Quote from: erikalui on September 16, 2015, 08:31:18 PM

Quote from: ajareselde on September 14, 2015, 08:47:18 PM

Quote from: tmfp on September 14, 2015, 08:22:56 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on September 14, 2015, 08:17:02 PM

If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

You do this a lot: type in English but make no sense.

He's saying that if the person who bought the account trusts the people the previous owner trusted, there's no reason to remove those ratings that are left by original owner.
I got that, but since the account in question was on DT afaik, that only goes half way, because the new owner has the ability to leave ratings that are considered trusted, w/o "earning" that ability.

So it's a no-go on this one. DT account's - by forum rules or not, should definitely not be traded and remain on DT. (imho none should, but DT is where the line must be drawn)

cheers

That's why the DT level 2 members should be removed and there should just be a level 1 with the mos trusted members (who shouldn't sell their accounts atleast). By having over 50 members in the list 2, any random guy can just buy a DT account and mark negative ratings while the person who has added him might not even know whether the account is sold. These DT members from list 2 then go about threatening others about their reputation.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 14, 2015, 08:17:02 PM

It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.

The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

In my opinion, the solution to all of this trust farming and related nonsense is to decentralize the trust system by removing "default trust" altogether. People that don't want to set up their trust settings shoildn't have to do so. And forcing the default trust list onto them has created a "standard trust" list, which means a central point of failure for those who want to game the system. But alas, this is geting a bit off topic for this thread. Here are some really interesting threads on the topic of improving the trust system via decentralization.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0

^^^ Especially interesting is the arguments of quickseller in those threads given the recent relevations concerning his own behavior.

But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section.

The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller. But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself. At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick. There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.