Quote from: Quickseller on May 29, 2015, 06:23:24 AM

The negative rating that you had left for armis is clearly based on a person dispute and has nothing to do with how much he should (or should not) be trusted. If I was an outsider and has no prior connection to you then there would be no reason why I should have to take additional precautions when trading with armis just because you do not like him.

The Armis rating was debated endlessly here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269
so I am not going to waste time repeating myself. I did not negative rate him because "I did not like him", I negative rated him because he was calling me a scammer in my market place ops for asking the full cost of a gift card and continued lying about me and making insults in my market place op, effecting my ability to trade negatively for no other reason than his own personal entertainment.

He was trolling my op and refused to move on, and then escalated it with a series of accusations of me trying to"silence" him from speaking out about me, when he has the whole rest of the forum to do so in. If he would have posted in the appropriate section I never would have negative rated him. I made an offer to him that if he had removed his troll posts, I would have removed my rating for him, but he refused, and instead opted to continue to escalate the situation. Furthermore, no one ever explained to me that there were additional standards for default trust members. I was left to believe like everyone else in the trust system, we were free to rate people as we pleased. If some one had explained this to me I never would have left the rating, but these rules are not posted anywhere of course.

Quote from: Quickseller on May 29, 2015, 06:23:24 AM

The same goes for your ratings you sent to Vod and nubbins. I think it is pretty clear that you do not like either of them (at least as of when you left the ratings). Granted they did leave you negative trust first (I think), however I think anyone who leaves retaliatory trust ratings against someone should not have their sent trust ratings trusted. You should only leave a negative rating if you strongly think they are a scammer, and leaving an inaccurate rating is not scamming (nor is "trust abuse").

I never left a rating for Vod ... ever. Way to form opinions on something without knowing the facts. As for Nubbins he negative rated me simply because I disagreed with his WC theories, and his method of mob justice based on flimsy speculation. He also did this to several other users for the same reason. If some one is willing to abuse the trust system to try to silence myself and others from criticizing their behavior, then why shouldn't I negative rate them? It has nothing to do with retaliation and everything with drawing attention to the fact their ratings can not be trusted. Even Badbear excluded Nubbins from his trust list because of his behavior.

Quote from: Quickseller on May 29, 2015, 06:23:24 AM

Regarding the rating that you left WC, I would say that it is a fair rating as you appear to have traded with him (I have no reason to believe the trade was faked, nor do I think you would do something like that). With that being said, I think you were probably defending him for longer then you probably should have. At first when WC was first accused of using a laser to make his pieces when he was claiming to hand carve them, I could understand you defending them as some of the points he was making was somewhat valid, and I could see you relating to the points he was making. However after a while, it became more apparent that he was scamming, yet you were still supporting him. Even when it got to the point where he had essentially admitted to scamming and when he admitted that he was simply trolling, you were still supporting him.

The ratings that I have left were left because I have found evidence of either a scam or of scammy behavior (i.e. an attempt to scam). Although I may not agree with some of the people who I left negative ratings for, that does not mean that the negative rating is connected to my disagreement with them.

Of course there are plenty of people who are more then willing to claim that my negative rating I left for them is because of a personal opinion, however that is just an attempt to get my rating to either be removed or to get my rating to not show up by default.

What does my stance on the WC fiasco have to do with my clearly accurate positive rating left for him for a trade? Did I in any way abuse the trust system to try to support WC, or did I simply speak my opinion in threads, and you happen to disagree with it? Also, he never admitted to scamming anyone, lets not start with revisionism here.

You claim your left ratings are accurate and that they are all scammers, but that is not that easy to prove for certain. It is very easy to just claim anyone critical of your ratings is just another scammer, and who would believe them anyway unless they could prove their innocence. Judging people guilty until proven innocent has historically been a very destructive social policy because innocents are easily wrapped up in it.

People like Tomatocage at least have some standard of evidence that they require before marking a user negative, and he doesn't make a sport out of it, or use it as an excuse to farm trust points from rubbernecking onlookers entertained with the ensuing drama. If he is unsure, he uses neutral ratings to warn people of the possibility of a scam, he doesn't just outright accuse people on a hunch. I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest. I think people have quite a bit of justification to call your ratings into question, and you trying to divert the topic and make this about me is not doing you a service.