Quote from: Quickseller on July 18, 2017, 04:13:59 PM

This is another example of the fact that you are too immature to see that many have issues with your ratings and behavior.

Do you think that you are in any position to criticize someone on this? Look at your trust page. Do you think that people are fine with your behavior?

Quote from: Quickseller on July 18, 2017, 04:13:59 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on July 12, 2017, 08:42:42 PM

You have no rebuttals to any of my statements.....didn't think so....

Likewise, with the sheer number of rebuttals from myself that you have flat out ignored you are in no place to comment on this.

In fact, I have a suspicion that you have put me on your ignore list for this reason. If you can't see me, I don't exist, right? Wink

Quote from: Quickseller on July 18, 2017, 04:29:35 PM

A negative rating is for scammers, and for scammers only.

This is false, but if you genuinely believe that then you only have to do two things to prove it.
1. Call yourself a scammer. Your account and all known alts of yours have received negative trust. If you genuinely believe that negative trust indicates a scammer, then you therefore are one and would have no problem admitting it.
2. Explain why you left these ratings in the past, when these users are not scammers and weren't believed to be.

Quote from: Quickseller on July 18, 2017, 04:29:35 PM

#3 I also have notice that Lauda is very quick to leave a negative rating against someone simply because a scam accusation has been opened, even when no proof beyond a persons word has been presented, and the person has responded and is disputing the accusation. This vastly puts the accused at a disadvantage, may cause the accused to not further defend himself, and if the accused was actually the one scammed, may result in the scammer getting away with their credibility intact.

As far as I'm aware (however I'm sure you'll provide a singular example to prove me wrong), these are hypotheticals. It is very unlikely that the person will not try to defend themselves, and if proper proof is provided I trust that Lauda will remove or replace the negative trust with something more suiting for the situation.

Quote from: Quickseller on July 18, 2017, 04:29:35 PM

#4 Lauda is an extortionist, who has refused to publicly address the extortion claim publicly. He even leaves negative trust against people who bring up the extortion topic as a means to silence those that criticize him.

Provide examples of this.