Quote from: Quickseller on May 14, 2015, 04:56:46 AM

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 13, 2015, 06:34:03 PM

Quote from: shorena on May 13, 2015, 08:20:35 AM

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 12, 2015, 10:44:02 PM

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.

You still do not understand conflict of interest. Yes, I have an interest in having your removed from default trust because your lies have the potential to cost me money. But this is not a conflict of interest, this is merely my interest. The conflict of interest would be if I was also in a position to decide who was on default trust. If I had both the role of deciding who was on default trust (my interest in that role would be justice) and a personal profit interest in having you removed, this would be a conflict of interest. I don't have any authority over who is on default trust so I don't have any conflict. I hope you can understand that now.

Quote

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 13, 2015, 06:34:03 PM

Quote from: shorena

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.

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 12, 2015, 10:44:02 PM

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).

In fact, Blazr's opinion very much relies on the statements by TF. In fact, if anyone fucking cares, you can see in that original thread that I was not given the rules about bots by TF until after he banned me despite me asking him about them in PMs multiple times, despite the fact that he knew I was making a bot because I was asking him for help with it using node.js. I never admitted to any wrongdoing and I still don't. The fact that TF accuses me and that Blazr questions me isn't evidence. It's accusation from TF (a known liar) and speculation from Blazr (a side observer). Nothing more, nothing lestt.

Quote

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.

There's no evidence that I scammed anyone. On the other hand, there's ample evidence that you're attempting to smear me off this forum and that you're not getting away with it.

Quote

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.

The fact that you are attempting to smear me, by using multiple accounts to leave multiple feedbacks, by trolling me on the campaign thread and threatening to get me kicked out, the fact that you failed in this vendetta, none of that adds up to me being a scammer. It adds up to you being an immature hothead who thinks he's God and can't take it when you get called out. I called you out multiple times for being a hothead, I said it to your face that calling people idiots isn't helpful. This is the only imaginable reason why you went after me and all your lies and accusations don't add up to a shred of evidence against me. Now you're getting crazy and you're starting to try to call out other people who have worked with me and continue to work with me? I hope you don't start frothing at the mouth soon. Hold yourself together, kid. You'll grow up one day and realize sometimes you actually have to admit it when you're wrong, not keep digging the grave you're standing in.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on May 14, 2015, 05:31:44 AM

Quote from: shorena on May 13, 2015, 08:20:35 AM

-snip-
I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. {...}

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252882#msg3252882
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3255011#msg3255011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269906#msg3269906

Edit: (one of) the thing that makes me think tspacepilot is lying is

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on September 30, 2013, 02:50:25 PM

-snip-

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

I think discussion about tspacepilot-QS should be taken to tspacepilot's thread.

MZ, I don't understand you. You are linking us to r3wt's ancient opinions in the thread where practically no one believed me and everyone believed tf and then I walked away. The context is that TF was on default trust at the time and had not revealed himself to be the liar and theif that he is. So of course people were suspecting when a newbie like me said "why is this guy coming after me". It's really stupid to rehash this again and again and again so I don't know why we have to do it. The obvious conclusion that should be taken from that situation is that while TF scammed people for a huge a mount of money, I spent years on here with absolutely zero issues. Doing no harm and causing no problems. If you look at things in context it's quite clear what happened is that TF went of the rails accusing me of taking arbitrary amounts from his site (his amount he demands changes 3 times of the course of the discussion---this clearly shows that he didn't know what was going on, he just felt like someone abused him and he wanted revenge). I tried to talk with him about this to see if we could figure out what happened and where the misunderstanding was but it was impossible to do so. He just demands that I pay back everything I ever withdrew from the site and that was blackmail so I left it.

If you look at the situation of QS attacking my reputation it becomes quite clear that QS's only motivation was to troll me and get me kicked from and ad campaign. Why else would he leave three negative feedbacks using two accounts? Why else would he be lmaking threats in the campaign thread about getting me kicked out? Why else would he be spending a day looking through years of posts trying to find some trouble? Why else would he be taking a known scammer and liar's word as if it was gold? What motivation would he have for this except that he couldn't handle it when I called him out for being a hothead and calling people idiots. I made fun of his hot temper and told him it was unhelfpul. In return, he launched a smear campaign and tried to ruin my reputation.

At this point, I have no recourse other than to repeatedly point out the facts of the situation until one of: 1) the trustsystem chances 2) QS's slander is no longer on my account (this will never happen, he's the kind of person who will go down in flames rather than admit he was wrong---have you ever found one example of him admitting to being wrong?) 3) QS is removed from default trust.

However, I have to ask why you are bringing this back up in this thread? Why are you linking to r3wt's opinions? What does it have to do with anything here?