Requesting "The Pharmacist" to have look here

[unibitcoinist]

I just have noticed this thread of merit abusing.
Both of the smerit senders were red painted by The Pharmacist for breaking his local rules in a thread.

But, do they really deserve these tags? I doubt.

The Pharmacist, I am requesting you to have look on these two users and remove the tags. You may tag them for abusing merit because your current feedback texts on them don't suit the purpose of the feedback system of the forum.

Users profile link-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=999038
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1010666

[sheenshane]

You have been already answered here,

Both sender seems tagged already for other reasons and receiver shouldn't get tag for this case...

Find another solid proof against them, then, the receiver perhaps will receive neg tag too.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

In my opinion, they were trying to scam by asking me to send funds first and not even reading the local rules of my thread about that exact thing.  You do understand that if I were to send bitcoin first in either of these two cases, I would have no recourse whatsoever if they decided not to send the PayPal funds, right?  

I will consider others' opinions on this if anyone wants to chime in.  But why is OP fighting battles for these two jokers, anyway?

Edit:

edit: @The Pharmacist: OP think you tagged those accounts because of this merit abuse accusation

No, I think he's saying it would have been better had I tagged them for merit abuse instead of trying to get me to send them bitcoin first:

Both of the smerit senders were red painted by The Pharmacist for breaking his local rules in a thread.
<snip>
You may tag them for abusing merit because your current feedback texts on them don't suit the purpose of the feedback system of the forum.

[khaled0111]

Check the reference links and the date when The Phermacist left those feedbacks.
Both feedbacks were left on the 2017-08-24 for breaking local rules and not for the merit abuse accusation.

Well, what I concluded, is that tags left by The Pharmacist's were well deserved and there is no reason to remove them.

edit: @The Pharmacist: OP think you tagged those accounts because of this merit abuse accusation

[unibitcoinist]

I will consider others' opinions on this if anyone wants to chime in.  But why is OP fighting battles for these two jokers, anyway?

Nothing personal. Were hanging out to the reputation board. Noticed the thread and thought The Pharmacist might consider these tags again because the reason for which you tagged both users(alt though) isn't valid. It's your choice though.

Check the reference links and the date when The Phermacist left those feedbacks.
Both feedbacks were left on the 2017-08-24 for breaking local rules and not for the merit abuse accusation.

Did I say that, nope.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Nothing personal. Were hanging out to the reputation board. Noticed the thread and thought The Pharmacist might consider these tags again because the reason for which you tagged both users(alt though) isn't valid. It's your choice though.

I'm not taking it personally, but I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter. 

The thing is, I wouldn't even care if a reputable member had ignored my rule and asked me to send first, but I specifically said in at least one of these threads that I didn't want Full Members or below posting and that I didn't want anyone to request that I send bitcoin first.  These members each broke at least one of my local rules, and they don't have a reputation (either then or now) sufficient to warrant them asking me to send them bitcoin first.  I don't think I'm being unreasonable in thinking that they were trying to scam me, because that's exactly how these things go down--and I tagged them for that.

I'm not tagging anyone for merit abuse, but if these two members are suspected of that it only makes me less inclined to remove my feedback.

[unibitcoinist]

I wouldn't even care if a reputable member had ignored my rule and asked me to send first, but I specifically said in at least one of these threads that I didn't want Full Members or below posting and that I didn't want anyone to request that I send bitcoin first.

I have read your threads. They broke your local rules.

You can't expect these from a reputable member because they know how the system/forum works. Mistakes are mostly done by the newbie. Does that mean they will scam? Someone (not a DT) tagged them as well for asking to go first. Can it really be a reason for tagging someone?

[o_e_l_e_o]

As I see it, there are 3 things to address here.

1 - Merit abuse. theymos has previously stated he doesn't think that merit abuse should warrant negative trust:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

2 - Breaking local rules. I see rule breaking as an issue for the mods to deal with, rather than to be dealt with via negative trust, in the same way we deal with plagiarism, begging, referral codes, spamming, excessive bumping, etc, by reporting to the mods and not by red tagging these users. Given that, I don't agree with negative trust simply for breaking local rules.

3 - Newbies with no trust asking for someone else to send first without escrow are almost always scammers, in the same way newbies looking for loans without collateral are almost always scammers. At the very least I wouldn't trust anyone trying to do a deal like this, and so I think red trust for this reason is entirely justified.

TL;DR - The red trust should stay. Just my 2 sats.

[unibitcoinist]

3 - Newbies with no trust asking for someone else to send first without escrow are almost always scammers, in the same way newbies looking for loans without collateral are almost always scammers. At the very least I wouldn't trust anyone trying to do a deal like this, and so I think red trust for this reason is entirely justified.

Reputable members sometimes scam as well. Both of them have no scam record. They were either newbie or member rank at maximum and now they are Full Member and SR Member respectively. A people who are newbie here don't know whom to trust and they can ask other to go first. I would also do the same. This has nothing to tag someone as scammer. You could simply ask them to use escrow or go away.
On the other hand, loan is something different. You can't compare both.

[khaled0111]

...
3 - Newbies with no trust asking for someone else to send first without escrow are almost always scammers, in the same way newbies looking for loans without collateral are almost always scammers. At the very least I wouldn't trust anyone trying to do a deal like this, and so I think red trust for this reason is entirely justified.
...

And the scam attempt become more obvious if you discover that they are alts or at least they know each other.

proof:

...
ETH Address: 0xDE0e0160035d6Ee65EDA255735f7Cd9EA52CeA8d

...
ETH address: 0x137A76bc8d1c4C74fC4684e1e7A56947e26cf270

https://etherscan.io/address/0x137A76bc8d1c4C74fC4684e1e7A56947e26cf270

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Reputable members sometimes scam as well. Both of them have no scam record. They were either newbie or member rank at maximum and now they are Full Member and SR Member respectively. A people who are newbie here don't know whom to trust and they can ask other to go first. I would also do the same. This has nothing to tag someone as scammer. You could simply ask them to use escrow or go away.
On the other hand, loan is something different. You can't compare both.

1) Escrow is useless with PayPal, since that doesn't prevent chargebacks--the main way people get scammed with PayPal.  In these cases, nobody asked for escrow anyway.

2) Neither of these members was or currently is trusted.  The only feedback on either of their profiles is negative.  I don't think you can make an argument that these were rookie mistakes, since neither member seems to have gotten the message and learned from this.  Being new is no excuse.

3) These two completely ignored what I wrote in the threads about sending first and not wanting to do business with lower-ranked members, and they both demonstrated exactly why I made those rules.  I did not do it on a whim, but from past experience in selling bitcoin for PayPal.  Having said that, the negs I left weren't for breaking my local rules necessarily, though that played a part in my decision to neg them.  It was mainly for asking me to send bitcoin to them first.  That is a huge red flag.  And again, being new to the forum or to bitcoin is no excuse for not reading someone's selling thread.

I don't think I'm being too harsh in this case, like TheButterZone was when he negged someone for not completely reading his auction rules, for example.  I think these two members were just trying to see if they could get someone to send them bitcoin first and weren't making genuine offers in the first place.  I don't remember getting contacted by either one of them about my feedback, either.  Scammers don't care about that.  They just keep trying and trying until they find a sucker.

[unibitcoinist]

1) Escrow is useless with PayPal, since that doesn't prevent chargebacks--the main way people get scammed with PayPal.  In these cases, nobody asked for escrow anyway.

2) Neither of these members was or currently is trusted.  The only feedback on either of their profiles is negative.  I don't think you can make an argument that these were rookie mistakes, since neither member seems to have gotten the message and learned from this.  Being new is no excuse.

3) These two completely ignored what I wrote in the threads about sending first and not wanting to do business with lower-ranked members, and they both demonstrated exactly why I made those rules.  I did not do it on a whim, but from past experience in selling bitcoin for PayPal.  Having said that, the negs I left weren't for breaking my local rules necessarily, though that played a part in my decision to neg them.  It was mainly for asking me to send bitcoin to them first.  That is a huge red flag.  And again, being new to the forum or to bitcoin is no excuse for not reading someone's selling thread.

I don't think I'm being too harsh in this case, like TheButterZone was when he negged someone for not completely reading his auction rules, for example.  I think these two members were just trying to see if they could get someone to send them bitcoin first and weren't making genuine offers in the first place.  I don't remember getting contacted by either one of them about my feedback, either.  Scammers don't care about that.  They just keep trying and trying until they find a sucker.

Thank you for the clarification and your time. I am locking the thread now. Otherwise, fudder will come and flood.