I might suggest that theymos audit a percentage of DT1 users and those that voted them into DT1 each month and check for multiple alts voting for the same person and giving merit to yourself in order to be able to vote.

Even if only a small percentage of users are audited each month, there would be a huge disincentive to engage in these shenanigans. Also, over time everyone should eventually get audited. If someone is going to be audited and have been in DT1 for some time, they would be audited as of multiple times in the past, including when they were first put into DT1.

I am actually somewhat surprised to see this happened (that this was not caught prior to Rmc... being added into DT1).

The first two guys were warning anyone potentially reading the thread about the dangers of using that link/casino. The third posted what amounts to nonsense.

My goal is to reward others who have taken the time to educate themselves about Bitcoin and other topics that I believe are consistent with the forum's values and ideals, and those who can show they have contributed over a period of time. 

I am not going to scam.

The avalanche of negatives does make it difficult now-a-days because many do not have the opportunity to show red flags of a scam attempt (they are tagged before it gets to that point, but there are also a *lot* of false positives, which is harmful to the community and the Bitcoin ecosystem).
I am not going to sell merits -- if I wanted to do this, I would earn them myself -- I have shown the ability to make sufficiently good posts so that I am one of the most merited form members, and this is while not being in a position of authority or power. The majority of the most merited accounts are either staff, DT or a merit source, or a combination of the above.

Here is a fun fact -- I was reviewing the BPIP most merited profiles, and it turns out one of the accounts I sold years ago is actually a merit source, and has earned more merit than me 

In addition to your assertion being explicitly baseless, you are ignoring the fact that I already have an unlimited stash of merits by way of making very good and insightful posts. I think you are biased because I have called you out on your inability to think for yourself, and your tendencies to side with the more powerful in a dispute in an effort to gain additional power yourself.

This is a concern of mine regarding using the merit system to determine who controls the trust system.

I would probably have a somewhat higher standard if I noticed someone shady is making good posts for the first small amount of merit I sent out, however if I noticed a lot of shady people are deserving merit in many instances, I would most likely open a thread with my concerns.

I hope you can improve. I also think you have become so extreme so that you are somewhat discrediting the arguments you are making. 

It is nothing personal. I will try to help you (and anyone else I see struggling) to be a more productive forum member, however I do have limits, and in some cases it may be too late by the time I notice what is going on.

You are implying that some people are being pressured/intimidated into either excluding you from their trust lists, or not including you at all.

When I read your post, I though of this situation in which Hhampuz appears to have possibly excluded Rmcdermott927 solely because Rmcdermott927 has OgNasty in his trust list. The issue seems to have gotten resolved in about a day, and now appears to be resolved.

I checked loyce.club/trust to see if I could find instances in which OgNasty either lost an inclusion, or gained an exclusion, and the in/exclusions of that person before/after the change, however I was unable to find anything (I am operating under the presumption that "removed" and "new" will show up in all the weeks). It is possible these types of things were all resolved in-between when each weeks' trust lists are published. I know that OgN has been on and off DT1 (while consistently being on DT1-voting), and I need to look into this more.

---

I do think you should remove your negative rating against "Armis" (and against me, but my point is primarily about Armis), and agree to only give negative ratings for the reasons you have been advocating for. IIRC, he was harassing you in your various sales threads, and this is not him stealing anything, breaking any kind of agreement, nor breaking any kind of law, nor trying to do any of the above. Also, he was last active almost 5 years ago, and I would find it very unlikely he will ever return.

If you would do the above, you would be very well suited to be on my trust list, and I think others would do the same.

While the bold is true for Vod, I can authoritatively say you are not a "newbie" as you claim.

I am torn between believing you are trolling in an attempt to get a very high negative trust score, trolling hoping to get merit from someone who thinks what you post is funny, or are just one of the lazy scammers who creates many accounts in an attempt to take out a loan and not repay in the lending section.

I received a PM from the OP asking me to remove the distrust. I ask him to create this thread so I can hear the opinions of others and their rationale.

You can require this as being contingent on your participation in the ICO and/or bounty campaign.

This will never be implemented by the forum, as the forum does not moderate scams.

Older versions of electrum allows electrum servers to serve clients custom error messages that include text. The electrum server that Joel_Jantsen was connected to served him the error message saying to download the fake "electrum" wallet that contain malware.

The original wallet software that Joel_Jantsen was using was not malware.

As of now, electrum servers will not connect to older versions of electrum, so they will naturally find the *real* website to download from.   

The link you posted was:
Is the "tid=23&pid=67" portion of the link not a referral link?

edit: per above, you say it is not. I don't know why your post was deleted. My apologies.

If you responded to a post that gets deleted, it will not count the same way against you the same way a post that is deleted because it is off topic on its own. Although you should avoid responding to off topic posts. If you see a post that is off topic, you should report it and you can put in the note that you would appreciate a PM if the report is incorrect— this will go a long way in helping your overall case in you not getting banned, also if a moderator messages you explaining why your report is wrong, they are taking the time to help you and are not against you. Also, keep in mind that you don’t need to respond to every post you disagree with, nor that is incorrect and you don’t need to respond right away.  

I have no idea if those posts are part of the 61 reports theymos is referring to.

Having a post in a self moderated thread deleted by the OP (not a moderator) is for all intents and purposes not going to count against you. I have heard that continuing to post in a self moderated thread after being asked not to can result in getting banned, but I have seen multiple people post many times after being asked not to and nothing happened to my knowledge.

You don’t need to write very long posts, however generally it is best to not write a single weird post. Like I said, I would not find it unusual for someone with 13k posts to have 10 one word posts. My opinion is if they were written a long time ago over a long time, they shouldn’t have any real impact on any decision to ban you, if it ever came to that. My suggestion is if you want to post a one word response would be to post a sentence or two explication and/or provide a quote of yours or someone else to explain.

---

edit: I just reviewed the various threads your posts were deleted from, and most of them were in threads whose last post were over a year ago, and the rest had their last post made more than 6 months ago.

There are currently 14 posts of your in the modlog, and 4 of the posts of yours deleted had a post by someone else deleted at the same time, and 10 of the threads had no other posts deleted at the same time.

It is perhaps possible a moderator was catching up on very old reports, but I think it is more likely someone was reviewing your post history looking for posts that break the rules, going back years. If the later is correct, one can reasonably conclude that someone is trying to pad your "stats" in regards to reports against you in an effort to get you banned. If the later is correct, I think this behavior should be condemned, and I don't think it is appropriate to be making an active effort into trying to get people banned presumably because you disagree with the person.  

this is incorrect. The deleted post is sent by automation via SMF.

The post by LFC_bitcoin was deleted (it was a low effort/ value post), and any replies to that post were also deleted. This is similar to why this post was deleted— it was a zero effort post and was deleted and any reply to that post would also get deleted, if any.

If you replied to a post that gets deleted but adds content not only responding to the deleted post then your post won’t get deleted but it might get edited.

There may be an argument for theymos to create a "newbie plus" account type, in which someone can purchase the ability to post pictures and have lower "waiting" time (they have to wait less time between posts, and have the ability to send more PMs/day), but not have the signature ability of a Copper Member, for a lower price.

The only reason I can see someone paying $15/merit is to rank up to Junior Member, but doing the above would effectively allow someone to do that in a "legitimate" way, and would hurt the demand for merit on the black market. 

[

---

5 of the above accounts has merit from nevis, who was selling his account and has sent merit to:
Merit sent by Nevis from January 24, 2018 until April 05, 2019 (source)

Nevis has sent merit to the following people:
chickinini
TinaMoran
NilaMutac
poetmo
kantotinio
LillyBogan

At least three of the above were part of those "colluding with Russia" on ]this thread, although their trust lists appear to have since been changed. Except for one of them, they all have exactly 10 merit.

ace4549 also has sent merit to 4 of the 6 alts, although he has sent a lot of merit:

Looking more closely at ace4549's merit history, it appears he was likely "abusing" merit in some way. He gave several posts in this thread merit. The majority of the rest of the posts he gave merit to were not in threads he ever posted in, and in the majority of times he gave merit, he gave merit to exactly one person. When reviewing the threads he gave merit it, I did not specifically keep track, however I would say both were the case "all" the time except ~2-3 threads. He does not have any "merit giveaway" threads. I noticed some additional people he gave merit to have negative trust for "collusion".  I suspect that ace4549 may have been selling merit based on the above, in any case he is banned currently.

edit:
Perhaps you could remove their sMerit for those who are not already banned. In theory, they can use the ~580 merit they received, and send it to 29 additional accounts to have 29 other accounts have 10 merit.

edit2:
I would also point out that I received 200 sMerit when the merit system was introduced (IIRC), and someone abusing that merit could turn that into ~400 merit, so it would not take a lot for someone to be able to get 580 merit to various alts.

You have ~13k posts, and it appears there were at least 10 in which you said “no” (and similar one word posts).

Thinking about this some more, based on your claim that 10 of your posts were deleted, I suspect someone reviewed your post history and reported 10 of your posts with one word. I suspect you will only need one guess to figure out who reported them and yes, she likely was trying to cause trouble for you.

Unfortunately, when you receive a PM notifying you of a deleted post, there is no thread link, so you cannot go back and see the thread. If you asked me how many one word posts someone with 13k posts has, I would say they have at least 10, perhaps more.

I personally have bumped my own various topics hundreds if not thousands of times over the years, and although I always try to remember to delete old bumps, sometimes this gets overlooked and as such they are deleted by a moderator. I would say I have had more than 10 of my old bumps deleted over the years.

I think a better way to combat the bump-spam problem in the altcoin section is to change the order in which threads are displayed from time of last post to something different.

A moderator deleted many of your posts that were low value all near the same time, perhaps all in the same thread, but this is not clear based on your post. edit: I don’t think this is true if 10 were deleted.

I don’t know who deleted them, but that doesn’t matter.

In the future, try to avoid replying with only one word, doing so will almost always be a low/zero value post.

The votes are limited, so except for  Bazinga442, who has two, the rest only have one vote. These people as a whole, only have the ability to get one person on DT1, and they will need help.

This falls outside of the criteria that theymos previously said will cause him to blacklist people -- I believe he said he will blacklist in cases in which you are putting your own alts on DT1, but that is likely not the case here. All of these people did receive merit (although under suspicious circumstances), which does entitle them to vote, although not multiple times for a single person as appears to be the case here.

I think it is a very bad idea to mix the merit system with the trust system. This person for example should have 4 "250" votes, and 100 "10" votes, based on this:
as I believe that person deserves to be legendary, even though I don't know him, or have any reason to trust or not trust him one way or another.

Those sockpuppets (you and I presume) included anyone who excluded Lauda from their trust list, and excluded anyone who included lauda on their trust lists.

The reason why he is included on their trust lists is because he excluded lauda and TMAN

---

That quote was referring to different research I was planning on doing.

I am guessing this is because:


Rmcdermott927 Distrusts:
1. ~TMAN (Trust: 243: -0 / +25) (DT1! (18) 879 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. ~Lauda (Trust: 300: -0 / +31) (DT1! (23) 868 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I was actually planning on doing some research starting at Rmcdermott927, not because of him being included into DT1, but rather because of what I was here, as it seems there might be some evidence some people are being excluded specifically because of who they have on their trust list, specifically, I was going to look into a group of people potentially excluding anyone who trusts (via their trust list) who is critical of said group. Although it seems the Rmcdermott927 exclusion was somewhat resolved as of the last trust list dump.

You forget to quote the part in which I said it is ridiculous to imply that I was saying you would get any of the above *given* to you.

Considering that you don’t participate in any of the above, perhaps it would be more accurate to say your post was outright dishonest.

Edit:
Perhaps the benefit of being on DT has been diminished somewhat as a result of there being more DT members. However the benefit still exists. It doesn’t look like you have traded very much but have a decent amount of trust (strange/unusual), but I can assure you one thing that will be looked at when someone is deciding if they will trade with you is if you are on DT — it is a gage of how much others trust you (although the current criteria is currently very bad and inferior to what it previously was).