I am not sure it was a consensus, but was more like a small number of people who are very loud in voicing their opinion.

If I had any sMerit left, I would give this post merit.

I have noticed a lot of newer users are trigger happy when it comes to tagging users, and a lot of the time, they do not even try to defend their position when challenged. Some of these users receive a decent amount of trust for "tagging 'scammers'" and don't engage in trades, or very few trades, and are in DT1.

I have also noticed some users (also new), also call out many scammers, but seem to go largely unnoticed in terms of receiving trust, and don't get anywhere near DT1.

 

I think this is a risky loan and would have mixed feelings if/when the loan is repaid.

I don’t remember saying this...and I am not aware of any staff farming accounts.
edit: a search of old threads and old messages reveals I was aware of this. The selling accounts was done publicly and was a long time ago. I don't think they would retaliate if I called them out, but I have no interest in doing so (see below) /edit

>hilariousandco
He has been accused of doing this over the years. I am not aware of any information that supports him farming accounts. He has a pretty unique personality and I haven’t seen anyone that I think could be him that is not publicly known.

Edit: I wouldn’t necessarily be against a staff member doing this, however if they were enforcing rules for others to prevent this, either via moderation or the trust system, I would have an issue because they are imposing rules on others they are not even following.

I find it interesting that you are not taking any kind of stand on the topic itself. Perhaps you’re waiting to see how powerful the person is or the reaction of other powerful people.

The second two threads can probably be merged into one, and or the last two be locked.

If you don’t want to read what he says, then you can use the ignore button, or simply ignore his posts.

Edit: if anyone has any questions as to what constitutes a low value post, see below:

The “value” of a post is less about your opinion of the content or your opinion of the person writing, and is more about if there can be a discussion, or a response to what is being said (ignoring the reputation of the author).

I don’t see why they should be held to any different standards than anyone else.

@LoyceV - I also think it is a bit of a copout to move trust system discussion to reputation. The trust system is ultimately implemented by the administration and they are the ones who are in a position to make changes and/or force changes by way of warning that behavior will lead to being excluded.

I suspect that there are at least one or two accounts that have been farmed and are being used by one or more of controversial players in DT that is currently in DT.

I find it difficult to believe that certain fairly new people have become so well known in a short time to have enough trust inclusions to be in DT1.

I don’t think the root cause of issues is the number of people, but rather that the current system is vulnerable to manipulation.

Very few criminals will do something only one time. The overwhelming majority of criminals are repeat offenders. A successful extortion will, by definition be kept private. 

If one were to assume you are not a hacked/purchased LBC account (I am unsure if this is a good assumption), a potential lender would need to know what mechanisms they can pursue if you default. The most ideal mechanism would be the recovery of liquid collateral such as altcoins, however if that is not an option, then a lender may need to pursue obtaining a personal judgment (assuming you are taking the loan in your personal name), and would need to know what income/assets you have they could enforce a judgment against. If all of your income is derived from your business, a judgment may be more difficult to obtain.

In any case, I think the loan you are looking for is larger than most loans made around here. I believe there are a number of platforms that specialize in startup financing that would probably give you are better chance of getting the loan you are looking for funded.

You claim to be a a "reputable" user from LBC, however LBC accounts are traded here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118923.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110138.0

I found the above after a 30 second search. There are probably more examples.

Further, I am not sure the LBC account you cite has a reputation in excess of the loan amount you are asking for. I am also unsure if a loan default would be able to sufficiently harm the reputation of your LBC account, and harm your ability to do business on LBC.

The content may have been copied from the post quoted by the post you cited. However I do not think you are describing plagiarism, and it is certainly not something the OP should be banned, nor punished (by forum administration) for, as he clearly cited a source:
When it comes to plagiarizing, people will be banned when they pass off someone else's words as their own, not when they use BB code incorrectly, or make mistakes when citing the source to the extent that it is still clear there is a source, and the content is not original.

I do have very serious concerns about modern major tech companies, however I believe the below is relevant:

I am not a historian, but it looks like you might have gotten this backwards. I am looking at a 2014 calendar, and May 12 is actually after February 27.

The OP's post appears to actually be the one that was plagiarized.

Okay. If they provide services/benefit that exceed these privacy intrusions, they should be free to continue using these platforms. The selling point of giving up private information is doing so allows the platforms to display ads relevant to the end user, and can otherwise provide useful information to the end user. I don't think Facebook should be lying about what they are collecting from their users, but I also can't say their customers *must* be mad when this happens. I don't think anyone should be forced to have certain levels of privacy if they don't want privacy, or if they believe the benefits of of giving up certain information outweigh the value of privacy. This is not to say that people should be disallowed from having privacy if that is what they want.

I think the two statements you appear to be making conflict with each-other:
*Facebook (as an example) should be punished for mishandling customer information
*Facebook's customers do not care (based on their subsequent actions) that Facebook mishandled their information

Your post lacks evidence, is libelous and was disproven in my previous response to you.

Further, it is difficult to take you seriously after you supported allowing someone back whose actions objectively harmed the community, for reasons that were none other than for selfish personal gain. Your first reaction to this person being removed from the community was suggesting something that would objectively harm both the forum and the bitcoin ecosystem. And your rationale for allowing him to come back were summed up as being he was still alive and he conducted business with you.

Thank you sir!

It seems you are unable to back up your suggestion. This makes me believe your prior statements (and others in this thread) were politically motivated, with the hope of gaining influence/power. On its face, your various stats may indicate you are a helpful forum member, however to anyone who is paying close attention, you are a toxic person, and should be avoided.

This is an example of a post being given merit for political reasons by a merit source.

edit: I have a long history of finding those who make "objectively high quality posts" that extend well before the merit system as I advertised my own business via a signature campaign that I ran personally, and those that participated generally ended up making objectively good posts during the specific duration the campaign was running.

I do think a permanent ban for a single instance of plagiarism from a legendary person is a bit harsh. Especially considering the person isn’t reasonably a signature spammer. The underlying reason seems to be financial though.

If multiple people have though I was already a merit source, and there has not been controversy/concerns with the merits I have been giving out, I don't see any reason why anyone would have legitimate concerns with future merit I give out. I am in the top 25 in terms of recent merit given out.

Is that to say that you have no basis to backup your claim that I would give merit to my hypothetical alts? I will again demand a retraction.

Any fees collected in regards to what you are referring to was refunded....

Minerjones also backed out of many auctions after they closed under the guise the "real" seller backed out. He also has been at least one escrow of multiple transactions in which those he was supposed to be protecting were told they might not recover the entire amount he was supposed to be protecting (due to escrow incompetence) after one party scammed.

TMAN was also part of at least one extortion attempt that was unsuccessful, and who knows how many that has been successful.

Yes, and because posts there don’t add to post counts. If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree on the topic, but in any case, you don’t have my support.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, I am not corrupt and cannot be bought.

My goal is to contribute in a way that improves the system.

To those who are saying I will use my sMerit to my own alts, this is not only libelous but is illogical. I have demonstrated that I can earn merit with my own well thought out and insightful comments in my posts. There is no need for me to give merit to myself nor will I. I would request that anyone who has suggested this to either provide evidence of this implication or retract your statement.