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.
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.
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.
"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.