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).
Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there.
Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white. But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case. Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself. That's fine. COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests. This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust. Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but
I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.
-snip-
Yes you do. The value of your spam account would increase in the event that my negative trust rating would go away because I am removed from the default trust network. You would also expect to have a higher
signature spam campaign revenue as a result of my ratings not showing up as default.
I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else.
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.
Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.
Please see Blazr's
post in the thread that tspacepilot
locked censored, to both prevent people from disagreeing with his viewpoint and allow him to claim victory (when this is not the case) in an argument. His post essentially says that tspacepilot essentially admits to breaking the rules of coinchat (by blazr's own conclusion - and not relying on any of TF's statements). Just because he scammed what turned out to be a scammer and what turned out to be an extortionist does not mean that what he did was okay.
If you want Bitcoin to succeed over the long run, then you will need to be blind to the fact that someone has scammed in the past or that someone is a scammer when deciding if you are going to be honest with such person (if someone is a scammer then you should still take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself from being scammed). I can say that who is probably the most reputable person on the forum (tomatocage) has refunded/released escrow to scammers a number of times in order to protect the interrogatory of the marketplace on the forum, I can also say that I have done the same and that anyone who will not honor their escrow contract with a scammer is themselves a scammer.
Regarding da dice overlooking the fact that tspacepilot is a scammer/spammer - the fact that they are paying him to advertise their website has caused me to withhold my business with them which is significant, it has also caused me to withhold my recommendation of playing at their site when asked the general question as to if I recommend playing at their site, and the outright recommendation against playing at their site when asked, all due to the fact that they willingly and knowingly choose to associate with a scammer.