It just seems like what you did was trust a lot of people who had sent Lauda a negative feedback... and include those that gave crypto-rainbow (DeepOnion) positives.

But what happens when people like this (bitcoinicon) get a free pass? Or an account seller? Or someone that promotes ponzis? Or a scammer?

This isn't about just Lauda. There are dozens of other users that you had excluded (i.e. Vod, The Pharmacist) that have hundreds of ratings that are not redundant.

Not to mention the ones that have been included.

If the personal vendetta part is false, then that portion can be omitted.

Feigning ignorance works capriciously.
Listing platforms should have at least the smallest form of QA. This had none.

That is a massive fucking trust list. Did you do that yourself?

You probably don't trade on the forum so it's nothing of concern for you. After all, who cares if scammers have positive trust when there's no chance of you losing your money?

I view it the same way as I always have.

Buying trust is equivalent to buying reputation.
Buying accounts is equivalent to buying reputation.
Buying merit is equivalent to buying reputation.

WLOG replace buying with selling.

All three are taggable.

The foundation for giving out such negative trust would be the intent of a transaction.

I see! Your system of beliefs is determined solely by the sequence of propositions, where any propositions that preface those of which it conflicts will nullify the truthfulness of the subsequent ones thereof.

I shall then prove that I am not a scammer by creating two new propositions which yet again do not require evidence for validity.

P1) actmyname is not a scammer.
P2) those that deem actmyname a scammer are wrong.

And henceforth, these premises are of the utmost truth.

---

We're only following your belief system, after all.

You're claiming that I am involved in a scam?

Your claim requires evidence and without sufficient evidence, we can simply reject the claim.

If every claim is accepted without any substance, then we wouldn't be living life pragmatically.

Did you get your posts deleted?

If so, then refer to rule 23.

---

Perhaps we should all familiarize ourselves with the rules.

You can declare that you suspect I'm involved in a scam. But once you declare that I am involved in a scam then you must provide proof.

The former is subjective and the latter requires concrete evidence to disprove the null hypothesis.

Brilliant. This is exactly the kind of tool that we need to address the SpamHorde™.

(now if only there were a way to reduce the wait time once you've made X good reports)

Most = 1? (that being TMAN and only TMAN)
I'm glad to see that you have a firm grasp on language.

I can't trust a site that can't even ensure fairness of their terms. It's not even about the individual case that was published on-forum but about the entirety of it. I don't know how long the bonus had been running for but the rules were misleading and brutally unfair.

Cool. Thanks for giving it a shot.

Given that I had gone through dozens of their ratings and that I didn't find any false references, the chances seem quite small for you to conclude that >50% of the ratings are fake or without reference.

If you can show me even 10 ratings with fake references, I might take your proposition more seriously.

---

I asked for fake references but regardless, your small total doesn't exactly seem like "most" of their ratings.

In fact, for your claim to be true, there should be over 1000 unsubstantiated ratings.

---

Some of the trades that TMAN does are off-forum. What reference do you have for that?

---

Perhaps we should have our dialogue of pragmatic belief again, then.

A claim should be substantiated to a degree where one can reject the null hypothesis lest it be disregarded.

If you're going to cherry-pick references that are in an error margin and extrapolate the data then that's just a byproduct of your poor sampling.

I hope you have some proof of your claims.

Regarding storage. Though I do suppose that you could instead change the draft feature to 100 unique thread replies/edits. (i.e. message ID or new replies to given threads)

What the fuck?

^W_C^h_a^a_n^t_'^'_t^s _f^t_i^h_n^e_{i s}^p_h^r_:^{o b}_l^l_e^e_a^m_{v e}^{w i}_i^t_t^h _o^s_p^t_e^a_n^{r t}_oⁱ_r^{n g}_{r e}^o_tⁿ_u^e_{r n}^{p o}_t^s_o^t _t^a_h^t_e ^a_{d r}^t_aⁱ_f^m_t^e_.^?

When I handle excessively-long posts or multiple posts and I need to leave I'll copy the contents into a file.

---

I'm not entirely sure how much it'll cost the forum to change the drafting service.

I'm assuming that the doof just used some translation tool.

Love that itomarketing stopped logging in after Thule began posting.

---

You've already made blanket statements before. Continue, please.