snip-

[1] I will also try to keep philosophy out of the discussion Wink