The test is if someone will be willing to scam a scammer and if anyone is willing to do anything about it.

I am not sure if anyone would scam TF, but I strongly suspect that most of the most active “scam busters” will do nothing if TF doesn’t get repaid.

From the looks of it, you need to give up control of your coins for a short period, but will essentially automatically withdraw your coins as soon as your trade executes.

It is not possible to trade one coin for another in a 100% trust less way in which neither party needs to trust the other.

It doesn’t look like this company even has very much capital because they are outsourcing their trading to third parties. Eg it appears that you are actually sending money to a third party who will trade on your behalf on an exchange and will withdraw from the exchange on your behalf. 

You are assuming I haven't reported you.

You have a strange obsession of trying to determine if you are being investigated by law enforcement for this.

It is best if the subject of an investigation not know they are under investigation by law enforcement so to prevent them from acting differently while they are being investigated, and to prevent them from specifically wanting to destroy evidence because they are under investigation.

plagiarism
I had never heard of him before today (that I can remember), but I don't think any amount of contribution is an excuse to cause harm without any kind of punishment.  

I don't see any reason why he would be ineligible for DT1 if he was unbanned from the forum.

Your question is loaded, and is an attempt to stroke your ego.

I don't think anyone knows you as that. You are known to hand out ratings against many new users who engage in transparent scammy behavior. If memory serves me correctly, you used to accept "anon" reports of scams, but had to stop because you were unable to sufficiently judge the evidence on its own, and received too many inaccurate reports that resulted in you handing out bad ratings.

Obviously fraud should be reported, as such *suspected* fraud, however with regards to the later, there needs to be a reasonable basis to forum the suspicion that extends beyond the preponderance of the evidence standard, not the I don't like the person standard, or the this person is criticizing me standard.

The fact that you were afraid to speak out against lauda and aTriz shows you care more about your stats and less about actually warning others about wrongdoing.

The issue is a bigger in regards to DT voting. A banned user will currently have their votes counted indefinitely, even though they are prevented from otherwise participating in the forum.

There are two recently banned users who each have close to two of the "250 merit" votes (it is not unreasonable to expect they will each receive a total of 500 merit in the future) for DT voting. 

Vod has a long history of trying to get people fired when he does not like them. He also doxes people for similar reasons.

I would not put it past him to try to get someone arrested or audited for similar reasons.

The underlying problem is that FaceBook (and other major social media sites) have an oligopoly over social media, and a monopoly over their specific types of platforms.

The (market based) reason these companies can ban these people they disagree with is because there are no alternatives for people to go to for those who disagree with the decision to ban those people.

The "solutions" described in the article in the OP (and by others) involve *nothing* being removed ever, regardless of how harmful or bad the content is. I don't think this is a good solution because there is some content that really, reasonably *should not* be on social media.

I don't think it will ever be reasonable for this to happen.

Even without a "government" that regulates its people, it would always be possible for a number of people to forum an organization that creates regulations and imposes taxes on people in a certain area. I am specifically referring to something along the lines of the mafia or gangs we see today -- they use the threat of violence to impose rules on people that live in their "territory" and routinely extort money out of local businesses.

When there is a "government" it will be accountable to its people, but when the entity imposing the rules is a mafia/gang, they are not accountable to anyone.

In reality, not having a "government" that imposes taxes and regulations will result in less freedoms for the majority of people.

They cannot leave trust comments. I am not sure about the other two.

There is an argument a banned person (especially who is permabanned) should not have their votes counted for DT, and a separate argument that they should be excluded from DT2 (being excluded from DT1 will happen on its own). This is similar to how someone who does something bad enough that their freedom is taken away, also looses the right to vote.

It would make sense to have multiple ban messages for the most common ban reasons, and a last ban reason for when none of the most common reasons apply.

Instead of the ban message saying "~most likely for plagiarism or spam..." the ban message would be:
"sorry [user] you have been banned by a forum moderator for [reason]. You are banned from posting or sending PMs. Your ban will not automatically expire. To appeal, you can email [email] or create a thread in Meta, but your chances are not very good. You cannot create or use any other accounts to post or PM, other than to appeal your ban"

The choices could be:
*plagiarism
*many low effort/content posts
*other

The other option would result in no reason being stated, and the word "for" being removed from the message.

Also, to cut down on the number of people trying to appeal their ban, only to be shown 2-3 plagiarized posts they have made, links to the posts from the 2 most recent "good" reports against the person could also be listed, so it is clear to the person the ban was not a mistake, and there is actual evidence against the person.

I support a temp ban in ~all cases in which only a small amount of plagiarism is involved AND it happened a long time ago.

Plagiarism is undoubtedly both very wrong, and a major problem within the forum, but I don't see the benefit of removing someone who only did damage (plagiarized) years ago, especially if they are now otherwise being a member who is contributing to the forum.

Suchmoon is transparently one of the people who is reporting plagiarized posts (I am not sure if this is who you are referring to). She is transparently scraping posts in the forum and putting them in some kind of database, which is concerning for a variety of reasons, including the type of business she is in and her lack of integrity. She is most probably cross referencing posts in her database with some other database and/or with google/another search engine.

She also targets, in part specific members, and I know this because she was able to cite a plagiarized post that Redsn0w created from many years ago that was written in a thread with a very small number of posts, and the most recent post in the thread was also from many years ago. I would not make her a mod, and I think a decent number of people would leave if she was made a mod, or if it was discovered she was a mod.

I don't think there are many people that both parties trust sufficiently (self) moderate posts as you describe.

I would be willing to volunteer to create such a thread if CH was willing to have a debate with someone else willing to debate CH. 

Are all of your deleted/plagiarized posts from 2017?

If so, I would argue a xx day ban plus a long term signature ban would probably be more appropriate. This is based on the merit received (receiving a single merit puts you in the >1%), and a brief review of your examples of contributions.

You should email the email address in your ban message if there is one.

I did point out similar concerns with his thread previously:
As you can see, it was removed as it didn’t receive any merit. Perhaps a better way to have a debate would be a self moderated thread in which you are discussing a subject with one person and posts from anyone else is deleted. Although one could argue a PM conversation would be more appropriate— maybe not though because a PM conversation wouldn’t be public.

I don’t think loyce is contributing to groupthink— he is only responding to requests for information by providing such information. Although he hasn’t said specifically (that I am aware of), I don’t think he wants to promote groupthink and if you have any specific suggestions for him as to how to prevent groupthink with his stats, I’m sure he is open to suggestions.

Most of his stats are useful and interesting IMO, however I do agree many of his threads would be better suited for a page on his website rather than a thread on BitcoinTalk.

I find him to be generally trustworthy, however his large number of trust inclusions is likely the result of his many stat related threads, which is probably a flaw in the trust system.

The facts are on CH's side in regards to him having negative trust unfairly.

CH has done a good job of taking a situation in which he is in the right and turning it around to put himself in the worst possible light.

My opinion is CH should take a break from complaining about all his injustices, and discuss other things he is interested in for a couple of months. Hopefully by then, the trust system will have been improved. His specific complaining is not helping getting the trust system to change, nor is it helping his situation.

This is already possible if you have an iPhone.

All you have to do is login to the forum using your password from your phone, and tell your iPhone to save your password. Your password will be saved to your keychain and when you access the login screen in the future, you will be prompted to use your saved password, and if you want to, you will be prompted to use your touch id to access your saved passwords in your keychain.

he can see it