I don’t think a persons numerical trust score is a very good indicator of ones trustworthiness.

There are a number of people in your list who haven’t been trusted with more than a few hundred dollars of others’ money, if anything at all. I also believe some people haven’t even traded at all around here. Both with many positive ratings.

Re: the concerns in the OP. If you trade or interact with a person, you have the opportunity to gauge their integrity, and ability to act fairly, both of which should be considered when deciding to add someone to your trust list. IMO, having a large number might be a reason to look into the DT1 member further, but is not necessarily automatically a problem.

I also think there are other issues of groups of people all adding a similar group of people to their trust lists, when they are affiliated with each other. 

I don’t think this is a good solution. It will have many of the same pitfalls as the current trust system has.

The private keys are controlled entirely by coin payment. I have no idea what their strategy is in regards to how they structure their transactions. They move money from their deposit addresses without the input from customers.

None of the transactions have anything to do with either person.

I have no idea how they handle their wallet. I would presume they send a percentage of deposits to that address so to help link their addresses together so they receive less inquiries from governments asking if xx address belongs to them.

They are customers and have no control over when their deposits are spent.

---

All of the addresses in question belongs to coin payment. The transactions are internal wallet movements.

The address 39znAZoRfKgtm2fs4fpdGYix655GYhfBus and the other two addresses all belong to CoinPayments.com. I am guessing the other two addresses are deposit addresses.

The above is not proof they are the same person

This should not be your dream.

Both have a decent amount of merit, so I would reasonably conclude it is beneficial to have him in the same campaign twice instead of the campaign manager allowing one of his friends take the second spot.

The above is assuming the OP is correct in that they are the same person. I haven’t seen evidence this is true, although I haven’t looked.

I am also curious to know if either of these people have received any type of request for payment.

I think anyone who thinks that someone is trustworthy simply because they have given a bunch of no collateral loans is going to eventually part with their money one way or another.

TF has gained a reputation of being a long con scammer as multiple of his ventures were initially successful but eventually got “hacked” resulting in customer losses. Anyone doing basic research on his history should know this. He has consistently denied stealing customer money, but I have serious doubts about the truth of this; even if he was truthful about not stealing customer money, he is still responsible for the losses.

IMO, the purpose of this is to see if people are willing to scam a scammer and if anyone is willing to do anything about it (leave negative trust).

What does the 42x mean next to dabs?

The risk is that we see a similar group of users pop up in the future that do the very same thing.

Removing these people from the trust system is necessary but doing that alone will only be a temporary solution.

I suspect some of them have sock puppets and they will probably start being used in similar ways once the people in question are removed.

I have no idea if the OP is CH or not but the ad hominem attacks are not helping anything.

I think theymos should go back to cultivating a good (default) trust list.

I don’t think the current experiment is a success.

Cryptios has the same access as patrollers, not moderators.

I believe patrollers have the ability to nuke newbie accounts. The ability to nuke newbie accounts is apparently limited, presumably to those who have less than 15 activity but I’m not sure what the exact criteria is for a moderator/patroller to have the authority to nuke a newbie is. I suspect this is to prevent someone who never received merit after being here for a long time from getting nuked, the criteria of doing so is fairly low.

All actions are done “under the right circumstances”.

Admins can also see PMs and unlock accounts (they will probably rarely personally do this because they have hired help for this).

Both admins and global moderators can receive PM reports, that is if you are reporting a specific PM.

I don’t understand how or why they would need to disclose that information. The administration wants to know what benefits to the forum there would be if the person is able to continue posting on the forum. In general, this would be shown by pointing to previous posts the person has made and how they are beneficial.

As hilarious said, you can also appeal privately via the email address on the ban message.

There is a term for this.

Gaslighting

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Plagiarism is a very serious problem here that causes a lot of damage. If you are caught doing this, I think it is appropriate to force people to make an argument as to what you are going to contribute to let the person come back.

If someone “walks away” after getting caught, IMO, they don’t care a lot about being able to stay. A long term signature ban is appropriate for these people and I don’t think anyone is going to make a successful argument against handing out signature bans for this.

If you are aware of anyone who just “walks away” and you think they should be allowed to return, you should encourage them to appeal their ban with reasons to why returning would benefit the forum.

Vod has gotten a pass a large number of times and by the looks of it he is going to end up getting another pass and once again will not be held accountable.

I see no reason why any rating should only be “temporary”, especially a few weeks temporary. Two weeks of having a negative rating is basically a non-punishment and realistically is the result of you being excluded from DT.

I have not heard of that. One solution would be to give teachers a safe harbor if they have certain credentials and take certain precautions, so to prevent them from getting sued frivolously.

Otherwise, if additional training is unavoidable, schools will need to find the funding. I don't know where this money will come from, and the answer is probably different from district to district -- some can probably come from the federal government (and state governments) via grants. At the end of the day, difficult choices will need to be made. In most cases, either taxes will need to be raised, or other programs will need to have their budgets cut to pay for this training.