I find it interesting that Anduck has received multiple ratings for what was effectively backing out of his auction a single time, yet when Minerjones backs out of six of his auctions, he maintains an unblemished trust rating.

It remains my opinion that Anduck should compensate the winner of his auction (or agree to sell the coin on terms similar to his auction), however I also believe there should be consistency in giving out these types of ratings. 

Would it be difficult to enforce?

From a technical standpoint, no. It would be very easy.

From a fairness standpoint, yes. There could be some people who are advertising a company outside of the signature campaign, for example because they have an ownership stake in the company, or work for the company in a role that benefits when the company has increased sales/volume.

Even if this rule were to be enforced, campaigns could be managed entirely outside of the forum, which would make it difficult to rule out someone using a bunch of accounts to wear a particular signature, and post a bunch of garbage, making it look like the campaign has a lot of people enrolled making lots of shit posts, when in reality, these people have nothing to do with the campaign.

That is still a de-facto license. I also have a feeling changes will eventually be made to the DT system moving it in the opposite direction from where it has recently gone.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I edited my post for clarity.

I don't think theymos wants to be involved in giving licenses to get to perform a job.

I don’t think theymos will restrict campaigns to those that only pay in bitcoin because of free market issues. This would clearly benefit those who participate in dig deals.

I am not a huge fan of enforcing the “signature campaign guidelines” for managers because it will lead to campaigns being run(managed) off the site when advertisers are banned. This is also why forcing campaigns to pay in bitcoin will not work.

I would note that it is not uncommon for a group of people to wear similar signatures because they hold a similar stance on issues they feel strongly about or want to support similar statements.

Lending rates tend to go down when the price is relatively stable or rising moderately. The price hasn’t moved very much since it fell from 6k to just above 3k.

I don’t think signature campaigns typically last long enough for the automatic updates to be useful. The subscription tracking might be useful to ensure someone isn’t changing signatures and claim to have worn the signature when they have not.

If what you described was implemented, the forum could force publish stats about the campaign (or manager), such as how many users have been banned while wearing a signature.

It also remains to be my position that the use of signatures (beyond two lines with no special formatting) should be a paid feature to force those who wear paid signatures to have incentives that align their interests with that of the forum.

Except the fact that you admit you don't have evidence beyond speculation to support your claim against the OP.

It looks to me that your rating was more intended to protect a position of power, and was less so about warning others about a potential scammer.

The OP being an "admitted alt" is not evidence of guilt, nor wrongdoing. It is certainly plausible he is an alt of a reputable person afraid of negative consequences for being critical of Suchmoon (the question of if this fear is based on actual instances of Suchmoon engaging in this kind of behavior is another discussion).

No, the OP has not done anything for him to gain respect/trust/power -- this point was made in regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

No, it should not be surprising I disagree with the underlying rating (at least in regards to the rating you left). Similarly, it is not surprising to me you left the rating you did. You think the sale of accounts allows scams to happen (and otherwise harms the forum), and I believe the sale of accounts makes it more difficult for certain scams to happen -- this is a difference of opinion, and I don't think you leave these ratings to help your business, nor to harm the forum. I am happy to discuss this somewhere else if you wish, however I doubt I will change your mind, and you probably will not change my mind.

I am a little more concerned about the rating Suchmoon left

Right, unless there is some undisclosed evidence, the evidence suchmoon has only shows the OP likely lives/lived in the same general area as the person the OP is being accused an alt of.

Being that the OP effectively has no power, any retaliatory feedback the OP gives will do nothing.

All this ignores the fact that the person the OP is being accused being an alt of has negative trust for very shaky reasons in the first place.

I have never heard of you, but I like your logic.

It is likely that it is unclear you are the original owner of the account, based on your browser/ip/OS you are currently using, verses what you used when you registered your account.

I am not sure where you got 25 from.

In order to be on DT1, you must be trusted by 10 people with at least 10 merit, one of which must have 250 merit, both ignoring merit sent by the person, assuming you are not blacklisted by theymos.

Only one person needs to be convinced, theymos, as he can blacklist suchmoon from being on DT1. Otherwise, 15 people will need to remove suchmoon from their trust lists.

It would probably be best for her not to be in a position of authority, as she appears to always side with those with more power in disputes. Also, she does not appear to have any kind of trading history, nor currently is active in trading, which effectively removes any consequences to her receiving any retaliatory ratings.

One goal of the new DT system was to prevent these types of ratings.

It seems to have caused them to occur more frequently.

I don’t think anyone involved is in India.

Some people use self moderated threads to delete warnings about shady behavior, criticism of the OP (or someone closely related), or questions that make the OP look bad.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

I am not sure if you have seen the above thread but there it one example.

There are other examples of them protecting each other and other examples that are not as bad as the above.

I think it is interesting that no other (semi) reputable news organization has been able to verify the report. This only reduces the chances of the report being accurate.

Many opinion cable news shows that present themselves as news have been foaming at the mouth about this report.

He has already been sentenced to years in prison for crimes many others wouldn’t face criminal charges for (the tax issues would likely be handed civilly). The lying to Congress is very wrong but many in the Obama administration lied about material things that would not necessarily come out regardless but have not faced consequence.

I like your stance that we shouldn’t discuss concerns and air grievances.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?__twitter_impression=true

Buzzfeed is reporting that President Trump directed his then lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to congress about the timing of when the Rump Tower hotel deal in Russia was abandoned. Cohen has testified it was abandoned in January 2016 when in fact it was abandoned that summer.

Buzzfeed is reporting that special counsel Robert Mueller’s officer has evidence of this including Trump organization emails and text messages.

One of the two Buzzfeed reporters later said in an interview that he has not personally seen any of these documents. Muellers office has denied this report in that it is saying that Buzzfeed is misrepresenting the description of the documents and that the report is false. Except for court filings, Muellers office has almost never made any public statements. 

If this is true, and the evidence is solid (it doesn’t appear to be), Trump will likely be impeached and potentially removed from office. If this is outright untrue, Buzzfeed will lose any credibility it has left and will likely eventually either file bankruptcy or get sold for a firesale price (a very quick sell, so to say).

I don’t personally think the report is true. It would make little sense for Trump to do this as the Mueller investigation was already underway, so the underlying facts of when the deal fell through would likely have come out anyway and he was already elected and didn’t face re-election for over 3 years at the time.

What are your thoughts on this? Will this erode the Meduas credibility (beyond Buzzfeed)?

I initially thought the quote from theymos was faked, but upon investigation it is not. Lol.

---

The problem with the new trust system is that you do not need to be viewed as trustworthy by anyone that matters in order to get on DT1. This means several people with a little bit of power, such as those TMAN is close with/to, can effectively control who is on DT1, both adding people and excluding people.

I am not a fan of the new DT system however, TMAN and his clique should all be blacklisted from being on DT1, as most of them engage in behavior consistent with organized crime, and best case they are very shady. They often leave many contentious ratings and have done so without consequences.