You are correct, that is against the rules, but theymos does not enforce the rules that strictly. In your example, if the two posts were made 25 minutes apart, chances are the thread is not very far down on the 1st page, so it would not really be an extra 'bump'.

I am talking about a very small number of posts, not an ongoing conversation. Maybe 3 posts out of a thousand that someone makes. Is this something that is hurting anyone, or causing any real problems? The answer to this question is no. It might be a little tacky, but no one is getting hurt because of this.

I don't think FOMA impacted the forum by enrolling his multiple alts in the CM campaign. If anything this resulted in more interesting posts that many people who are offended were able to read, when such posts are in short supply.

I think it should be clarified that there is a substantial difference between preemptively tagging someone and subsequently removing a tag after further consideration and/or additional evidence coming to light, and tagging someone wrongly and leaving the tag on the account.

In this case, I have not seen any posts from Vod even trying to defend his tag, and I have not seen anyone who supports Vod ask him publicly to reconsider his tag, or to try to defend his tag. Over the years, there have been other similar cases, in which Vod left a questionable tag, and he was never even pressured to defend his tag, his defenders simply said that Vod has left a lot of good ratings in the past, and that they are going to look past the questionable tag. There have also been other situations in which someone received a questionable tag from Vod, handled the situation poorly, and subsequently received additional tags after trolling and/or deciding to rage quit. The later is especially bad for the community because it effectively removes people from the community really for no reason.

To answer your question, I think someone shouldn't be able to get away with many "bad ratings". I don't think this should be a percentage, but rather a raw number, and that number should be very low. I would also view a "bad rating" that is being defended but may not necessarily agree with differently than a "bad rating" in which is not being defended. IMO the later should be viewed much more harshly, and should not be tolerated.

This sounds a lot like opening a flag for having opinions. Not getting along with certain forum members does not make a person 'high risk'.

As for the loan request, he was clear as to what he was doing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has been banned for bump spam involving multiple accounts. I also think a few people have been banned for running bump spam services.

I would say it wouldn’t be unreasonable if someone who has a sales thread uses their alt account to ask a frequently asked question so long as the question is answered quickly so not to result in two bumps that seriously affect where the thread is located.

My understanding is that if one person is banned then all their accounts are banned, even if some of their accounts don’t have a ban applied. I don’t think forum rules around multiposting applies to someone posting from two accounts, so it would be okay to use an alt to ask a question for example. If talking to yourself became excessive, they might get banned for low effort posts with a paid signature. Also, if excessive, they might get banned for bump spam if the conversation took place in a sales thread, but I think the threshold would be far above zero for this to happen.

I reviewed Vod’s trust page and was able to find exactly four positive ratings involving any kind of financial transactions. I am not sure what makes you believe that Vod is “honest”. There are a small number of times in which Vod has apologized for his actions and promised to stay out of scam busting after he received harsh criticism from high ranking forum members, but I cannot recall many times in which Vod had admitted his mistakes on his own. There might have been one or two instances in which Vod removed a negative after the person received a few counter ratings, but I would see this as Vod feeling like his hand was being forced rather than correcting his mistake because he realized he was wrong on his own.
It is strange that someone is okay with a mistake being outstanding and continuing to support someone without trying to pressure them into correcting their mistake. You are in effect saying that you are okay with this person being wronged.

Vod is very petty and it is stances like this that enables the pettiness.

I said above that I should have used the term "leftist" instead of liberal. In my Disney example, they were giving up potential profits in order to exert political pressure, but their stated concerns were not genuine because they are willing to look the other way when it comes to concentration camps run by the CCP.

The OP is a tangent to this post. I think the OP's concern is that so many people were comparing FOMA to a criminal who has caused very real harm to people for enrolling three alt accounts in the CM signature campaign, while CM itself helps actual real criminals evade detection and launder their money.

What FOMA did was wrong, but it was wrong because it involved deception. He did not steal from anyone, including CM, or otherwise hurt anyone. FOMA did provide benefits to the forum for being around by making many insightful posts -- I don't know if having him around was a net benefit, but I do think that is something open for discussion. CM on the other hand, helps criminals who have stolen money make it difficult for authorities to detect that this money is stolen -- in other words CM helps thiefs get away with stealing. As mentioned before I believe having CM around is a net benefit, but it is hypocritical to have zero tolerance for deception, and then turn around and be willing to look the other way when the company you are receiving payment from is profiting from illegal activity that harms people.

I may have misspoke when I described these people as liberals. It would probably be more accurate to describe them as leftists.

I would say that many leftists believe that rules should be imposed on everyone else and that the rules should not apply to them.

If services such as CM were to disappear, it would be nearly impossible to cash out the proceeds from illegitimate activities in any substantial amount. This is a clear cost of having CM around. Many leftists are also opposed to allowing people to have privacy, which is the benefit to having CM around, so other than money, I don’t see any reason why certain people support CM.

The miscalculation was the teachers' unions. They dont want their members having to actually work or be held accountable.

I dont think there should be rules or regulations for the sole purpose of having a rule or regulation. Some rules are intended to help prevent spam like posts, however if someone can make many posts without quality suffering, there shouldn't be a problem.

The argument that a campaign would lose out on free advertising from excess posts someone makes falls on its face. There should be no expectation that someone will receive something in exchange for nothing, and someone may not provide a service if they knew they were not going to receive compensation for said service.

IMO the best policy is to make everything transparent, and to make sure everyone involved is fully aware of the circumstances.

Liberals tend to be willing to bend their principals when it comes to them earning money.

Take Disney for example. They are willing to consider a boycott of GA because they are considering passing a law that would make it more difficult/restrictive to get an abortion, however they have no concerns with filming in China, near the location in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions of minorities are being held in concentration camps, and where there are forced abortions.

There are probably some people advertising for CM that is harming CM's reputation due to their personally stated stances on privacy related issues, and/or who have supported people with certain privacy related issues.

---

CM does enable a lot of bad people such as criminals, however they also help other people maintain their privacy (assuming they are not some kind of honeypot). It is a matter of the total cost/benefit of such a service existing.

---

I dont think you know this. He created at least one sockpuppet account asking for technical help, and he may have created more for various reasons, maybe even for the purpose of advertising/sockpuppeting SR to get it off the ground before talking about SR was banned.

It is possible (and is actually happened in the past) that someone can frame someone for being a scammer without spending any BTC.

This happened to ndnh (formerly ndnhc) in 2015. Someone extorted someone, had their extortion scheme exposed, then posted an address that could be spend-linked to an address that ndnh posted to receive the proceeds from a loan. In that particular case, the evidence was intended to not stand up to scrutiny, as the address was posted in a giveaway/prediction thread whose deadline had expired, that ndnh was running(?). If someone had wanted the accusation to stick, they could have made minor adjustments to what they did.

I have no reason to protect my former clients. I have not traded forum accounts in years, and will almost certainly not deal with any of my former clients again.

Most likely this person bought a number of accounts and was able to enroll may of them into high paying signature campaigns. Who knows, maybe he has more still enrolled in CM.

My advice is to use ANACS. You might be able to find an alternative service that you can ship to within the EU, however any grade your coin might receive will carry less weight than ANACS. There is also the added risk that any service you use will end up running away with or damaging your coin.

Panthers52 was associated with my IRL identity. If I had sold that account and the buyer did bad things with it, such as scam someone, my IRL identity could have been associated with those bad things.
When I was farming accounts, I was not farming trust in any way, and was not attempting to increase the trust ratings of any of my accounts that were for sale.

I used poor judgement that was influenced by someone who was also doing things he shouldn't be doing, but whom I trusted. This is a mistake that I am not going to repeat, and I am not involved in any business in which I would even have the opportunity to repeat a similar mistake.

Here is what I believe:
Seller "A" has a farm of accounts, and he makes mistakes so his accounts are connected.
Account seller/farmer "B" has a farm of accounts, and he makes mistakes so all his accounts are connected.
Buyer/spammer "C" buys one account from both "A" and "B" and he makes mistakes so both of his accounts are connected.
It now appears as if one person owns all of "A"'s and "B"'s accounts, but this is not actually true.

In order to confirm if two accounts are controlled by the same person, you need to rule out that any of the accounts had changed hands after the date of the connection.

It is this kind of argument that makes the argument in favor of saying figmentofmyass was wrong to lose credibility.

figmentofmyass lied about his alts when he enrolled his alts in the CM campaign, and that is wrong. He did not steal money from anyone, and he certainly did not commit violence against anyone. He provided a service, and received payment for said service.

Instead of making extremist viewpoints, anyone who is upset about figmentofmyass should be honest about what he did, and the extent as to how much damage he caused.

You clearly have not been following the values of the Democratic party. I bet those votes for Biden are not looking so good now.

The lawsuit is clearly without merit.

Everyone deserves due process, and should have the right to defend themselves against any possible evidence suggesting they have done wrongdoing. You dont need to disclose how you found certain information, but you should disclose the information you found that is incriminating.