Weird.

The ability to exclude a person from your trust list harmed the trust system. Instead of holding a person accountable for including someone who should not be in their trust list, users now have the option of excluding the person who should not be in the trust network.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are trusting both their ratings, and their trust list. If user "x" leaves a lot of good ratings, but has one bad person in their trust list, they should either remove the person from their trust list, or not be in your trust list.

I think EcuaMobi should be acknowledged for sticking up for OgNasty when it is clear to anyone paying attention that he does not like him.

I think Vod should take the loss, and remove the counter rating for OgN -- it is not appropriate. I am not aware of anyone paying back a $400k loan, or paying out $400k in real money (not counting tokens whose value can trivially be revoked) out of escrow without there being any kind of dispute. OgNasty paid out an amount 10x this without any dispute that all money has been returned (arrangements have been made to return the various forks with sufficient value that will be returned in the near future).

If Vod is aware of OgNasty scamming, embezzling money, or doing something else that would reasonably make him a scammer, he should leave OgNasty a negative rating, and open a scam accusation. If Vod can present credible evidence that is not refuted that OgNasty is a scammer, I would gladly take Vods side. Based on my observations of OgNasty, including how he conducts business, I don't think he is a scammer, and would be surprised to see unrefuted evidence that he is a scammer.

---

I do think the trust system needs to be changed/upgraded (again). The current implementation is causing a lot of friction among many long standing forum members, and is harming the community. Perhaps something along the lines of what LBC uses could be implemented -- that is there are no trust scores, only comments, and comments can be filtered by positive, negative, neutral, and can be further filtered by those in your trust network. As an "early warning system" to warn against scammers, the "trade with extreme caution" warning could be displayed under certain circumstances that varies depending on if the person has existing, prior positive ratings. It should also be limited as to when someone should be able to leave a negative rating.

You are wrong. If you are aware of someone taking advantage of someone (especially when the person being taken advantage of is in a position of weakness), or that someone is misappropriating someone else's money (especially when the person is not in a position to speak out), you have a moral obligation to call out the person.

There are many situations in which a victim is not in a position to complain because the thief owes him additional money, is holding something else over the victims head, or the victim is otherwise vulnerable. 
This is off topic here, but I will address this.

1 - this has nothing to do with getting fired by Hhampuz. I have no problem criticizing anyone, regardless of any business relationship, and if I had still been in the campaign, I would have been willing to get fired for calling out Hhampuz two weeks later for calling him out on this embezzlement. If I was in one of your campaigns, and I was aware of similar activity by you, I would not hesitate to open a similar scam accusation, although before doing so, I would first ask you what happened, and give you the opportunity to address what happened before putting you on blast. 

2 - You are absolutely wrong. This is regardless of any "terms" any campaign manager puts in their campaign thread. A campaign manager has an obligation to his client to maximize the long term value of the advertising dollars of his client. If a campaign manager does anything other than any action that (he in good faith believes, and has good reason to believe) maximizes the long term value of the advertising money he is spending on behalf, he is either corrupt, engaging in nepotism, or both.

If you disagree, or if you want to discuss 1 or 2 further, we can move this to PM or to a new thread, as this is off topic in this thread.   

Hhampuz was not contacted through an intermediary to return the excess funds. He would have no way of verifying the validity of this type of request, and the timing would not make sense.

If BestMixer has not yet requested the money be returned, Hhampuz should hold the money where it was. When you are dealing with other people's money, you do not get the benefit of the doubt, and you must remain transparent.

The operators of BestMixer being in jail or otherwise unavailable to request the money be returned is not a reason for Hhampuz to keep the money for his own personal use.

If Hhampuz had lost access to the bitcoin due to his own incompetence, such as loosing access to the keys, having the bitcoin stolen via malware, having the bitcoin otherwise stolen from him, I would agree that Hhampuz could return the money out of his own personal funds, but only as long as he is transparent with what happened, and that he is publicly promising to repay what he lost.

Hhampuz moved the bitcoin to what I believe to be ChipMixer, which is what I believe to be prima face evidence that he is trying to hide the money so he can use it for his own benefit. Further, it is not known that Hhampuz still has access to the bitcoin, and he has not stated he will return the money if BestMixer returns and asks for their money back.

As stated above, when dealing with someone else's money, you should not get the benefit of the doubt, and you should maintain transparency.

If Hhampuz cannot send the money back to BestMixer, he should not move them, and use them for his personal benefit. He can hold the coins in the address where he was paying out campaign participants.

1, 4 and 8 either have 1 or no merit. The rest have a decent amount of merit already. The purpose of a merit source application is to show you can find good posts that have very little merit....in other words, to show that if you are made a merit source, additional good posts will receive merit.

Also, you do not have to limit your submission to OPs of threads, you can also list responses in threads you think deserve additional merit.

I have never tagged anyone for being critical and there were a lot of sock puppet scammers doing exactly that. I also never responded to criticism with trolling, but instead responded to concerns. I also never prevented any scammer from being labeled as such.

Thank you very much.

I don’t know the OP, but I appreciate the support.

How would he possibly establish such channels? Their domain is seized along with their wallets...there would be no way for him to verify their identity.

Perhaps instead of trolling, defending scammers and being a bitch on the internet, you should learn how to read:

No. he has not commented in any way. He is also ignoring criticism by others in his reputation thread, that one person compared to him putting his fingers in his ears.

Also BestMixer has not logged in and Hhampuz has confirmed he has no out of forum communication channels with them.

Well the fact that there was 0.5 btc owned by them was already public, as they could have looked the same place I did. If the Dutch government for some reason was unaware of the bitcoin, this thread has made them aware.

In light of the above, BestMixer confirming receipt of the money they are owed will not leak any information to the government. As such there is no reason for them to not confirm this....unless it is not true.

Bullshit. I have never been credibly accused of trying to steal or misappropriate money.

If BestMixer has received its money it is owed, I would ask why Hhampuz has not asked them to publicly acknowledge the receipt of the money.

I would also note that if Hhampuz is fired by his clients, you stand to lose income as you are being paid by his clients via Hhampuz and they may not decide to continue advertising.

In regards to post 10, the post you quoted was deleted because it was off topic and low effort. If you see posts like that in the future, you should report it as being a low effort post with a paid sig.

Hey buddy, you actually joined another campaign that pays the same:

At $8500/btc, your campaign is paying a base rate of $0.2975/post, and stake is paying $0.30 per post. Your campaign is paying an additional $0.34/post for posts in the gambling section, up to 15 posts per week, while stake is paying 0.001 for 20 posts in gambling, or $0.425/post.

My question to you is, were you kicked from the stake campaign? Or did you actually join another campaign that pays the same, and leave this one because "pay rates are not reasonable anymore"?

His belief is they will eventually follow through, and your belief is they are a scam (which I agree with). I believe this based on the available facts and my experience with the bitcoin economy, and my experience spotting scams in the past. It is my opinion that there is less than a 1% chance that Norm MacDonald is not a scammer, and I would personally advise other people to not trust money to this person.

vb2005 is saying that he believes Norm MacDonald will eventually follow through. Although I strongly disagree with his conclusion, I respect his right to make this conclusion. vb2005 is not claiming to have actually received any mining equipment, nor is he verifying the miners actually exist. AFAICT, vb2005 is not making any misleading statements about Norm MacDonald's credibility/ability to be trusted. Anyone reading vb2005's posts can look at the facts and come to their own conclusions.

If Hhampuz's response is that he is following instructions from BestMixer to the "t", I cannot image his reputation taking any kind of hit. On the other hand, if hhampuz is doing something he shouldn't be doing including obfuscating where he is holding someone else's money without an explicit request from the person to do this, or taking the money for his own personal use, as I believe he is doing, then yes his reputation would be harmed.

I don't see any legitimate reason why Hhampuz would need to obfuscate where he is holding someone else's money.

I do see that the BitBlender campaign closed down yesterday and they posed that Hhampuz returned the excess money, but the BitBlender operators are also did not just have their business seized

I would consider a business relationship someone you either trade with on a regular basis, have an employee/employer relationship, or run a business with. A business relationship is one that either generates income for you, or provides you access to liquidity and/or capital. The extent of how much of your income you rely on this person for also matters, for example if you make $200 a month from your relationship with the person when you make several thousand dollars per month, your relationship might not be a huge conflict of interest, while a relationship that generates substantially all of your income would be a more clear conflict of interest.

If you give a couple of merit her and there to someone you are in business with, while giving 95%+ of the merit you send every month to others, it would probably not be a big deal, while giving a larger percentage, or a majority of the merit you send every month to someone you are in a business relationship with is probably not making a good use of the merit system, in my view.

If the extent of your relationship with the person is you follow eachothers blog, and you chat for a few hours a week, (and you upvote eachothers blogs, which would result in very little money for each of you), I don't have any concerns about you sending merit to the person, myself.

No, I have no affirmative reason to believe what he says, and as previously mentioned, I believe the miners being "sold" have specs that exceed current technology, and as such do not exist.

Just because I do not believe what he says, does not mean he is a scammer. There are three levels to trust, 1- positive, 2- neutral/zero, and 3- negative. Positive trust is when I observe something that leads me to believe the person is trustworthy, negative is when I observe something that leads me to believe the person is a scammer, and neutral/zero is when I neither believe him to be trustworthy, nor a scammer, and neutral/zero trust would generally mean I will ask the other person to send first to me, or that I would ask to use escrow if I was trading with the person.

If he were to change what he is saying to explicitly vouching for the what I believe to be fake miners, including saying that he received miners that match the description posted in the sales thread, then yes I would say vb2005 is a shill for Norm MacDonald, and it would be appropriate to tag him. Although I do have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight considering I did not have a chance to respond until after vb2005 posted that he was scammed, he did not end up claiming to have actually seen the working miners.

I have seen coinlocket$ make some conclusions about spammers being the same person that I disagree with (or at least, I disagree with the logic he uses), but I do think he has good intentions in using the logic he uses.

I cannot think of a dispute in which coinlocket$ was supporting one side in what I believe to be bad faith. If you have a specific example of him acting in bad faith, feel free to present it.

coinlocket$ said he quickly realized sending the merit was a mistake, and wanted to undue sending the merit before anyone had called out the sending of the merit, or the dox itself:
The merit system does not allow for a person to "unsend" a merit.