Bitcoin Forum

My perception of Red Tag in the forum has changed vastly compared to when I newly joined this forum late May this year.
I used to avoid anyone with -ve trust, I hardly quote them or reply their quotes and they were somewhat few then.
But recently, you cannot go through a page without seeing atleast 7 users with -ve tag, especially in gambling section.
These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.
If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.
I think something should be done to remedy this situation;
By a way of checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.
Or maybe as a result of increase in scam companies advertising their projects.
Whatever way, if not redressed could be damaging to the forum.

Negative tag should just be a warning, the reason that caused the tag can be checked, some are useless, but many are not, like the 1xbit campaign participants and people involved in malacious post contents that can result to scam. In my opinion, I do not think there is anything bad with it, that was why negative tag was created.

I think you're just seeing clusters of shitposters for 1xbit or some other shady campaign or members of an alt ring that got busted; I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years (though I could be wrong, as I have no data on that).

Keep in mind, though, that there are thousands of active accounts on bitcointalk and the chances that the majority of them are going to have some kind of DT tag is fairly slim IMO.  Also keep in mind that there are a lot of scammers and otherwise dishonest people who frequent the forum.  It's been that way for a long time now.

You should keep them separate; engaging in discussion & trading. Feedback is a sign of how much trusted a user can be while engaging in discussion is somewhat else. I don't mind hearing, replying to people who put quality into their posts regardless of their feedback. I guess you can't deny that Quickseller is a good quality poster but he has a lot of negative feedback; that doesn't mean you should avoid them.

Most likely but in recent days, negative tagged accounts are also accepted in different signature campaigns depending on the legitimacy of the feedback. Apart from that, the number of active signature campaigns has increased significantly in comparison to the last 2 years I have observed. That can be another reason probably.

There's only a rare case that negative trust user got accepted on campaign maybe less than 10 base on my trust list depth. The only users I know that got accepted by many campaign was QS and Ognasty despite there negative trust rating is more than 1. I don't question it since they made contribution in the forum in the past and they didn't steal money on any user here.

But on this case, I believe the opinion on the above post is accurate. 1xbit is the main reason why user posting on gambling has -ve feedback since that campaign pay well and even accept the fact that there participants will later on got -ve feedback.

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them. If they were tagged as a spammer or account farmer, I don't bother replying to them unless they mentioned something "quite interesting" which I highly doubt that it will happen as I expect that I won't even make an interesting conversation with them.

It would be better to let them address their own tag/s or feedback/s by their own for now. If they really care about their accounts, they wouldn't do something stupid in here or at least reach out to the user/s that left them a feedback either through threads or DMs.

I don't know how many negative tagged users have been accepted but I'm sure I have seen users other than OgNasty and Quickseller. I can't remember the name. If you have seen recent signature campaign, you will find out that there's not enough quality participants applying. Last time, I checked blackjack.fun campaign & found they had few open slot but there was not enough quality application. That's what I meant. There are a lot of campaign but lack of quality posters which increased the demand of quality posters; campaign managers are more likely to accept quality poster instead of shit poster. As a result, they would accept negative tagged member depending on the legitimacy of the feedback.

People get tagged for spamming? I seriously need to check people’s feedback page LOL. JK, I don't care. I quote if I find it necessary to quote. Feedback is mostly given for having better trading experience. I would prefer using feedback for that purpose.

Well account farming leads to spamming anyway, so when I see an "Account farming" tag I don't bother make any interaction with them.
While the feedback is indeed for trading experience, it is still a good precaution for me whether I should interact with whoever that user is or not through whatever means, after I saw that orange "-1" below their profile.

You can create your own personal trust list to see whose feedback you trust // distrust, hence only seeing the relevant feedbacks AND helping in the DT1 election (further decentralizing it). There's a useful thread  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0)from Loyce about how the whole of the system works and how you can actively participate (although it's not an official guide).

Other than that, trust, as scams, is not moderated and is "completely" in hands of the community

Admin isn't going to moderate the Trust system. All we can do is set our own custom Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0). Yours (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-11-06_Sat_14.01h/3333894.html) is still empty. See LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0).

Negative feedback has lost it's meaning, unfortunately.
Some DT-members just tag many users (I think Lauda holds the record with about 800 negative tags sent in 1 day). I don't think it helps much: Is tagging for instance Newbie "bounty abusers" (who get paid made-up tokens for spamming said made-up token) doing anyone any good?

I noticed that too, since the scam-casino says to pay them even with negative tags, they show up in many topics just to get paid.

My gut feeling tells me he wouldn't scam me either if I'd make a trade with him, unlike most users with negative feedback.

Lately for the ones with at least -2, I'd guess that they've joined 1xBit and most of my assumptions would be proven true ;D

Note that most of them are 1xbit troop that have been tagged by DT but they can't be stopped because the campaign pays for it or it's an account managed by their own site. If you are worried about them then I can only suggest you ignore them instead of having to reply to their post. If none of the campaigns and bounty received users with negative tags then 90% of them I'm sure would sleep.

Please re-visit this your comment. Did you say there is nothing wrong with negative feedbacks or did I understand wrongly?

Someone has sent me that link before but I was being lazy not to go true it, but this time I'll peruse. Thanks for the data, it revealed that @Lovesmayfamilis doesn't trust my judgement  ;D How did this happen?
Have I made any judgement in this forum before??  Or one has to follow his/her instinct.
 I think from May till date tagging has increased drastically, I don't know if it's because of my campaign that made me start posting in gambling section that made it appear it has increased.
I think a reliable data can help if available.

Do you have any data to back this up?

Since you are a little new in the forum. You would surely know that the current situation is more than OK if you looked back during the times of members like Lauda.

Obviously those are accounts of scammers and untrusted members that just woke up to promote 1xbit scam that accepts negative tagged accounts. As soon as the campaign ends. They will all go back to slumber.

I don't see anything wrong with the current status or in the extremes

Maybe you don't get me right, irrespective of those that get negative feedback, if they are worth it, there is nothing bad about that, but that does not change the fact that some people that do not worth it are also tagged in very cases. Not that we are not familiar with this forum, if you want to make a deal with someone, at least you will check what caused the negative trust, it might be a reason you will not welcome the negative trust and go on with a deal with the person.

Or maybe you do not know trust system is not moderated, admin are neutral about it. Just leave it be of what can not be changed unless you can change people's mind.

In fact, to be more specific, 1xbit campaign participants accounts are the most tagged, so if the betting site is not trusted by many users on this forum, shouldn't the account participants on 1xbit be tagged?

I have a counter-question. Have you done anything to be trusted?
The trust list is made up of individual findings. This is a better solution than scattering negative reviews here and there. Therefore, you can also get acquainted with other people's trust lists and make your own, based on your preferences for trusting people present on this forum.

A certain gambling site that has been considered as scam and also has been recruiting signature campaign participants to promote their site are the ones being referred to here.

Remember that quoting someone or replying to someone with a red tag is not a bad thing. Discussion can happen between anyone and a scammer is allowed to rebutt their claims, otherwise this would become a kangaroo court.

A negative tag does not equal to ban. Therefore they are allowed to post.

A number of users being tagged because the community considers them as outlaws but still allows them to remain free to post, is only a demonstration of free speech allowed in the forum and a show of the essence of the trust system. I have been in the forum longer and I think the system is working as intended.

DT does not tag without reason or claims that are very likely to brand the user as scammer. Use your common sense here, if you never do anything wrong or cheat by some trick, you will never be tagged by any DT. Flags and tags are going to be reassessed with time by the users who gave them, but a genuine scammer deserves their tag.

Nope.

I can't say that I don't do that as well, but for other reasons. But when it comes to engaging them in a discussion or answering questions such users might have, I don't really pay that much attention to their trust score. Positive or negative, they can still have a valid point and know what they are talking about. Someone brought up Quickseller, and that's a good example. You can talk with the guy, but it doesn't mean you need to trade with him or do any business together if you don't trust him.

One of the exceptions of their campaign is that they don't accept users who are negatively tagged, but they do accept those who got tagged just for wearing their signature.

If members stay away from the likes of 1xbit signature campaign they will not have a negative tag on their account. Its all money motivated. I think many of the 1xbit particpants are alts of members who can't afford thier main account to have a red tag(conspiracy theories). Signature campaigns are hard to come by so many will just accept anything that's available.

There is no rule exist that a red tagged member should make posts and posting is accepted by anyone as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules. Trust system is mainly acts as a warning for the people who are going to trade with forum members so don't get confused.

If you find anyone posting useless content no matter either they are highly trusted or distrusted by DT members don't hesitate to report their post with actual reason why it shouldn't be there.

No, I have not done any business in the forum. So, my trustworthiness hasn't been put to test. In same vein, I have never done anything to be distrusted as well.
My confusion, should I go ahead and add random people that has not been trusted by anyone in the forum to my distrust list?
Or whenever we are discussing in a thread, anyone that doesn't agree with my opinion once or twice, I should add them to my distrust list? :D

Oh, the irony ;D

So them being the reason behind a user's negative tag is fine for them, knowing that those users will never get their tags removed and got their account ruined while also trying to enroll more in order to get their cheap advertisement done at the cost of those accounts' ruination is truly unacceptable and should be stopped because some good members may fall for this, at most for the reason of any specific IRL emergency or whatever reasons. Pity for them who join such campaigns.

Anyways, I don't think there's any reassessment needed for busted accounts as well as spammers and scammers because even if trusted and given another chance, the greed in them so provoke them to continue committing the same "mistakes" they've done so far. I believe that those who got active recently, got their email or password changed immediately after that should be scrutinized and checked because many of such accounts were found guilty as bought accounts in order to participate in signature campaigns (or if an account is bought that has green trust, it can be much more dangerous to the community).

No. That would mean you can add a few million users, it's useless.

No. You can distrust me now, I disagree.
For the record, there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion. Some people seem to think that's the end of the world nowadays, but really, it's fine.
You can even include someone who excludes you.

A lot depends on the context of the discussion.

Here is the rub, you and I might have a different opinion about exchange 'x'
You think it's the worlds best exchange and see all these users using it with no problem.
I see a bunch of users who have had issues with it.
You keep telling people it's fine. I keep seeing bad things. You are going to probably either get a ~ from me or a neutral feedback.
Some people would neg you. It's a different view of what to do.

I am not going to red tag people for having different political beliefs or thinking alt coin 'z' is better then BTC but they are going to be ~
Other people think that pushing alt coin 'z' is worth a red tag.

I have done successful trades with people AND left them positive feedback who I have now ~ since I don't LIKE the way they do things and don't fully trust them. It's kind of a dichotomy BUT it tells the truth at lest to me. I did a successful trade here is that fact, but I don't trust them or their opinion, so here is ~ so other people have to make up their minds as to if they should be trusted.

-Dave

Red tagging is not a restriction; rather, it serves as a trade risk warning. However, as LoyceV previously stated, the red tag has lost its credibility, and there are DT members whose red tagging no longer has effect as a result of their improper use of the system. There are at least one or more users with red trust, ranging from Chipmixer to the least signature campaign. Managers are no longer interested in it.

Except for those who are here to milk money from the forum, that wouldn't change anything for those who here to seek knowledge. To put my thoughts in a single line, I believe that the increase of red tags has done more good than harm because the number of fraud accusations in the forum has decreased as well.

I am a bit confused about that. they said that they won't accept accounts with negative trust unless the negative tag was because of them. yet I see account posting with their signature who were negatively tagged way before they started their first signature campaign. do they mean that they'll accept the account as long as it got negatively tagged because of them even though it already has a negative tag even before they joined their campaign?

It all depends on a specific campaign and on a specific manager, since there is a difference between a reasonable red tag and a red tag that has nothing to do with trading risk (let's say, if users exchanged reciprocal tags for personal reasons). In addition, it is worth considering the fact that campaign managers' personal trust lists have been formed over the years, the lists that differ significantly from the defaulttrust lists, (it is also worth considering the depth of trust).

For example, I had a case where, due to personal grievances, I was unfairly marked with a red tag by one of the DT, and this was just the moment when I applied for one of the campaigns ... But as it turned out, this user was on the manager's list of mistrust, so this red tag was not taken into account. :P

Yeah, they apparently don't consider such tags as valid reasons why a member should not be allowed to participate in their signature campaign. I have seen warning messages posted in scam campaigns recommending that members shouldn't apply and wear the signatures, otherwise they could get tagged. If people see those warnings and apply anyways, they only have themselves to blame for what happens next. 

I think that adding that user to your distrust list is the maximum that should be applied in such a situation. Neutral and especially negative feedback is excessive in my opinion. If people were to do that, than where does it stop? Everyone has different experiences with wallets, exchanges, and other services. Punishing someone for having had a good experience because you had a bad one doesn't seem right.   

That's really something that only their campaign manager can answer. I remembered that part regarding negative feedback when I read the campaign requirements. It could be that they don't consider those tags as valid reasons for that member to be excluded. Or they simply don't care and only made that rule to sound more professional than they are.

Forum members who care about their reputation will never promote a scam website after they acknowledge it so whoever is doing after they knew doesn't really care about the reputation at all, they just need money and 1xbit is willing to give to them to such negative users because they can't expect a good reputation user to promote their services. Anyway redtag can't put an end to someone's posting, it has to be deal with the reporting.

I know a lot of guys who don't care about reputation at all, just because it's not a product ... it's all about personal beliefs. Since there are those who, out of fear, do not advertise 1xBet, because they understand the consequences, (so it's only a matter of price). But there are those who do not advertise 1xBet because of their personal views, those for whom even the thought of promoting fraud behavior is unacceptable.

There is another side to the coin ... if we knew that someone really needs money, and that person added a fraud warning to their sig, then they probably would have avoided the red tag, something in the spirit of what mprep regularly did with his sig, ^{[he did not check the advertised projects but always took care of the disclaimer]}.

@icopress first of all I want to show something for you.


Literally yes, they are different even though I came across both the names lot of times didn't recognize it until the bitcointalk AI (Loycev) wrote this recently. :D

---

1xBit is ready to pay every read tagged user so its actually an golden opportunity for them to have one even though its ethically wrong but as far as the forum is not going to have concerns regarding that until the members who wear their signature flood the forum with spam messages.

Yes, I may have mixed up the names, but that's a different question ... this is a question for 1xBet, as being a legitimate bookmaker, they can put a lot of effort into preventing scammers from ruining their reputation (due to consonance of brands). At least, if I were the owner of a bookmaker, whose name would be combined with the name of a fraudulent bookmaker, I would do my best to suppress the activities of the company, because of which my reputation suffers.

If you are used to watching Laliga match, then you will be very familiar with one of these site (1xBET) because it is one of the sponsors of Laliga. But 1xbit is definitely a scam site where there are a lot of customers complaining about their service site.

Findingnemo, if you check 1xbit squad one by one then you will also find that some of them are bounty cheaters who have previously been tagged for campaign abuse. Some managers no longer accept it in campaign, but 1xbit accept it and it allows the account so far to post. They can post useful stuff and maybe the forum don't ban it, but the signatures carried by them will have a negative impact on other users where this can increase the number of fraud occurrences.

If tag can stop their activity, maybe I'll tag them all even though they're already tagged. But so far none of them care about negative tag on profile because they have considered these consequences since submitting the application.

Thanks very much @LoyceV, the picture is getting clearer now.
One more; if I distrust you now and later on you red tag me, for the fact that I have initially distrusted you, will it render your tagging meaningless?


A company can operate two brands, be righteous in one brand and be evil in the other brand.
Rub Alice in one brand, pay Bob in the other brand.
The evil of one brand translates to the success of the other brand.

I think it's only you who noticed that. Most users joining 1Xbit for example are ignored in the forum. Don't worry even they are lots of them that won't hurt the forum's overall looks. No need for a remedy or solution. Don't make it complicated as what you noticed is far from happening.

You can put them on your ignore list and just do your usual communication and exchanging replies with each other.

You are right, this is a perfectly good solution. You can't go wrong if you put all 1xbit shillers on ignore. Most members ignore them anyway, from what I've seen.

If you add a tilde to someone who didn't trust you before, it shouldn't have any consequences for you. This is your own choice. You have the right not to believe this person.
Moreover, if this person decides to leave you negative feedback in the future, then this time he must explain why he did it and leave a reference link.
Otherwise, it looks like an abuse of trust reviews. And if a member of the DT does this, then most likely he will not hold out in his place for a long time. Since the DT is responsible for the reviews they put and very strong evidence is needed in order to leave a negative review for someone.

I am sure there are rules that campaign managers follow to prevent that from happening. But even if there weren't, I am sure such a participant would be asked to adjust his sig and get rid of the warning. If someone is willing to advertise a scam site, it seems paradoxical to have a piece of info that says "be careful when playing on this casino because they might scam you".

Here is rule that ChipMixer has, for example:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.0

They are sponsoring the Italian Serie A as well. Just open the official site (https://www.legaseriea.it/en) and before it loads, you will see an ad for 1xBet for a few seconds before you are taken to the homepage.

From your perspective: yes.
From the rest of the forum's perspective: no. As long as (https://loyce.club/Is...StillOnDT/LoyceV.html) I'm on DT, users who include DefaultTrust and haven't excluded me will see my feedback. You may want to check my Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0) too.

Well, I meant individual contracts ... and apparently there are enough participants on the forum whose names do not appear in any spreadsheet, nevertheless, these guys wear signatures with advertisements from different bookmakers (I suspect this is not a gesture of goodwill). As for the regular campaign, you are right, the participant who added the disclaimer will be removed from the campaign, (but as I said, there have already been such precedents at the forum).

It is quite possible that some people have individual agreements with certain companies or casinos like you said. Maybe they are friends with the developers, maybe the sites throw some work their way and this is a way to return the favor and say thanks. Or maybe they just gambled there, got lucky, and they now want to advertise them a little. If I remember correctly, Lauda used to wear a FortuneJack signature for a long tome even though she/he was not a part of the campaign at one point. At least officially. There are surely other examples, I just can't think of any. 

buddy you are not meant to skip people that have negative trust, the only communication you have with someone that have two hundred (200) positive  trust and someone that has one thousand (1000) negative trust is the same thing here, the only difference between them is that you won't trust negative trust person in terms of business transaction, but only bond merge both of you is interaction to the community.

many user users have negative trust currently, the measure were seeing them before in gambling never be the same because some campaign that accept negative trust is like they want their most post to come from gambling section or board, negative tag matters alot it's when the campaign they are into end up and they will find it very strange to be selected in another campaign because of their reputation.

i think that nothing will be done remedy it, because you can't isolate a negative trust person in the community and is not cultured, because for negative trust should be enshrined here, is directly meant for people that is scam or you have done transaction with and it went unsuccessful, who cheating is the blood can't fail to commit evil.

actually if you received a tagged from someone without proper reason and you know that you are not guilty of crime you have to state it out for community to look into it and deliberates about it, because according to @loyceV tutorial thread of trust system, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.msg52715278#msg52715278
it was stipulated that to give a tag to someone can't come as a result you have issues or misunderstanding with the users. So i think they are reasons while and genuine points while flags is been given.

You just have to bear in mind that sometimes those tags are unnecessarily given by some rogue or insane members for no just cause. I believe that's why CM will state that "If you receive legitimate negative feedback during..." because a lot of them know that some tags are not legitimate. Avoiding people with tags on the forum is prejudice by my judgment.

Certainly, some kind of control measures are in place for this. I have read discussions of some DT members challenging other DT members on unnecessary tags and in most cases those tags had been reviewed. If not for that, most DT members would easily tag anyone who disagrees with their point of views. There are people who love power and won't hesitate to use it on others unjustly.

Theymos addressed that already:

Tagging people for their opinion doesn't give you power, it makes you a Trust abuser. Not caring about their opinion means they have no power over you. Can you imagine many people choose to let some anonymous person somewhere on the internet make them feel bad?

Some DT members are working accordingly via tagging people that violates the protocol but some of them don't peruse into matter very well before tagging someone, it seems that people is now giving negative trust because of hatred not because of the judgement, actually i can see that people like power and some is not utilizing power, using it suppressed other.. after reading loyceV thread i was astonished, even opposing someone's point of view now is at stake.

With the departure of some cult persons, more and more so-called forum policemen appear on the forum who, in one way or another, try to take their place. There are those who really pursue noble goals, but there are also those who are doing the supposedly right things actually trying to assert themselves and from the side it looks really disgusting.  :P

As for me, the ideal trust system is when everyone pursues their own personal goals, leaving tags when it concerns you personally (or creating threads with an appeal when you are right but the power of your word is not enough). LoyceV is a great example of how to respond to sensitive and sensitive questions, but even he is not perfect because he has a habit of being late (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121375.msg57999042#msg57999042), so when the opposition to someone's point of view is at stake, you better rely only on yourself.

Hi @icopress, I apologize in advance and I also don't mean to challenge you or anyone. this is just based on my personal curiosity, which led me to quote your post. So, I'm a little offended by some of the forum policeman sentences - of course the sentence is not far from the Detective Forum and the Detective Forum sentence is very clear I remember when someone said that sentence right on the day of celebration (full member) came to me. In my personal opinion, what you say can lead to activities that I have been doing so far and maybe also lead to other people. Exactly only you know and if you don't mind can you name the person?  :)

I realized that there are a lot of people who don't like me not only in forums but also in telegram messages and maybe this is an opportunity for me to express my opinion. I respect you and I also don't take this as a personal matter with you - but more to the public so that I can introspect myself on the actions that I have done so far, before ending this activity and living a normal life in the forum. and for the trust system in my account, soon I will message them to delete it. Also, what about the accounts I've tagged so far? any suggestion?

That's okay (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213722.msg53482650#msg53482650) :)

You've tagged 171 accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2519096;page=sent;offset=0) in the past 4 months, and 143 of those just this month. Most of them for cheating some bounty based on an Eth address they used. I checked a few, and they're all Newbies. I'd say this isn't worth it: they get paid made-up tokens from spamming bounty campaigns, they have nothing to lose, and they can just as well create many more Newbie accounts to continue.
What's the point? All this does is reduce the value of a negative tag by spreading it everywhere.

I'm offended by this! Why would you apologize for exercising your freedom of speech? It's not freedom if it gives you the feeling you can't use it without disclaimer.

Somewhat roughly said: "the so-called policemen"
OH, weren't you previously also a "so-called policeman"?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122895.msg50246232#msg50246232

Yes, of course, you probably consider yourself, like this, a cult? ;D
I have already told you more than once that you are too sycophant to some "cult" personalities, isn't that so? This is striking.
I agree that hunting for cheaters is a waste of time. Cheaters rise from the ashes. But this should not sound from someone who was directly involved in the fishing and also marked the cheaters with negative tags.

These new cops, as you say, at least are not doing anything wrong. How many cheaters have @bitbollo, @Awaklara, @YOSHIE caught? I don't think you should call it personal goals. If we talk about time, then this is only their time, not yours. And if you have direct evidence that these people are pursuing some selfish goals, tell us. Why speak in the third person?
There is an expression that people are divided into two types: my person and a stranger. Once again, you prove that you are a stranger.
And yes, your idols are gone, get used to the young trend.

Basically I respect everyone.
I mean: the word "sorry" as my ''humble'' form when I want to convey a message and related to what @icopress said seems to clearly refer to me or maybe this is just my bad prejudice. but personally I prefer if he speak frankly, so that there are no misunderstandings. especially for new members or old members such as so-called "policeman" :)

Sorry everyone, I don't know why the last few post of this thread seem to have a bit of a debate between you guys. But I hope it won't develop in the opposite direction because I basically believe A and B have one good goal.

Awaklara, don't be offended and I hope you don't think too much about criticism that doesn't go your way. If you are sure about what you are doing is right, then you just need to go ahead and thicken your skin. I don't see anything wrong with your activity catching cheaters, but maybe I agree a little bit about the amount of time wasted on effectiveness disproportionate. Nowadays newbie can't be stopped from cheating bounties, they can create more account even when someone catches them in large numbers.

In my opinion, only the bounty manager can prevent many cheaters from joining the bounty and one of them is by only accepting member rank account and above in every program that is run. But if you are okay about it, then move on.

You can say whatever you want to me, and that's okay since the internet is a merciless place. By the way, I knew that you liked me ... sorry, but we cannot be together because your excessive impulsiveness is a sure sign that you are not yet 30. In addition to the above, speaking about "forum cops", I did not even mean those who are engaged in such investigations even out of context, since you yourself said that it is mostly a waste of time.

And finally, I want to say that No, I have not been and have never considered myself as such. Moreover, I have probably never dealt with such an investigation, if the case did not concern me personally or the specifics of my work in the past (because I know where to spend my time more profitably).  ;)

Yep, that's true in real life and it's certainly true on this forum.  You can tell when someone is enjoying his/her power when they act like assholes when exercising it.  I've acted like that a number of times with respect to shitposters, which I used to tag prior to the merit system, but that was just my irritation coming to the surface and not me being a power-hungry DT sadist.  There have been a number of those in the past, though I won't name names.

I tend to agree with you that low-ranked accounts with no merits and a very recent registration date probably shouldn't be tagged simply because it's a waste of time.  On the other hand, if they didn't get tagged they might just keep getting used in perpetuity and in the process they might rank up.  So there's an argument for tagging those noob cheaters, though I don't know if I'd keep bothering with them.

Over the past couple of years I've seen a few new members arrive and start to make a name for themselves by being one of those "forum cops".  If I'm not mistaken, at least one of them turned out to be a cheater himself (but dammit, I forgot his username).  Anyway, that's one of the ways a new member can establish a reputation--whether it's intentional or not, it really doesn't matter as long as they're not looking to become trusted in order to pull off a scam of their own. 

Wanting to be recognized is part of being human, and if someone wants to achieve that by sniffing out bounty cheaters or scammers or whatever, I have no problem with that.

That's ironic: being Switzerland leads to many more DT-inclusions.

I quote again (self-introspection) after hearing explanations from several users who have provided new insights for me personally and this situation shows that Searching Newbie Accounts is just a waste of my time. I will also say honestly, that basically there is no element or anything related to power. it's okay because I prefer to be open  :)

Also, I will end this sadistic activity. I even already asked some people to delete the trust list on my account. There is nothing wrong if somenone wants to change his attitude, start a normal life, learn from mistakes, respect each other. that's all I can say openly. Thanks you,Greetings of peace  :)

This thread was lately hijacked for discussion of cultists, saddists, policemen and so.
I was keenly following up to see a beautiful ending. But I was surprised it didn't end as I intended.

@Awaklara you said you want to stop hunting cheaters.
But if you can continue your hunt, but at this time give much attention to member ranks upwards, according to some suggestions here it's better.
Personally, I have no problems with you catching newbies, because a cheating newbie today will become a cheating Jr member tomorrow. A cheating Jr member tomorrow will definitely become a cheating member the next day and so on.

About your change of mind.
Absolutely there's nothing wrong. Anyone can change decisions at anytime, especially in this forum. There is still room for re-decision.
Even myself I made some decisions at a time and I undergone a critical rethink and overided my decisions.
I am still waiting patiently for @The Pharmacist to change his decisions towards me 8)
24hrs to lock thread.

You don't have to do it because they trust your judgment not because you have sadistic activity. You're a good cheat hunter finding evidence of abuse, so why don't you use it to help out any manager who manages the bounty. At least you can be specially assigned to help them find cheaters in their campaign and you can also get paid.

Let me tell you an example:
[Always open] Bounty Police | Say no to bounty cheaters and get paid! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5336872.0)

Other support:

What about Mycelium Wallet, also advertising 1xbit   ::) ::)

Not only on mycelium wallet, I have even seen it on blockchair.com. Just that the betting site did not have good reputation on this forum, the reason those advertising them are tagged for others to be warned of the risk involved if making use of the betting site.

Those are running ads through different agencies (likely Google Ads) so any ads, scam or not tend to come by.

Remember that 1xBit pays a shitton to feature their site.

I noticed that too, it gave an annoying popup when my mouse hovered over it. My initial thought was to stop posting links to Blockchair, but then I realized Google allows advertising for phishing sites too. People should really learn not to trust anything that's being advertised! Are there still people who believe things like "7 BTC welcome bonus" nowadays?
I'm all for warning newbies, but as Thomas Tusser (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_tusser_101875) wrote centuries ago: "A fool and his money are soon parted". And I don't think it will ever change.

Most tend to be naive. They most probably wouldn't have noticed 1xB being a scam before they lose their deposit/ winnings, start searching for the "1xB scam" on Google and discovering the thread on this forum.

A never-ending cycle.

The negative tag will only be visible to users coming from DT members, so if some DT members are abusing their power, I'm sure those who trusted them would realize and distrust them to maintain a fair trust system.

Yes, I also notice some of the members getting red-tagged for supporting a scam gambling site, I think that's just right as that will serve as a warning to the community, but the community also has to understand how to check the red-tagged as some are not valid, but then again, every DT may have a different opinion so one member could tag an account for the same reason, while some may not mind it.