I've done trades on the forum. I have a large number of negative feedbacks sent to my profile. It has had an insignificant effect, or an effect that I have not yet perceived.

Perhaps I don't trade as much as I could, but I hardly think that the feedback given to me has affected me at all.

Global rules, you mean.

Zero-substance posts are not allowed in any part of the forum.

---

No one cared about plagiarism. Hm...

Spaghetti text.

The "council" is the Reputation... or Scam Accusation board. Focusing the power to "respected" members is vague and creates centralization. Any member is able to counter a rating.

1) To verify trades, this requires effort and disclosure of personal details.
2) This proposal can be made inconsequential through spam.

What, exactly, are you looking for in this situation? Lucius is not going to receive negative feedback for his. Even if he does, it won't rid of the feedback itself. Not directly, anyway.

This is assuming suchmoon was the one that reported the posts.

I'm not sure how people look for plagiarized posts nowadays, but surely someone must have a scrape tool to automate the process. Finding posts that way is not completely out of the question.

Regardless, reporting someone doesn't necessarily mean you're directly attacking them. If a user found instances of plagiarism, they would most likely report the posts regardless of the individual.

I don't really see what anyone can do in this situation to change the result.

I don't think Lucius deserves a negative. An exclusion at most, but they aren't in the DT system and will be largely unaffected by it.

---

I don't hunt down the scores of users that hound me with negative feedback. It's a waste of time. (Most of them being retaliatory, anyway)

This was different a few years prior, which I think most of us still remember.

Trust should have a weighting based on the risked amount.
We have an equivalent value of trust for amounts from 0 BTC to 100 BTC.^{(arbitrary numbers)}
Though I don't exactly love this, I'm not sure about the best way to rectify the issue.^.
If there are weights attached to the trust values dependent on the risked amounts, would it take too long to load up trust pages? ^.
Additionally, should the negative case be the same, or different? Especially in instances where the risked amount is unclear... what happens then? ^.

This should be moved to Reputation. It is a user-based issue and not that of the forum.

Never said that the PM has been faked. Just that there is insufficient evidence to back up the claim and hence we can dismiss it in typical pragmatic systems of belief.

Considering the (what I perceive to be sarcastic) remarks were placed after the request to move dox to the Investigations board, I don't see suchmoon trying to get Thule to break the rules.

Once you know what you're looking for in a ban, then it's far easier to find evidence thereof.

Given that they didn't bring up the evidence prior to your dissenting remark, I'm inclined to believe that suchmoon scrounged up the evidence subsequently.

If they really did have something against redsn0w, I don't see why they wouldn't report the instances of plagiarism before sn0w was banned.

It's questionable to think that someone would be afraid of red trust from a member who would be ousted were the information true.

Quite dubious indeed.

How is this thread still on-going?

Here are the facts, objectively.

We are looking at a case of hearsay.
Thule may or may not be lying: that is not the issue at-hand.

If Thule is lying, then the evidence is clearly false. Assume that Thule is not lying.
We then have another user that has PM'd Thule a screenshot of a PM.

Text can be doctored easily and we have no way of verifying the message.

Any proof that Thule provides is pointless because this is still hearsay. Thule's received PM can be legitimate, but the screenshot provided thereof may be illegitimate.
The only way to prove the screenshots are legitimate are for the original sender to verify them. Since they apparently do not want to, there is insufficient evidence regarding this case.

Thus, this fails to disprove the null hypothesis. We can pragmatically claim that the private messages to the unknown party are fake.

If you had decided to read a few replies before yours, you would have seen the game and the results. It's not that hard.

The edit function of posts allows one to add new content to it, as desired.

I assume, from the context, that the post thereof was also the most recent one. There should be no reason to delete and repost instead of editing.

In any case where someone has responded afterward, one can subsequently insert details into their following reply.

Here's an interesting point, though. Account passwords can be reset via email within 14 days of a change thereof.

Taking the account as collateral is only viable if you're able to secure it. That is, any value on the account should be multiplied by the probability of the original holder not running away with the account with a reset.

This is why in my eyes, accounts should be taken as collateral only when you're willing to give the same amount to the user as if they were requesting a zero-collateral loan.

Probably the largest and longest loan I'll ever take.

Need this for some transactions, pinned in FIAT.

Repayment amount: $2300
Length: 6 months
Address: 383HDinEiL6h58CcMAis3fXwMJGkDmuUdP

Terms are negotiable.

The bid is currently at 0.4 BTC.

extortion  noun
ex·​tor·​tion | /ɪkˈstɔːʃn/

1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property
especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice

What JeromeTash is doing:

Requesting valid pictures of team members rather than fake images.

I don't see why you decided to use "template" photos for pictures of your team if you didn't want to post real ones in the first place. Just don't have any images at all. After all, that's what you did with the photo of "Henry".

Besides, these are clear edits. The splaying of the hair is the same and you have some weird-ass smudge on her left ear and a weird skin-colored hair edit on the right side of her hair.

I would not have anything above 100 posts/week, and I personally find that very generous in terms of how many quality posts one can output on a weekly basis.

Unless they're dedicating serious time into the forum to churn out content consistently, it's absolutely insane to assume that the average user is able to create that many quality posts.

Moreover, if they are dedicating such a large amount of their time into it, they wouldn't do it for peanuts (exceptions being forum fanatics). If we assume an average of 10 minutes to construct a quality post, that means that they're getting about $2/hr. (for reference, it took me ~12 focused minutes to do the research and writing of this post)

I don't like to think of signature campaigns as jobs because forced posts decrease quality but this is the only way I can portray the inefficacy of the system.

Quality users won't post for $2/hr.
Shitposters won't, either. Because they can churn out dozens of posts every time they log on by scanning through random general/vague threads, creating some half-assed reply they garner from reading either the thread title or some other shitposter's reply.

Repeating what has already been said or stating some obvious (or even, wrong) conclusion about a general topic adds nothing to the thread... but it's easy to do and it's quick to do. If I were to go down this path, I imagine I could hit at least one post per minute, easy. Incoherent rambling and repetition can pad a reply so even character limits or simple guards against one-liners won't really suffice.

When I factor that amount of time into it, this can easily reach $24/hr. This is nearly double that of the highest minimum wage in the US ($13.25) and is definitely something that people in poorer cultures would love to be a part of.
    
Imagine living in an area where the cost of living for the average person each month is half of what you earn every week ($400). You would be a king with one account, never mind the multiple ones that account farmers surely have in the Stake campaign.

In fact, if you did have multiple accounts and you decided to put in the estimated ~16 hours/week per account into the campaign, you would have an income higher than that of GDP/capita United States with just three thereof. That is, 3 accounts at 50 hours/week nets you $62,400 before tax.

I'm vehemently against using accounts in this way but the reality is that it happens and for good reason: it's "easy money"... to people who don't care about the forum degradation.

The pot is always blacker on the other side.

Wait...