Alright, bub. Here—let me pick out a couple more.

---

There were already over ten replies before yours. Did your reply add any new information? Hm... not really. Check these ones out:

---

That pretty much covers anything you would have to say.

Moving on.

I mean come on. How much more general and vague can you get with your reply?

---

From the thread "One good thing about the crash":

Not only is the reply just dumb, but it's been stated before.

---

---

Satisfied?

How did you get this number?

"80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they can't participate in signature campaigns anymore" ≠ 20 of them were unfairly tagged. There isn't even any logical sense in your statement.

Selection bias. The loudest ones will complain. And they're usually shitposters.

Would it change anything if I were to leave the signature campaign? Not really. You're kind of trying to fish for moot points here.

Also, I tagged a shitload of accounts before I was put into DT2. I'm not sure why, then, you would think that the reason I'm doing this is to secure spots in signature campaigns.

---

Also, radical problems require radical changes. It's unfortunate that we don't have much heavier moderation because otherwise a lot of spam would be cleared up (and we would finally lock those spam megathreads).

Racist? The fuck?

Way to go and push everything into a completely ridiculous territory. It's completely detrimental to whatever argument you try to propose.

These are two of the posts you created recently. I could quote more but it would be redundant. Just because you bump up your word/character count doesn't mean that the post has any substance whatsoever.

It's shitty. It's insubstantial and contributes fuck-all.

Get a username and trust page in there. Makes things quicker to tag.

You can change the text of the hyperlink with the following:

I recently got a switch. Been playing BoTW for a while—it's really fun and I had a blast. I was thinking about getting Mario Odyssey because of the raving reviews however I'm on the fence about whether or not I would enjoy a collectathon. For me, the gameplay (at least from what I have seen) isn't really that amazing. It just seems like a constant slew of boring 'exploration' without much reward. Sure, you collect the moons and all but where's the core gameplay? At least in BoTW there are treasure chests, ores, hidden Koroks, etc., but I feel like you aren't rewarded much in Odyssey.

Anyone with a genuine opinion care to give their thoughts?

---

Note: I will delete any shitposts and lock the thread after a satisfactory answer/discussion has been made.

That didn't take long for the thread to derail.

Bump, now that I got a slew of private messages.

The former is true but the latter is false. Here's the reason. If it is known that shitposting is bad then we won't see any shitposting. Negative trust is what you call a deterrent. If people actually CAN post properly then they don't really need signature campaigns to do so however in this day and age, it seems that signature campaigns are all that people really care about.

If post quality increases after a tag then it may be warranted to be changed to a neutral "Was a shitposter but has since then changed." feedback.

Then why would Dean buy back the coins at the buyback price?
With the buyback proposition, exchanges aren't really a necessity. Why would you allow pumping and dumping of something that should theoretically have an upper bound on its price?

No, no no. Wait. Look at the following statements and tell me if you would trust anyone who would write these phrases:

"Is having sex with a minor legal? I want to have sex with a minor."
"Is kill someone legal? I want to kill someone."
"Is committing tax fraud legal? I want to just not pay taxes."
"Is taking a chocolate bar from the convenience store down the street legal? I want to steal a chocolate bar."

The first part is irrelevant. We're focused on the latter portion of the quotes, where willful intent is shown. ☐

No... the negative trust should stick. The collateral you offered straight-up suggests that you're going to exit scam. Why would a private key or a bitcointalk account act as good collateral?

In the latter case, if you default the loan your account is going to be tagged anyway.
In the former case, once a private key is leaked any funds in the account are as good as compromised, meaning you're not going to use it anyway. Not only this but you can simply send the coins from the linked public key address to another wallet and the lender will have nothing.

Clearly, it's not simply a case of the 'rules of bitcointalk'.

True. But considering the history of Dean, users should feel at least a little safer playing at his site rather than some new startup, no?

Which ones?

Yes.

I'll repeat what I said to the other user that created a similar thread and used similar arguments.

Just because you didn't do it does not mean you are innocent. You had the intent to bump ANN threads and that in and of itself directly shows justification for the negative trust.

Key point in refuting your 'new to the forum' argument: ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Just because you didn't know the rules does not mean that you are getting away scot-free. That just simply does not make sense. And it's not like the rules were private knowledge. They're posted publicly, for god's sake!

This is selection bias. You're seeing the red-tagged accounts that have not yet been banned, because their posts haven't been reported (or seen yet) or some other reason. Perhaps some posts that are lengthy are just chunks of repeated information and thus insubstantial... but when moderators are reviewing a report case, they may not see the context and thus deem it a bad report.

---

That's where the red trust comes in.

If you would rather have the accounts banned, then why wouldn't you be in agreement with red trusting the account (essentially depriving the owner of high-paying signature campaigns and thus deterring spam).

Let me stop you right there. First off, ignorantia juris non excusat. Doesn't matter if you didn't know how the forum worked. If you break rules, then you are punished for it. Likewise, in real life, if you commit tax fraud not knowing it was illegal, you're not going to be acquitted purely because you were ignorant of the law.

---

Now that the key point is out of the way, there's another critical element in your underlying guilt:

For what reason did you want to buy an account?
I can almost guarantee it was not for a benevolent reason. Feel free to contradict this hypothesis.

You didn't simply 'post' in an account sale thread. You intended to buy the account, you dingo.

What does that say? You want to buy the account for 0.6 BTC. You ask the thread opener to reply. Just because you didn't do the crime doesn't mean you weren't going to—if you weren't caught. Recall the TCaP series by Chris Hansen. Dumbasses had the intention of soliciting sex from minors. Just because they didn't actually do it doesn't mean they get away scot-free.

The auctions board is not limited only to accounts & invites, so I see no reason why your completely asinine remark is sound.

How about 'scamming the forum'? Scamming the forum out of quality posts.

Would you agree with tagging accounts traders with red trust, because you distrust them? If so then consider the same thing with spammers—that you distrust them—you feel that they are doing harm to the forum in some way and thus give them feedback accordingly.

There should be direct consequences for shittily posting. If it takes a red trust for people to change, then so be it: it acts as a proper deterrent.

FTFY.

The forum is plagued by a cancerous tumor of shitty posts and people who perpetuate them. Regardless of their societal level and income they should not post of they do not know the language. Just as I would not Google translate my posts into Arabic and post on those boards, people whose English skills are sub-par to the level of nonsense should not post. If it takes me more than 3 reads to understand a sentence then the sentence is poorly written.

You didn't JUST ask a question. You intended to buy an account.

I don't see any benevolent reason that you could have for buying an account. If you would like to refute my claim then you may feel free to do so, but be aware that I already have many preconceived notions about people who are involved in account sales (or conspiracy to enact in account sales).

They're not mods.

Perhaps you should learn about the forum first. Maybe that would have saved you from being tagged.