That isn't true, and I wish that line would stop getting repeated.  Welcome back, Joel_Jantsen.  Long time, no see and I was wondering where you were at.

You can include whoever you want, though you'll probably get shit for it however you choose.  I can't even imagine taking a break from bitcointalk and then coming back right after the trust system changes happened--it's been like a madhouse around here lately.  Stay sane, keep calm.

All true stuff, glad you pointed it out--and this thread just keeps getting better as it goes along.  I was actually surprised to see a "how I earn merit" thread in Meta after all this time, because we had a great streak going where such turds weren't being cranked out.

If I had any piece of advice to give an actual newbie, it would be to avoid sections like that where not only your post but the thread it's in is going to get buried within a matter of minutes.  Even if it was truly merit-worthy, it's not likely that the post is going to be seen by someone with merit to give in a section like Altcoin Discussion (or Bitcoin Discussion, Economics, Speculation, and probably a couple other sections).

Yep, that's the name of the game with shitcoins and I guarantee you that if you manage to make a profit from your investment, the losers on the other end of the trade would understand your statement completely.  There isn't anything else these coins are used for except trading back and forth. 

Great way to test whether you can actually 'buy low, sell high' with coins that aren't worth the electricity used to maintain their blockchains.  If there was ever a good time to buy them, I suppose it would be now.  Good luck with the experiment and props for being smart enough for not going overboard with the dollar amount of your purchases.  I haven't even heard of about 3/4 of the coins in this list, and that's usually a litmus test for shittiness.

I've never had any problem with Timelord2067.  On the contrary, he's been quite civil and tolerant of me in the handful of PMs he's sent me in the past couple of years, considering I know he does not care for my brand of humor.  He's a good guy, and the only thing that's kept him from being in my trust list is the fact that I think he's wildly off the mark on some of his account-linking.  I couldn't give a specific example, since I haven't given the matter much thought as of late, but I do recall him accusing multiple members of being alts of Quickseller that I thought were very wrong. 

He certainly has done a lot to help the forum, dedicating a lot of what must be his free time to doing detective work--that's a lot more than can be said for many others 'round these parts.

Um, no.  I don't know any of those members personally.  The judgement comes from their overall trust, i.e., the decentralized trust system.  Gleb has a neg right now, but I disagree with that one and thus haven't tagged him.

Edit:
Sorry, not a fan of giving counter-feedback.

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

Leave me the fuck out of this.  I'm not making any trust inclusion/exclusion changes based on who's on the new DT list, so what you wrote is absolutely not true. 

Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes.  What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that.  TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust account sellers/buyers.  The message I'm taking from this is that you don't approve of leaving negs for differences of opinion or politics, but I'm wondering whether you specifically disapprove of account dealers being tagged--not necessarily your opinion on the matter, but whether you'd consider that an inappropriate use of the trust system.

It's not a moderator issue since there's no rule for it, and it harms the forum overall so I'd argue that DT ought to be able to tag them.

Nice, thanks for your research and input on this.  I'm betting he's not the original owner of the account just on language alone, and I'm hoping he'll just come clean now if that's true.  He's already tagged with the possibility of the account being locked still on the table, so he might as well be honest at this point.

I've sort of wondered about this myself, where the line exactly is when it comes to word combinations and what constitutes plagiarism.  Pretty sure that bitcointalk doesn't have a set standard, but I don't know if any standard exists in places like academia as far as using idioms and such.  If it's a quote from a famous person, I would think you should cite the source even if it's in an informal manner--that Wayne Gretzky quote I'd never heard before, and I'm of the opinion that if someone wrote that here they ought to mention where it came from. 

However, I would not ban someone for not saying it came from Gretzky.  There's a big difference between writing out something you have in your memory versus selecting some text with your mouse and copy/pasting it into your post.

Gee, I didn't expect this thread to end up being about Lauda.  I'm shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

If we're talking about things like signature campaigns, most already have provisions in place that preclude anyone tagged with a DT neg from joining, which I agree with.  Projects don't want to be associated with scammers or even red-trusted members who aren't necessarily scammers but who might have done questionable things in the past (like mdayonliner) which earned them red trust.  The difference in the eyes of campaign managers (IMO) between Lauda's ill-advised sting operation and mdayonliner's $100k escrow attempt is the relative amount of trust each has.  Lauda has earned a ton of positives and has a far more established, net-positive reputation than mdayonliner.  

I'm not trying to single either member out, but it's a good example of why one might get accepted into a campaign and one might not--though I don't think mdayonliner has been denied before.  Maybe he could clear that up; I do recall him applying to one and getting in despite his overall red trust and that's likely because he's never actually pulled a scam here, ponzi history aside.

This question is so loaded and agenda-driven that I'm not sure what c-hunter is expecting to accomplish here.  I doubt anyone would want a proven scammer working for them, so the question really comes down to the definition of proven.  On bitcointalk, that's kind of a community consensus, with a sprinkle of politics on top since the actual outcome of an accusation depends on what DT members do.  

Edit (it'll get deleted in the other thread):
Meow.

Solar-powered calculators don't work in dark, festering troll caves.  They must have gotten a different number.

I had to go back and read Theymos's original post about how the voting thing works, and I get it now (more or less).  How these jokers plan to get even one member onto DT1 baffles me, and their claims of an overthrow are ludicrous--unless Theymos steps in, which would make their claims of a centralized trust system ironically self-serving.  Don't think he's going to do that, however.

Now we're hearing new claims about suchmoon buying Gleb's acount, but although I'd love to respond to those, scunter edit: Thule (I can't keep 'em straight) made the accusations in their self-moderated thread and any replies I make are going to get deleted.  They'll try anything.

Translation: he's caught, he knows it, and he's painted himself as far into a corner as is humanly possible, and is all out of imaginary fairy tale reasons why he wrote all that crap.  Rambotnic was playing it straight right up until he wrote:

...after which he started treating all of this as just dribbling idiot humor.  I think he called himself a cop and wanted to perform some lawyering as a side gig at one point. 

Still wondering if anyone is actually going to support him in his quest for the victimhood olympics trophy.  Obviously DT has terribly abused him.  Rambotnic even said it himself, so it must be true.

Cryptohunter and the rest of the gang can only aspire to trisomy 21. 

While we're at it, and a little bit off-topic, but where are all the Rambotnic defenders now?  He's getting harrassed to death in multiple threads by them g'dawful DT ganger-bangers.  I really am dying to hear scunterhunter drop in to lend some help with an enormous Mexican Trump WoT.  Could it actually be that the only members actually concerned with busting scammers are some DT members (and a few others)?  Nah, couldn't be.

This thread has gone on longer than it should have, and OP should lock it.

By the way, Thule--why don't you bitch to TECSHARE that he left me a horrible, unjust neutral feedback based on a disagreement we had?  Go ahead and check my trust page, it's there.

You won't be, believe me.  No bounty manager is going to give one shit about a neutral left by a DT member.  If it ain't red, it ain't read. 

Told you this would be resolved in a (semi) satisfactory way.  Thanks for being reasonable, Saint-loup.

Yep, that's true.  I don't know who Saint-loup is and wasn't aware he's on DT2, but hopefully he reads this and figures out that DT members shouldn't be tagging people just for shitposting--or not earning merits, which is what it says in his feedback.

OP might want to rethink that retaliatory feedback as well.

That's a bit melodramatic.  No one here can force you to do anything.  This guy is obviously new to DT2 and doesn't know better than to neg someone for stuff like this.  I suspect he won't remain on DT for long if he keeps doing it.

Edit:
Yeah, I don't know why I'm being so sympathetic.  However, if DT members start tagging shitposters it's going to be a free-for-all here, and there will be no end to the drama and chaos that would ensue.  It was decided (actually, decreed by Theymos IIRC) last year that doing it wasn't a good use of the trust system.

Un-fucking-believable that he had to copy/paste that garbage snippet of a post, obviously in order to bump an ANN thread.  My guess is that those two accounts are alts and are engaged in the same behavior, and he's probably got a clipboard full of idiotic "great idea-nice project" bumping phrases, ready to go.

Let's wait for the "I made mistake, pls forgive me, can I get second chance?" posting to begin.

I'm sorry, that's the most absurd thing I've read on this forum in a long time.  The person making a claim is the one who has to show the evidence, and what you wrote is the exact opposite of what you wrote in this post of yours (with a great response from marlboroza following it, btw).  In this case, I wouldn't say the evidence is a slam dunk but it sure as hell looks OP and Wipro are either alt accounts or worked together, or at the very least know each other by virtue of them being attached to the same project--which is something that OP denies.  

I'm very interested in hearing what OP has to say about Wipro posting in a familiar huge font, putting a halt to that bounty.  Kinda weird if Wipro wasn't the manager of it.

So what's with that post?  Are you saying you have no idea who that is or why he'd suddenly write a post stating the bounty was over?  I haven't read the whole thread past that post, but it does seem odd that Wipro would write that in your thread for no reason--and in the same oversized font, as well.