Quote from: Quickseller on July 13, 2016, 04:13:03 PM

@Lauda- are the screenshots of those messages an accurate representation of what you said to defcon23 at one point? If not then what is inaccurate?

They are (they're easily faked, although I didn't go through each individual message), but I consider them random gibberish. I tend to have 'fun' with people in that chat-room (compare that to the direct messages). The representation of the story is inaccurate, and I disagree with posting screenshot of private conversations without permission. All of this is off-topic to this thread.

Quote from: tspacepilot on July 13, 2016, 05:04:59 PM

If the screenshots are real then it looks like Lauda wanted to buy some item or another and was feeling impatient, then it looks like he refused to get involved in a personal dispute between Vod and defcon. what's the accusation here?

Correct, I refused to get involved into that dispute. From what I understand the accusation is somewhere in the lines of: I'm abusing my position (I assume moderator?) by leaving false feedback or something which is ridiculous as those aren't interconnected (regardless of the feedback being correct or not).

Quote from: tspacepilot on July 13, 2016, 05:46:39 PM

Quote from: defcon23 on July 13, 2016, 05:41:04 PM

the rest is more interesting: i have bought a coin , which he want: i have refused to trade it at his conditions ( 25$) so, he first menace to left a bad feedback,

I sorta thought that part was a joke.

Why would it be? Although "my conditions" was just a suggestion based on the amount of money required by others. The first screenshot shows that, although cuts off at "let me know who gets it, so I can leave negative rating" to make it seem like I was serious. If that were true, why am I not seeing the negative rating from myself on the "person who got it"? Roll Eyes

Quote from: tspacepilot on July 13, 2016, 05:46:39 PM

Well, if it is the case that he at first refused to intervene, and the dispute was over 1 year old, then he later intervened with a negative directly after you refused to trade with him, that seems like poor judgment.

This has nothing to do with the personal dispute which happened some time ago. This person (~~currently ignored~~) is acting like a special snowflake. I've left several ratings recently as I've caught up on that (still a long list to go). The reasoning: "We had a dispute X time ago, and you aren't allowed to leave a negative rating ever" is bullshit. Don't get me started on unjustified retaliatory feedback, which should make one less trustworthy by default.

Quote from: Vod on July 13, 2016, 06:22:35 PM

I have read your feedback against me. You called me a scammer when I have never scammed anyone, and you called QS innocent when it was proven he scammed by self escrow. That alone makes you untrustworthy.

That's what my rating reflects. Untrustworthy regardless of initial accusations due to retaliatory unjustified negative feedback.