Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.
So you don't think that Nefario's actions toward BitcoinGlobal shareholders were worthy of the scam tag?
Nope. He was and remains CEO, so he has the sole authority on how to run the company unless/until a shareholder vote says otherwise. If he were properly removed as CEO and didn't hand the entire site, it's databases, and any business funds in his possession to his successor, then he'd be a scammer. In fact, you guys have/had the ability to do this on your own, without his cooperation. Thus, you could argue that any shareholder that refuses to vote to remove Nefario is a scammer. So far, this hasn't been requested.
Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.
Are you sure you agree with Goat? As far as you've said you think Nefario doesn't deserve a scammer tag at all. Goat thinks he does, just not for the same reasons I do, which is fine.
However, those other reasons were rejected/not decided upon. If you are willing to say that Nefario delisting
anybody deserves a scammer tag, and theymos agrees, I will drop this whole argument. I want theymos to agree so that I may use this as precedent in future investigations.
There may be other reasons for Nefario to have a scammer tag but since he already has one it's largely academic at this point.
Exactly! I could care less about Nefario, I'm just worried about the precedent this will cause. Thus, this really is just academic. That being said, you'll need to clarify those other reasons.
Also, are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't been so quick to dismiss claims of you conspiring with Nefario earlier. Given things I have found out about others, I'm beginning to wonder if there's things about you we don't know. I do get the feeling that you're trying to protect something by trying to pressure me into removing the tag, but I don't think it's your reputation.
Yes, and as you know, I already answered this. Honestly, the fact that you asked this again in almost the same manner as some of our trolls shows that you're starting to act irrational. Trust me, as a friend, from my own experience with this case: take a break from scammer investigations for a day or two. Totally block out this forum in your preferences during that break to allow you to clear your thoughts. I'm only telling you this because that is exactly what I did.
You ruined your own reputation when you tried to force goat to take illegal actions in order to avoid getting a scammer tag (so Nefario wouldn't get it). Coercing someone to take illegal actions in order to protect Nefario is pretty scummy, and I'm glad others called you out on it before I had to step in, and also threatening to ban Goat for lying (when you didn't even know if he was).
Yes, I know. I realized that I was acting irresponsibly and did the only proper thing I could: Step down from the case. I'm disappointed that you didn't call me out privately on the matter earlier, though. I would have listened.
Then after you bowed out, you tried to secretly insert yourself back into the process for the sole and only purpose of denying the tag. Not even to give it out, just to deny it. And I turned you down saying it would look fishy, and it looks fishy that you even tried. Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator"
.
And I agreed, which is why I requested that
both you and theymos approve my request to reclaim veto power. Just to be clear, because you denied that request (which I explicitly said you could), I am only acting as a regular user in this case. I would appreciate it if I were treated that way.
You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part.
As for the reason for the request, I later realized (after I had some time to cool down and get ahold of myself) that in my irrational fit, I irresponsibly gave sole authority for the scammer tag to a single person. No one - not me, not you, not even theymos - should have that authority on their own. The point of having one person investigate while the other person has to approve the decision of the investigator that a scammer tag is needed is to both provide another layer of removal from the case so that only the facts are focused on and to prevent one person's irrationality from deciding the case, since if someone is rational most of the time (as a human, it is impossible to always be rational), the chances that at least one person is rational at the time is significantly higher. It's for this reason that I believe that theymos, although he has the ability, should never ban or mark someone as a scammer on his own, unless the case is extremely clear. I'd be interested in what theymos' position on this is, since I don't know whether restricting bans and tags to administrators was done to intentionally create this dynamic, or if he just doesn't trust us. Either way, I'm glad that he set the system up the way he did.
Also, for the record, in neither of these cases did I send a request to theymos to mark someone as a scammer. I may have said that I would, even directly to theymos, but I never did because I always double-check my line of thinking before actually doing that. If I had the ability to do it myself, I also wouldn't have used it at those points.
