If bounty hunters weren't the plague of bitcointalk, I might have more sympathy in cases like this.  Christ, Neluns can't even spell "campaigns" or "signature" correctly, which gives you an idea of how sloppy they are and they're also probably just a scam anyway.

I'd like to hope situations like this would discourage people from participating in bounties, but I'm sure they won't.  Good luck getting your tokens, which are going to be worthless anyway.

You say there are a lot of articles--can you provide links to any of them that would facilitate a discussion about this?  It's not clear what restrictions are being proposed or are already implemented, so it's hard to give an opinion on this without further info.

I'd love to find something better than Paypal, but unfortunately I tend to do a lot of business on eBay and that's their payment of choice.  Buyers always pay me with Paypal, and I get whacked with fees--in addition to all of the eBay fees.  Plus PP isn't bitcoin-friendly and it's the only method of payment I've used thus far to either buy or sell bitcoins for fiat.

I saw the post and I figured it was a political statement about rape claims, the #metoo movement, or something of the sort.  But you know what?  It wasn't appropriate and not everyone would interpret the accusation as a joke or something other than its face value.

It's amazing to me that TECSHARE was actually on DT at one point.  I've said before that the evidence shows that he's an honest businessman, and I would trust him as a trading partner (not that that's ever going to happen), but he's obviously in raving-lunatic-mode about this situation.  I get the feeling that he's not the type of person who'll let things go until he gets the last word, but he really should just drop this.  Apologizing to Flying Hellfish wouldn't be a bad idea either if he could deflate his ego enough to do so.  Doubt that's going to happen, but it would be the right thing to do.

I've said this before:  We judge ourselves by our intentions but judge others by their actions.  You might very well be a great guy who would never scam anyone, but if you haven't demonstrated that here (especially to a DT member if it's green trust you seek), you're not going to be recognized as a trusted person.

I don't know what you've done on the forum, but the last feedback you got was a neg for shitposting.  If you're not doing deals with people and/or not busting scammers, you won't be rewarded with green trust.  Also, people tend to look very suspiciously at members here who state that they're looking to gain trust.  Doesn't mean you're a scammer, but it makes people question your intentions.

And dang, now I'm #40 on the bpip list.  I soooo don't deserve to be ranked that high.  There has got to be a flaw in Vod's algorithm or something.  I can barely recognize who I am sometimes, so I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be that recognized as a member of bitcointalk.

Well then you're not required to leave any feedback.  Many members here (including myself) know that negative feedback serves a useful purpose in cases where moderators didn't or won't act on an issue like ban evasion. 

That statement "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." that appears when you're leaving trust is seriously outdated and really needs to be updated IMO.  And since Theymos hasn't taken a stand on members leaving negs that don't meet the criteria of that statement, I'm going to continue to give negs to alts of banned members and similar cases.  If you think that's misuse of the trust system, I would refer you to my own trust page, which is full of negatives from people I've never even interacted with, much less scammed.  Some of those negs make very specific claims about how I scammed them for X number of bitcoins or abused animals and many other things.

I like to think of it as helping out rather than covering up inaction on the part of the mods.

Mine too, and sometimes I call people out on it when I happen to be making a post in a thread when I see members doing it.  It doesn't make sense to me why they hit the "quote" button instead of just the "reply" button--or at the very least, why they don't snip out the parts of the quote that aren't relevant, like I just did with your post I quoted.

I'm sure I've been guilty of it as well, especially in my early days on the forum.  Quoting huge blocks of text is something I've learned not to do, and I'm glad you've learned not to as well. 

Jet Cash, whether your "experiment" has any effect or not, I'm glad you made this thread and I hope people read it--especially members who are new to bitcointalk.  Yes, I too have seen Legendary members quoting posts unnecessarily but it seems to be a rampant problem with newer members. 

The worst case I've come across (and I don't have a link) was one where a person was applying for a position in a signature campaign and quoted the entire OP of the campaign thread.  And I'm sure the example I'm thinking of isn't the only time someone has done that.

No, I don't think all the merit sources are known, but many have been "outed" based on the math of their merit-giving history.  There's a thread in Meta (I just searched for it and couldn't find it, as I forgot the title) where many merit sources were identified--and I know who some of them are and the ones I'm aware of don't have red trust from DT members. 

Then again, I have a custom trust list so it's kind of hard for me to say that with certainty since I don't even know who's on DT anymore.  I only became aware of iluvbitcoins getting on DT because someone made me aware of my own trust getting a color change due to the neg he left on me--which has since been amicably resolved, I might add.

Glad you chimed in on this and explained your side of the story.  It doesn't sound like Daniel91 is some sort of serial scammer, though the question is whether Theymos would consider the stain on his bitcointalk reputation as grounds for denying his merit source application.  In this case, I tend to think it would be worth giving him a shot at being a merit source especially since he can merit some local board posts.  The great thing about the merit system is that it's all public, so if any shenanigans take place, it's caught pretty quickly.

The massive word-of-mouth campaign around Asia and South America and everywhere else that's bringing these illiterate shitposting ban-magnets really should include as part of it some sort of discussion about how seriously bitcointalk takes plagiarism.  These noob spammers register on day 1, and by day 3 at the latest they've already discovered they have nothing to say about any of the topics on boards for which bounties pay for posts in.  And then they realize their English is inadequate (and that's being generous), so they invariably resort to stealing content.

I don't expect this problem to ever end as long as posts on bitcointalk are a means to make money, but there ought to be some way to warn/deter newbies from engaging in plagiarism.  I can't think of a good way to do this, but I know this forum is jam-packed full of people smarter than me and a solution could be found if those people put their heads together and worked on it. 

Or we can let things stay as they are and keep being entertained by the feigned ignorance, lies, denial, forum-blaming, and assorted other sometimes-amusing behaviors of scammers.  That option wouldn't be too bad, but I'd prefer a solution over the status quo.

I was wondering that myself, but Vod has had some pretty decent zingers aimed at Thule that were amusing to read.

Still, I think Thule has gone full mixan at this point and it's probably best to start giving this thread the deaf ear.  I'm going to start this myself.  I have nothing left to say in my defense of whatever it is Thule thinks my crime is, but I shall be waiting with bated breath for LE to show up at my door with a charge that I slandered/libeled someone on the interwebs. 

Read you loud and clear on that one.  He wrote the following neutral feedback on my trust page:

"Just because you can't argue your points without personally attacking me is not my fault. You tell yourself whatever you like and block my messages. It doesn't change the fact that you are just a child throwing a fit because I hurt your frail little feelings by pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Of course if you simply just debated the subject none of this would be an issue now would it?

P.S. if I was threatening you, you would know it."

And if you read the reference thread, you can clearly see he can't tolerate opinions contrary to his own and takes it to the point of not agreeing to disagree (as he wrote in one post) but continuing the argument via PMs and then in trust feedback once his PMs were blocked.

Any argument/disagreement with TECHSHARE is not going to be a normal debate, because he's a hothead to put it mildly.  Keep up the fine work, Flying Hellfish.

I don't know exactly what Theymos has for criteria as far as merit source selection goes, but I'm assuming negative trust from a DT member doesn't factor into it?  I can't think of all the known merit sources I'm aware of and whether they're generally trusted.  I'm only bringing this up because Daniel91 has a neg from iluvbitcoins.

But I'll tell ya, I fully support more merit sources who tend to frequent the local boards--I think some very well-though out posts might not have earned merit because they were written by people not expressing their ideas in their native tongue.  Not that my opinion matters here or that it comes down to a community vote anyway, but I'd be cool with giving this guy (Daniel91) a shot.

On the other hand, after Theymos added those 36 new merit sources in September, I'm not sure if he's looking at new applications right now--but it's better to create the application thread and post it.  Whether Theymos sees it/considers it or not, you can always bump it in the future. 

Good luck to you, bro.

I can't recall how much of an impact his posts have made on me, but I did give him some merit as did a lot of other members.  He's definitely doing OK for someone who's "only" been here a year.

OP, I kinda like the idea behind this thread, but part of me thinks it's unnecessary.  If anyone needs merit role models to emulate, they can just check the list of the most merited members (all-time) and scrutinize their bitcointalk output.  There's also the same sort of list for the members who've received the most merit recently.  Either way, newbies who have concerns about not earning enough merit would do well to check out those links and look at the posts those members made. 

Or better yet, they should stop worrying so much about ranking up.  Sometimes this forum feels like a big dick-measuring contest, and it shouldn't be that way.

I think Flying Hellfish went a little too far with that comment about B1tUnl0ck3r and BADecker being the next terrorist or bomber or whatever.  Having said that, I don't follow any of the threads which are causing this drama.

I would hope that Flying Hellfish's personal beliefs don't interfere with his fair treatment of members here as far as moderation goes, i.e., that he's not deleting posts based on someone defending the right to bear arms (which is primarily a widely-held value in the United States if I'm not mistaken and not as much so in Canada).  The United States has a long history of citizens needing to be armed.  There were long periods of time when huge parts of the country was basically lawless and people had to stand up for what was theirs.  This has carried over into the present day, where many folks believe they need to have the ability to bear arms to defend themselves and their property. 

Regardless of whether B1tUnl0ck3r and BADecker are exhibiting signs of being mentally unstable, their voices should be heard--as long as they follow the rules of the forum.  Flying Hellfish has done an excellent job as a mod as far as I can tell, and I trust he'll keep his own biases out of his moderation.

I'm going to reveal myself to be a complete tool by admitting this (many of you are of that opinion anyway, I'm sure), but I still claim from the moonbit/doge/litecoin/BCH faucets pretty regularly, and they offer the option of SolveMedia instead of Recaptcha, which I find much easier.  I'd rather repetitively type "fork and knife" or "chocolate babka" than click on images of store fronts or whatever, which most of the time you can barely make out.

As far as the captcha on bitcointalk goes, I'm always logged in so I haven't had to solve that captcha in quite some time.  I would imagine people with many alt accounts would find this frustrating, but the best solution is to not log out if you can avoid doing so.  I understand the need for it on this forum, but I also think it's annoying sometimes--I've had times when I'd click on all the right images and the login would still fail, and other times when the images wouldn't load or would load so slowly that I just gave up.

Alas, it's a pain in the ass that we all have to deal with until something better comes along.  Blame it on the spammers and bots.

Mdayonliner, I was refering to xtraelv's post, #41 where it shows you posted the same likes & shares links as nguyenthanhhieu did the day prior.  I don't know if you explained that or if I missed the explanation or what. 

In any case, after reflecting on this I suspect this is an error you made when copying the report format from another post, which I've seen many bounty hunters do.  That was the basis for the feedback I left you.

I'd like to hear the opinions about this from xtraelv and any of the other members I generally trust who've posted in this thread.  Just about the possible bounty abuse and the credibility of the evidence presented here.

Tagging of merit abusers by DT members is inconsistent at best, and you'd need to include a lot more evidence that there was a purchase of merit (as you claimed in the thread title) before anyone even considered tagging these members.  If you have any chat logs, PMs, or anything else, please provide it.  Otherwise, you can expect no action will be taken.

He admitted nothing of the sort.  I've come to believe that you have a serious reading impediment or are just willfully trolling--and I'm leaning toward the latter.

You keep asking for the link to the "100BTC" issue, people keep posting evidence, and it's not exactly a secret.  You can check for yourself the feedback you left for me, one of which implied that I scammed you for 100 bitcoins.

Good luck with that one.  You're not the first person who's had issues with Vod's feedback and I'm sure you're not the first person to take your grievances up the chain of command--and yet here we are, and Vod is still on DT.

This is the crux of the issue with Thule's rant against Vod's feedback (or at least part of it).  You'll notice that when I tag account sellers, I don't enter an amount for "risked BTC" because that would imply that I was scammed for that amount or at least there was some sort of transaction with bitcoin at stake. 

Thule entered 100BTC as the amount at risk when he left me one of his 3 negs.  There was absolutely no need for that, and anyone reading the feedback might actually think I scammed you for that amount--regardless of the text of your feedback.  It was a wrong thing to do, and that's why Vod called you out on it.

How about you expand on that statement and just state that you're going to stop arguing with any people about this non-issue.  It's obviously getting you nowhere, and I suspect people are tired of responding to you when this crap keeps going around in lunatic circles.

You can speak for yourself about that.  I wouldn't be ballsy enough to bet the ranch on bitcoin popping back up to its last ATH within 3-5 years (though it certainly could happen, and I hope it does).

There seems to be a mood in the stock market that I can't quite put into words, but if I had to choose one it'd be "pessimism".  There's a lot of political craziness going on in the world, so it doesn't surprise me that the market is dropping.  What's strange is that gold & silver prices haven't really moved much--not since the stock market correction, and not much in years actually.  The metals market seems to be kinda dead, so the people who are selling stocks and causing the market to drop obviously aren't putting their proceeds into gold or silver--or bitcoin for that matter.  I think a lot of investors are staying in cash for the moment.

That's so not true, and history proves this.

Those are words of wisdom.  Unfortunately that doesn't stop people from creating these threads comparing bitcoin to gold.  Personally I'd choose bitcoin over gold, but owning both might be a wise move depending on how much of each you invested in.

Without any context included as to what this beef between Flying Hellfish and B1tUnl0ck3r is about, I'm a bit confused.

I assume this is some sort of disagreement about the right to bear arms?  In Canada?  Maybe a reference link to a previous thread where this was discussed would be helpful.

I'm not Canadian, but American, and I tend to think the right for private citizens to own guns should be protected.  It's not an argument I'm going to fight to the death about, but people need to be able to defend themselves and hunt if they choose to.  Anyway, B1tUnl0ck3r ought to be a wee bit more clear in how he expresses his thoughts.

Edit:
Ah, thank you for the clarification.