You could remove those in your trust list who have participated in the Red Tagging of sold accounts I mentioned in the OP, who as of now, have failed to Red Tag you:


Removing the above users would remove any real or perceived conflict of interest within your trust list.

This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2.

You can publicly state anyone is free to drop you a negative all you want, however as long as these people remain on your trust list, it will appear you are being protected.

It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people 

I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting.

This looks like a good solution to say the least. I wonder why Blazed has not done this.

Bumping this since this thread seems to have gotten lost among all the April fools day threads.

Thank you for replying.

Do you understand my concern that you have multiple people on your trust list who have given out thousands of Red Tags to other people for the exact same business activity that you engaged in, yet none of these people left you a Red Tag? Do you see the conflict here?

Due to some threads "burning out" at later times than others, it is very difficult to get any realistic handle of community consensus when you did not personally witness conversations/discussions that occurred in the past.


He was one of the 1st people to reply to that thread. Do you think it is possible some people that replied after he replied saw exactly what you saw, thought what he was doing was "okay" and did the exact same thing? If anything, people with trust should be held to a higher standard, not lower because other people will look at their actions and act similarly.

I sent a PM to Blazed 36 hours before sending a PM to you, if you want to change this, please send 0.00208333 BTC to 3BDMF7bFyVCrTpPe76tMGjywV7meWnEf4E (owned by theymos) which will grant me copper member status, and I will send you a PM every time I post in this thread. The delay in sending you a PM was also due to the assumption that you will see this thread about you and would respond accordingly.

The way I see your refusal to respond to this thread, including after acknowledging you had been made aware of this thread privately, and only responding (if you call your post a response) after it was made public that you are aware of this thread, is that you wanted to pretend you were not aware of this thread to avoid addressing the uncomfortable concerns about your history and your business practices.

Who would have thought that a trust farming, begging, account seller would be a part of a trust circle?

There is the serious accusation that you are participating in Red Tagging your competitors in the account trading business, among other things, such as trust farming.

Why exactly have you failed to Red Tag several members in Blazed's trust list who have clearly traded forum accounts in the past, when you Red Tag others who do the very same thing?

Are you trying to prevent forum accounts from being sold by others while allowing accounts be sold by those within your circle? If you claim to not currently sell accounts, when exactly did you stop? Why?

If you believe this, I would point you to this post by Lauda, and correct him in saying the OP of that thread should post from his main account. Or do you only have this opinion when someone is posting anonymously pointing out things that expose your not-so-squeaky-clean past? 

I think this guy might disagree with you. It seems you left him a Red Tag because he posted some concerns about you. Some people might say you have a pretty thin skin, and cannot handle criticism.

yahoo62278 literally provided no evidence, nor claimed to have any evidence of who I am posting on behalf of, yet you say you know exactly who is behind this thread, and are outraged. Color me suspicious.

I think both yahoo62278 and yourself do not want to answer to the uncomfortable concerns raised in this thread. Even though I have posted clear and concise evidence that yahoo62278 and others in Blazed's trust list have traded accounts in the past, you refuse to Red Tag these people. Why is this? I think blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring, who protects account sellers within his ring. Your prior posts imply you are unwilling and/or unable to backup your Red Tags based on their merits, and rely on the weakness of those you have Red Tagged.

You claim to know what has happened in 2016 (including when something started), yet you created your account in mid-2017. You are the second account (amishmanish was the first) to have this very same discrepancy. Color me suspicious.

One might even go as far as to say the sock puppets within the trust circle are out in full force protecting the trust circle.

I asked yahoo62278 to respond to this thread, and below is his response:


I find it interesting that yahoo62278 thinks trying to eliminate conflicts of interest is a "witch hunt". This does not sound like someone who wants to be held accountable.

If anyone doubts the authenticity of this statement, it can be verified by an admin, the PMID is msg8205732


I also reached out to Blazed for a response, but he has not logged in since ~6 hours after I started this thread

Begging is not allowed.

Your account was created in 2017, how exactly do you claim to know what was going on in 2015?

Based on your statement, you will be Red Tagging Blazed, yahoo62278 and lauda, yes? The timing does not matter.

What did you mean by it, exactly? For anyone who wants to see the context, they can easily look at the post and thread themselves. I think the post mirrors the Red Tagging behavior described in this very thread.


No proof except the clear evidence of you asking to buy forum accounts 10 at a time, and your deletion of thousands of posts to cover this up.



No other DT1 member has this conflict of interest. There is no other major trust circles in DT. No other DT1 members have a trust list of people who are this inconsistent in their ratings.

We are not discussing a social norm, we are talking about Red Tagging people as scammers. Doing something that makes the person a scammer still makes that person a scammer regardless of when they did this.

Staff section

Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:
Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim.







Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.


What is the lie? 



We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.

Oh, sorry. You must be confused. I am talking about Red Tags, not moderation actions. Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section. If you are not staff, then your post is outright dishonest.

If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter. If y action makes you a scammer, then this remains true going back to 2009, and extending to infinity.

Thank you.

I created this account out of fear of retribution, as many within Blazed's trust list receive a Red Tag when they speak out against anyone within his list

Here is where you are wrong. theymos built the merit system so that "merit abuse" does not matter as one merit received equals roughly 0.97 merit that can be sent to sock puppets. The merit system will be unaffected by "abusers" as long as no merit source is involved.


Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged those those listed in my OP who have very clearly sold accounts in the past, including Blazed.

If certain people are leaving Red Tags for certain business practices, but neglected to do so for Blazed, he benefits by way not avoiding the Red Tag, regardless of if these people are in DT or not. This cannot be disputed.

If you believe those listed in the OP are still selling forum accounts (you cannot dispute they traded them in the past, or attempted to do so in the case of Lauda), then the ability to Red Tag others engaged in similar business would be indisputably beneficial to those listed in the OP, and as such, Blazed may be receiving a portion of the profits. In other words, Blazed may be selling the ability to Red Tag the competition.

If you reject the above, it is very difficult to dispute that those within Blazed's trust list all have an abnormally high number of ratings from each other, so DT2 spots may be being sold, and purchased by those in a trust farming ring in an effort to make certain signature/bounty campaign managers appear more credible/trustworthy than they really are.

The ratings you describe apply primarily to scam loan requests by new users, whose purpose serves to warn against sending money to a brand new user. In the cases of a Red Tag removal, this threat no longer exists. Further, no one in this thread has a similar policy, some will actively ignore requests to remove Red Tags, and after misreading my concerns, The Pharmacist said he will keep his Red tags on indefinitely, so I don't think this is an apt comparison.

(If a brand new user asks for a loan in their very first post, a reasonable person will think this person is a scammer, once this person activity participates for a few months without any scam attempts, then it might be reasonable to say this person is no longer a scammer).

 
Negative trust actually means "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer", so you should be a scammer, either because you scammed someone, you tried to scam someone, or you are planning on (trying to) scam someone in the future, the fact that someone is suspicious of you doesn't cut it. Unless I am missing something, the rational behind the Red Tags by those listed in my OP is that the act of buying, selling, bidding on, inquiring on, or whatever, forum accounts makes you someone who will plan on (trying to) scam someone (to try to help someone scam someone) in the future.

If you accept the premise described above, then existing trust does not matter. You are describing an environment in which someone who steals money after building up a lot of trust is given a pass because they have existing reputation....in other words, someone who pulls a long con is given a pass because they have reputation and are allowed to continue to scam. That logic is simply irrational.

My OP is implying that Blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring that selectively Red Tags users that are not a part of the ring, including accounts controlled by those within the ring, and intended to be sold by the ring. Your argument is that Blazed's trust list is part of a good 'ole boys club, which would not be as bad, but would still not be good for the community.

Maybe there needs to be a discussion if Red Tagging is appropriate in these situations if there are many instances in which users have engaged in this business activity, but have turned out to not be a scammer. I would welcome this discussion and might give my own input.

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate.

You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay.

OSS is not the only person that avoided a Red Tag in that thread, and he is not the only person you skipped over (in chronological order) that posted in that thread. There were others that did not appear to have any meaningful reputation at the time.

Since you solicited the question, why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag? They all engaged in similar business activity that you are very actively Red Tagging for today, and in the case of one of them, made a post asking about the price for 10 forum accounts, which if you believe to be a serious request, would make him a very serious/major account dealer/farmer. I don't know if you have heard the expression "going after the big fish", but this means you want to go after the most serious offenders, and someone who is buying up 10 forum accounts at a time is someone who fits this description.

This is especially true for those on Blazed's trust list, and you are correct 

Maybe I was not clear (or maybe you did not read very closely). There are instances in which you leave trust for behavior that took place a long time previous to the time you left the Red Tag.

There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT.


His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT.

You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users.
 
He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust list circle. The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself.

Editors note: This was originally intended to be a thread about Blazed alone, but my research led me down a rabbit hole.

**this post inspired by Annon001**



Hi Sirs,

While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled [WTS] Senior Account Delete Me Please by DT1 member Blazed. The thread can be viewed by clicking on this link. The last post in the thread indicated the forum account was sold.

Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list.

Take yahoo62278 for instance. He has created threads such as:

• trying to gain trust via loans -  was asking for small loans to build up trust
• Selling this account - tried to sell his account unsuccessfully
• ITS MY BIRTHDAY!!! - begging for tips, claiming it was his birthday
• i need a reliable escrow - looking for an escrow agent to help with a forum account sale
• Hero Auction - auctioned a "Hero" forum account, clearly a distinct transaction from above
• Yahoos micro loans thread (collateral is a must) - made loans using forum accounts as collateral; ultimately used thread to purchase at least three forum accounts

So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns?

Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition.


Another good example is Lutpin. He created a thread entitled:

• btcmasterZ is extorting me - claimed to be getting extorted by another user

This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist. He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot. I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings.


User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

Member mexxer-2, apparently used to sell forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe).

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt. He says he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to : -2 / +4.


TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters".


Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for.



I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here?

Thank you for reading.

P.S. I am new here