Quote from: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 06:26:09 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 06:20:18 PM

in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.

Another assumption.

Nonsense. No reasonable person would believe it is unsafe to trust with me. I have been trusted with large amounts of money by multiple people without incident or complaints. When someone retaliates they dont admit to this. You really are a tool.

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 06:36:27 PM

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

More nonsense. The standard is what a reasonable person would believe, not what you believe.

Quote from: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 06:36:27 PM

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

Quote from: U.S. defamation laws

"Libel: The written or published (media, print, signs, etc) false assertion of fact communicated to a third-party, which ultimately causes damage to another persons reputation."

I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions.

More nonsense. Hhampuz is a scammer (he stole money). I never entered into any kind of implied agreement with him to not call him out when I believe him to be scamming.