I think suspicion is the key word in your post.

There are not many scammers that could possibly fit your description. Most of the serial scammers are tagged red and blend in with others in their business for other reasons.

In the past when a serial scammer tried to use a new account, an admin would find and tag it if it goes undetected long enough.

To have a contested convention, all that need to happen is no candidate receive more than 50% of total delegates. If someone receives a small amount of delegates, they may stay in with the hopes of someone tanking due to a scandal and if not to use their delegates as a way to leverage a cabinet position or a vice presidential nomination.

I am frequently out of both source merit and personal merit, and I receive lots of merit so I am always spending more than my normal allocation. I tend to spend small amounts of merit per post I merit.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it appears your favorite exchange is displaying fake volumes to the public.

I don’t have the time to look into the other claims (right now) of your (favorite) exchange, however the fake volume alone is enough for me to consider it a scam.

No, I don’t believe that you named your account after your favorite exchange for a second.

Your name is “exchangesupport” if you are not part of the exchange (unlikely), you are impersonating someone who is.

I was saying this for the both of you...

If one of you has evidence the other is a pedophile, you should contact the police. If either of you wants to continue alleging the other is a pedophile, you should substantiate it with evidence posted publicly so it can be scrutinized.   

Since the time of my last post, I found one post by OgN that was strongly implying that Vod is a pedofile (even if it did not say this in as many words), and I know that Vod has made unsubstantiated allegations that others are pedophiles in the past.

If anyone has called (or implied) someone a pedophile and they are not going to backup their claims, they should take this time to apologize, so everyone can move on.

Life is too short for these petty little squabbles. 

He literally posted the code. You looked at the code. I am what you want him to do to make his code "open source"

If OgN has called Vod a pedophile in the past (including implying as much), he should apologize, and let everyone move on. If there is substantial evidence this is true (I would find this very unlikely), he can present it publicly, so it can be scrutinized. He really should just apologize.

Actually, anyone who has slung this specific type of dirt around should apologize. A lot of people have slung this at vod, and vod has slung this at other people. I  believe this all started when vod pissed off what was likely a loan scammer (this presumption is based on numbers), who posed a baseless claim on a smear/extortion website, and others that vod has pissed off have stumbled across that website and repeated those claims enough times that vod has previously repeated similar claims to those that piss him off.

If Vod has substantial evidence that OgN is a pedophile, he should substantiate it, or not make the claim. If there is some reason why he cannot post the evidence he has, he can go to the police where OgN lives. He really should just go to the police so they can investigate if there is any actual evidence.

I am just trying to say that what DireWolfM14 said is appalling and is really not a good look.

I think taking this advice has the potential to harm Hhampuz’s reputation. He can delay responding for some time to evaluate the facts if he needs to. 

Does this mean we have a new democrat frontrunner for president? (Avenatti was found guilty of 3 felonies today)

This is the first time I have ever heard the consequences of asking a question to be described as "getting away with it".

I am literally speechless for words as to how to respond to that. That sounds a lot like something someone might say who is being graded by the chinese social credit system.

BTW, I don't think Hhampuz thinks it is as ludicrous to expect payment as you do:

I won't comment on what I think Hhampuz should have done, but this was his reaction.

If you are doing business with someone, and you don't receive payment when you expected to, I don't think it would be an appropriate reaction for the person you are dealing with to "take it personally" when you question why you didn't receive payment.

I guess someone forgot to tell whoever Justice_ is that the marketplace subs are a "safe space"

There are multiple people that are guilty of this and these add up.

This empowers some other people to just go crazy with ratings that really don’t have any basis in fact or reality and act in bad faith when someone tries to talk about it.

People should have the right to express their opinion on if someone is a scammer or a high risk to deal with. If these opinions are not in line with the community as a whole, they shouldn’t be on DT, or they should leave ratings not in line with community consensus from an alt not on DT.

Owlcatz, based on evidence and testimony I have reviewed, played a minor role in the extortion scheme. Even though in a conspiracy, the crimes of one are the crimes of all, I believe it is appropriate to remove his name from the thread. If you disagree, or if you disagree with removing the tag against Lauda, you are free to add one yourself.

I don’t think moving to a flag system exclusively would solve the trust system problems. The flag system, and the smaller impact of negative ratings make it so an individual cannot unilaterally ruin a persons reputation.

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations. Over time people have been tagged, and when they had no realistic chance of defending themselves nor remediating their reputation after a mistake, they would rage quit, sometimes with a scam attempt that was either not serious or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. There are many guilty of doing this and more that defended this.

Many people have made mistakes in the past, and I would not suggest a permanent scarlet letter for most people that engaged in the above, especially if they are trying to be a benefit to the trust system. I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis, even if I still disagree with their past behavior and some of their current ratings. 

Re https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224780.msg53831608#msg53831608

I can use my good judgement to see if I believe they will reoffend or attempt a similar negative scheme again. Based on my good judgment, I don’t think Lauda will try a similar scheme in the future.

You are free to disagree with me if you choose. If you are who I think you are, you don’t like to criticize people with a lot of influence, at least not from your primary account. If you disagree, you are free to leave Lauda a negative rating for his previous misdeeds.

Let’s be honest though, I don’t think you actually care about warning the community about Lauda. My rating was not on the first page of Laudas trust wall, and probably wasn’t on the second. I think it would be unlikely for anyone unaware of his past to ever see my rating.

I should not have said that. I am sorry. 

Do you have any specific features for mobile devices? Or do you want to see anything differently when viewing from a phone?

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

It doesn't sound like he wants to remove his rating. It looks like he has a concern with this post from a month ago, and it appears that he responded to my message with another negative rating.

Specifically over the decision to not tag yahoo over the yobit situation. Yahoo was actively  promoting a business he acknowledged to be a scam. I think that fits the definition of 'high risk' pretty well, but it would be controversial nevertheless. This is actually a good example of the amount of insulation you get when you run signature campaigns.

I am not advocating for others to add lauda to their trust lists, or to blindly trust whatever he says without question, I am saying that a warning for lauda is no longer necessary.
This is the standard of which I base my decision to remove my tag.

I have stated before that I don't agree with the tag on TS. Given TS's trading history and trust level, I don't see the rating actually hurting him. The way the trust system is setup, these kinds of disputes don't remove his ability to have positive trust.

My speculation is Vod will be one of the last people to come around, if he ever does. He is a good example of that a small percentage of controversial ratings will not get you booted from DT if you have sent a lot of ratings. This is in contrast to the risk of getting booted after a single controversial/incorrect rating that was corrected quickly that was the standard 4-5 years ago.

I do hope that Vod comes around eventually. I think part of his problem is his ego, specifically him not wanting to ever be wrong (which results in him doubling down when he is wrong), and part of it is other things. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and no one likes to admit they are wrong.

I am also curious about this. I am not betting on him responding in any substantial way. I have my own opinion on ibminer, but I will keep that to myself.

Agreed. Make bitcointalk great again!

I think you know that to be untrue: