This has the potential to expose a lot of hypocrisy among certain people and could create enough chaos to last until the following April fools.

I was trolled extensively years ago when I was in the account selling business, examples are below.

IMO, the above is likely an indication that the trolling was not an expression of his opinion but was an attempt to discredit his competition unethically.

There is also substantial evidence that Lauda is/was engaged in account trading and he also tags sold accounts.

As long as the “d” remains in DT creating a custom trust list is worthless.

Even those that have custom trust lists still use DT as a reference to determine if they will do business with you because it is shown by default to potential customers.

The WSJ confirmed the source was Bezos’ mistresses brother, who was paid $200k for the texts.

It sounds like the brother really doesn’t like Bezos. He probably could have gotten 100x this much from Bezos just from asking for a favor.

I think this is a good example as to why those who don’t participate in the marketplace have no business in the DT system.

Actually the formula for calculating credit scores is secret, and you do not know how specifically a credit score will change given a set of changes, and the credit bureaus periodically change the formulas.

I don't think you are in a position to dictate to others what terms they can conduct business on. People are free to give loans on terms deemed acceptable, no matter how risky or ill-advised.

If these people are late, they may decide against trying to repay you after seeing the risks involved in paying late. I am not against putting a negative on someone who is late on a loan in order to pressure them to repay quickly, so they can get their negative rating removed, and maintain their reputation.

I don't think marco is a particularly trustworthy person, and did not fill any of his loans after he sent me unsolicited PMs asking me to. I do not advise others to trust him. I also posted at least warning in one of his lending threads against lending to him. Marco has been involved in a lot of shady business over the years, but I am strongly against leaving ratings based on speculation, and when there is no (longer any) harm. I don't think you can call these loans a scam attempt because he was given the money, and eventually repaid.

Perhaps because I told him to PM you when he asked for advice on how to deal with the situation (I did after he did). And I noticed the amount of time between when I advised him to send a PM and when all of the new ratings were removed.

The impact on your credit score is much less if you are no longer delinquent on your loan (as well as the impact to most banks' underwriting standards). Also, marco was not 30 days late on his loan, he was a week(?) late, and appears to have paid compensatory interest, and most importantly, the lender appears to be happy with the transaction.

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

8c7f81afe4fb3430ae8f3d276a3bace9a0bac53e151ed9c30e9c33c07394eb9d

Take a look at that transaction....

According to coinmarketcap your altcoin ranks at 448, and has a market cap of only $4.1MM.

Your thread has ~1800 pages of posts, while the ANN thread for etherum has ~1150 pages, but etherum is much more well known, and there are dozens, if not hundreds (if not thousands) of projects built on top of etherum. I am not sure how this can be accounted for except for shilling, which is certainly not something good for the forum.

With the above being said, I don't support banning people for plagiarism that happened a long time ago, and in only "small" amounts, when they are otherwise not breaking any rules. There isn't any other rule in which no warnings are given (perhaps no warning is necessary in most cases, but maybe a 60 day ban would be more appropriate as a final warning would be more appropriate if someone is caught plagiarizing, when a high ranking account is involved). It doesn't seem right to me to be removing people from the forum willy-nilly who are currently contributing to the forum. 

With the above being said, there is an argument you should be banned for bump spam. This obviously relies on the speculation that you have many shills supporting your altcoin.   

Maybe he got banned (temp)

The complete email with the headers can prove the email is authentic.

Perhaps you could explain how it was that you were able to research that many accounts in that short of time....or is this an admission that you don’t care about actual guilt when you tag people?

There is an argument that theymos should undo all of your moderator actions after this has come out in order to ensure no one is harmed as a result of your carelessness. If not then your moderator actions should certainly be heavily scrutinized and throughly reviewed.

Unlike most people in this thread, my views on issues and disputes do not change based on who is involved.

If you accept the presumption that not having a business license, nor a physical address makes your business untrustworthy, what Thule is advocating for is not outside of the mainstream, in fact some people in this thread who are opposed to what Thule has advocated for have essentially forced (or tired to force via the threat of negative trust) people to stop advertising other untrustworthy businesses, that are actually untrustworthy. I myself have messaged participants of a signature campaign I was running urging people to stop advertising for a business that turned out to be a scam, once it was confirmed it was a scam.

I previously explained why I don't think the lack of a business license makes a casino untrustworthy. There is perhaps a slightly stronger argument that the lack of a physical address makes the casino untrustworthy, however many in the crypto world have scammed whose identities were either public prior to the scam, or were dox'ed after the fact, and there are probably less than 5 who had anything happen to them, so I don't think a "physical address" will do much in terms of player/customer safety.

The argument that Thule is not going after *all* casino's without a license (and other scams in the ponzi section) and therefore his current argument against Hhampuz is a red-herring because he does not have the resources to go after every single scam business, and must use his resources efficiently. Similarly, the fact that Thule is not going to the authorities about these businesses is a distraction because he cannot force law enforcement to go after these businesses, and they may not if the business is not generating enough business to account for using law enforcement's resources, and law enforcement not going after a business is not an excuse for someone supporting said business if they are doing something harmful. Hhampuz is helping businesses referenced in the OP conduct business and generate additional business by running their signature campaigns, and if these businesses are actually doing harmful things to their customers, he should stop doing so as soon as practical.

Any argument other than the referenced businesses are not harming their (potential) customers (or something similar thereto) is invalid, IMO.

I think this rating is one more example of why you are a follower and not a leader. I do not doubt that you will be unwilling (or more likely, unable) to defend this rating in any way if/when anyone tries to call you out on it, or otherwise tries to discuss it with you. Thule calling someone out for helping a company advertise that he says he believes is untrustworthy does not make him a scammer. Any negative ratings given to him for this thread are an attempt to silence him from asking difficult questions -- except in this case, he is not even asking difficult questions (his arguments in this case are not difficult to counter), so perhaps it would not only be a sign of a lack of integrity, but also a lack of intellectual capacity.   

Perhaps someone should already have a history of leaving accurate ratings before being added to DT....

If you are moving a topic to a place where it should be, you are breaking the rules. If you move a topic to a sub after a mod moves it to a different sub, you are essentially breaking the rules after you have been told not to. If you continuously move a thread to an incorrect sub, the thread will likely eventually get locked.

If a thread was moved by the OP after a mod moved it, you can indicate this in the report comment. 

Do you use any automated tools to report this many posts? If you see several consecutive posts within the same thread, will you report each post, or make a single report?

He signed a message from an address posted before those changes here, and just repaid a smaller loan. I would ask the same lender if he is willing to fill this loan.

I have no affirmative reason to believe avirunes is a scammer, and I have no idea if his account was recently hacked, although if it was, I would presume the "real" avirunes would create a thread trying to get his account recovered, which I have not seen.

In regards to the rating he left you, there is blockchain evidence that you are an alt of bitcoinfuck, as both of your casinos are using the same xpubkey for its wallet.

You could make the argument that your alt, bitcoinfuck is not a scammer, although backing out of a deal once the issue of escrow is broached is very shady. I haven't looked into the legitimacy of the claim that the casino being run by bitcoinfuck is a scam.

I think the concern of the OP is that you are facilitating the advertising of casinos that thule concludes to be shady because, according to him, they do not have a "license". The concern does not appear to be that participants are at risk of not getting paid.

I do agree that it would be best to not facilitate the advertising of a scam, of a company that is untrustworthy, or a company that is known to harm its customers. However, in most cases involving crypto casinos, a "license" is meaningless IMO, and I don't think they provide any *real* protection to gamblers. I suspect most crypto casinos with "gambling licenses" are still breaking the law in one way or another in most major jurisdictions.