Conflict of Interest on DT1

[whistleblower2]

**this post inspired by Annon001**

Conflict of interest must be avoided

Hi Sirs,

While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled [WTS] Senior Account Delete Me Please by DT1 member Blazed. The thread can be viewed by clicking on this link. The last post in the thread indicated the forum account was sold.

Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list.

Take yahoo62278 for instance. He has created threads such as:

• trying to gain trust via loans -  was asking for small loans to build up trust
• Selling this account - tried to sell his account unsuccessfully
• ITS MY BIRTHDAY!!! - begging for tips, claiming it was his birthday
• i need a reliable escrow - looking for an escrow agent to help with a forum account sale
• Hero Auction - auctioned a "Hero" forum account, clearly a distinct transaction from above
• Yahoos micro loans thread (collateral is a must) - made loans using forum accounts as collateral; ultimately used thread to purchase at least three forum accounts

So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns?

Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition.


Another good example is Lutpin. He created a thread entitled:

• btcmasterZ is extorting me - claimed to be getting extorted by another user

This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist. He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot. I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings.


User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

Member mexxer-2, apparently used to sell forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe).

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt. He says he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to : -2 / +4.


TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters".


Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for.



I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here?

Thank you for reading.

P.S. I am new here    

[1714154421]

1714154421

[1714154421]

1714154421

[1714154421]

1714154421

[whistleblower2]

Editors note: This was originally intended to be a thread about Blazed alone, but my research led me down a rabbit hole.

[Steamtyme]

P.S. I am new here    

This here is the only part for me that was worth quoting. Bullshit.

I've notice a lot of these New accounts that have exceptional skills in tying things together concerning Moderators, and past history that escapes most of us "casuals"/ post 2016 BTC adopters.
So my guess is you either got caught up in some account farming or something else of the sorts that caused you to get a red mark on your actual account.

Maybe you are one of the people who just likes dragging these peoples names through the mud for some reason or another.

Either way I can only speak to Yahoo as I have had no dealings with the others you have mentioned. His trust is well deserved. should be able to leave an end of story there but I'll go on a little. I have 0 doubt when I wear a SIG for him that he will pay. The ICO's that he works for trust him with a significant amount of BTC each time as well; but you don't see that as they don't come here and leave him feedback.

I have seen a lot of things recently when I get bored, about accounts having been collateral in the past and how account sales have resulted in NEG trust, but I think it was situational and the "intent" behind that is what mattered; also DT trust is up to them there is no right or wrong just opinion.

Side note as well, account sales are only discouraged via forum rules... ( I in no way condone them) .

I'm sure everyone you have mentioned will be along to answer to their own allegations as well.

[LeGaulois]

Hi Sir
You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well...

There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical.

You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a  deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir?

What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with.

It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc
(I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post)

If Blazed was the only user in DT 1 then what would be your point?


Some of your points don't make sense either.

For example

- the one about ThePharmacist
"PayPal deals, each worth $25" What the amount has to do? If it's $25.10 are you ok bruh?
I did 2 or maybe 3 deals with him, not any of $25. And it's one of the members you can deal with, without wasting your time tto search for an escrow, sending your money first with no worry. Even if he tells me 'I will send your money tomorrow because I need to go to bed" I wouldn't be worried much about

- the one about Mexxer
Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death
 
- the one about actinmyname

"actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list."

Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with.
Running a campaign is surely a nightmare too!

[Bardman]

Hi Sir
You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well...

There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical.

You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a  deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir?

What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with.

It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc
(I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post)

If Blazed was the only users in DT 1 then what would be your point?

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided.

[LeGaulois]

Hi Sir
You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well...

There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical.

You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a  deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir?

What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with.

It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc
(I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post)

If Blazed was the only users in DT 1 then what would be your point?

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided.

Ah, the bravery on Bitcointalk....

[The Sceptical Chymist]

He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot.

Ouch!!

Are we equating intelligence with being tech-savvy these days?  Because I can tell you that I'm the first to admit I'm a complete dumbass with computers--and the above is true, I don't know how to take a screenshot and make it appear in a post--but I don't think I'm an idiot.

Yes, my trust ratings remain, sometimes years after the fact.  What I've found is that a lot of the people I've tagged in 2016 wind up scamming or doing some other sort of BS, so I see absolutely no reason to remove them because they've "aged".  Most account dealers I don't trust.  I say most, because there are the extremely rare examples of members here who have dabbled in this in the past but have since proven that they're not untrustworthy scumbags.  So you will find that my hit rate isn't 100%.  The world isn't perfectly efficient, nor am I.

Blazed added me to his trust list, I think, because initially I was red-tagging shitposters and he, like myself, got sick of all the garbage posts here.  I'm actually quite surprised that he kept me on his list after the merit system was put into place and after OGNasty and Tomatocage excluded me from theirs.  I do appreciate that, Blazed.

Please note, 1) I've never scammed anyone here, though I've had the opportunity to do so, and 2) I do care about the quality of the forum, and that includes shitposting, scamming, account dealing, and merit abuse.  When I see those things, I will take the time to tag the users.  Thus Blazed has two decent reasons for having me on his trust list; the former is because I've acted trustworthy so far here, and the latter is a practical reason (if my feedback carries weight, it'll make the scammers & shitposters squeal in agony).  If anyone finds evidence that I've been dishonest, let them bring it forward, and Blazed and Hilariousandco will remove me as quick as lightning.  But the fact is that there isn't evidence of that, because I'm not a scammer,  and I haven't done anything with trust or merit that was for self-interest.

I'm not angry, though you implied that I was a dullard.  I think having a discussion like this is very healthy for the community.

His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT.

I wouldn't really disagree with you there, but there aren't many shades of green trust here on bitcointalk, with darker shades for the experienced businessman.  All I can say is that I don't have a history of jerking people around with deals and have no intention of doing that.  I understand how important (and extremely fragile) reputation is in a world of irreversible money transactions. 

Mexxer-2 got negged by at least Lutpin if I'm not mistaken.  I've always had suspicions about Mexxer-2, but have kept them mostly to myself, as I have no evidence of anything.  It was strange when he and Lutpin got put on DT when they were relatively new on bitcointalk.  I don't know all the details, so I'm not slinging any mud.  The disappearance of Mexxer-2 and the negative given by Lutpin and/or Lauda with no details was strange. 

[whistleblower2]

You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a  deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir?

There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT.

- the one about ThePharmacist
"PayPal deals, each worth $25" What the amount has to do? If it's $25.10 are you ok bruh?
I did 2 or maybe 3 deals with him, not any of $25. And it's one of the members you can deal with without wasting your time search for an escrow, sending your money first with no worry,

His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT.

- the one about Mexxer
Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death

You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users.
 

- the one about actinmyname

"actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list."

Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with.

He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust list circle. The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself.

[whistleblower2]

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members.

This is especially true for those on Blazed's trust list, and you are correct 

Yes, my trust ratings remain, sometimes years after the fact.  What I've found is that a lot of the people I've tagged in 2016 ...

Maybe I was not clear (or maybe you did not read very closely). There are instances in which you leave trust for behavior that took place a long time previous to the time you left the Red Tag.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I removed all my negative ratings from people who posted in that particular thread that you linked to, out of respect for what Lauda and MadZ said.  I'm not going to kill the forum by doing so, and there weren't that many negs that I left there.

Regarding that one, I don't like the fact that Omegastarscream was dealing in accounts, but I do take other factors into account before leaving someone a neg for account trading--and one of the main factors is other positive feedback.  Who left it and when are also important.  OSS had pretty much proven himself to not be a scammer by the time I visited that thread, so I did not think it was appropriate to leave him a neg.  The other users didn't have those reinforcing positive feedbacks, so all I had to go by with them is the fact that they were looking to buy/sell an account.

There are going to be inconsistencies, I don't know what to tell you.  Point them out to me and eventually I'll correct them or otherwise respond to the accusations.

Maybe I was not clear (or maybe you did not read very closely). There are instances in which you leave trust for behavior that took place a long time previous to the time you left the Red Tag.

Probably a little bit of both.

I don't go back into old threads, looking for account buyers/seller to neg.  I think I did that in 2016 but haven't tagged someone for ancient history infractions in a while.  I could be wrong and I could have done it by mistake if a thread got bumped and I wasn't looking closely at the date, but I don't actively seek out really old account sellers & buyers to neg them.

[LeGaulois]

His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT.

You don't need to have a trade history nor to be a "businessman" It's how you behave in the community that matter, how you help it, how you contribute in.

You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users.

It's a valid point, however, it's maybe a big message to say that it's not welcome anymore, to be sure everyone understands it (I'm not saying it's the right way)

He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust list circle. The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself.

Perhaps because he knows it won't have any effect (don't know what people see, if a DT tag another DT) His point is to tag people to clean the forum since we all know a user tagged won't come anymore since he can't cheat the forum and his/her account is useless. You can red tag members like Blazed, Ognasty, etc they will still come here... And this kind of people are real users with interest in the community, in cryptos.
The one disappearing once they get a red trust are here only for hunting the ICO, Airdrops, bounties, whatever you call it.

The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself.

No the decision by Theymos doesn't prove anything. Maybe actmyname have rushed too fast by tagging people but it may be because he was motivated to contribute in the community, it may be because he was frustrated to see the mess here (like a lot of members btw)
A message from Theymos to Actmyname could have been enough to correct this behavior (maybe directives were not clear to him). Shit happens we are all humans, we learn from mistakes not really from success. But communication resolves the majority of problems

There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT

You can be DT1 or DT2 you are not forced to insert in your list each DT1 or DT2, because you are not forced to trust the user list

[DarkStar_]

There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT.

I don't think that's a very reasonable link to show abuse. Many DT members rarely leave feedback, or almost never. If you were to look at all the positive trust feedback given, I'm guessing that a large proportion would come from a small group of them. Doesn't mean there's anything bad with that, it's simply because some are more active than others. I took a look at the DT2 list, and there's a lot of names I haven't heard of. Blazed is a fairly new addition to DT1, and therefore his trust list would be comprised of more newer active members, while the other DT1s might have added them a few years ago and just left them.

- the one about actinmyname

"actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list."

Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with.

He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust list circle. The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself.

IIRC actmyname went back and removed a bunch of his ratings after this, so that his ratings were more accurate.

- the one about Mexxer
Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death

You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users.

Going back is somewhat unfair in my opinion, though from what I've seen, they've only tagged those who haven't contributed to the forum and those who didn't do anything better than spamming and/or account farming. I know many DT members (ie Vod) will remove their ratings depending on the severity if the user has contributed afterwards. I've sold accounts in the past, however I've stopped, and I think I've proved that I'm reasonable trustworthy.

[whistleblower2]

Regarding that one, I don't like the fact that Omegastarscream was dealing in accounts, but I do take other factors into account before leaving someone a neg for account trading--and one of the main factors is other positive feedback.  Who left it and when are also important.  OSS had pretty much proven himself to not be a scammer by the time I visited that thread, so I did not think it was appropriate to leave him a neg.  The other users didn't have those reinforcing positive feedbacks, so all I had to go by with them is the fact that they were looking to buy/sell an account.

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate.

You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay.

There are going to be inconsistencies, I don't know what to tell you.  Point them out to me and eventually I'll correct them or otherwise respond to the accusations.

OSS is not the only person that avoided a Red Tag in that thread, and he is not the only person you skipped over (in chronological order) that posted in that thread. There were others that did not appear to have any meaningful reputation at the time.

Since you solicited the question, why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag? They all engaged in similar business activity that you are very actively Red Tagging for today, and in the case of one of them, made a post asking about the price for 10 forum accounts, which if you believe to be a serious request, would make him a very serious/major account dealer/farmer. I don't know if you have heard the expression "going after the big fish", but this means you want to go after the most serious offenders, and someone who is buying up 10 forum accounts at a time is someone who fits this description.

[DarkStar_]

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

I disagree. Would a now Staff member who sold accounts be more or less trustworthy than some random who was selling accounts? Negative trust means that you do not trust the person, not necessarily that they scammed someone.

Despite Blazed's "untrustworthy" actions (I personally believe that account sales do not warrant a negative trust), I would certainly trust him with all my coins.

[whistleblower2]

I know many DT members (ie Vod) will remove their ratings depending on the severity if the user has contributed afterwards.

The ratings you describe apply primarily to scam loan requests by new users, whose purpose serves to warn against sending money to a brand new user. In the cases of a Red Tag removal, this threat no longer exists. Further, no one in this thread has a similar policy, some will actively ignore requests to remove Red Tags, and after misreading my concerns, The Pharmacist said he will keep his Red tags on indefinitely, so I don't think this is an apt comparison.

(If a brand new user asks for a loan in their very first post, a reasonable person will think this person is a scammer, once this person activity participates for a few months without any scam attempts, then it might be reasonable to say this person is no longer a scammer).

 

I've sold accounts in the past, however I've stopped, and I think I've proved that I'm reasonable trustworthy.
http://archive.is/e70Gw

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

I disagree. Would a now Staff member who sold accounts be more or less trustworthy than some random who was selling accounts? Negative trust means that you do not trust the person, not necessarily that they scammed someone.

Negative trust actually means "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer", so you should be a scammer, either because you scammed someone, you tried to scam someone, or you are planning on (trying to) scam someone in the future, the fact that someone is suspicious of you doesn't cut it. Unless I am missing something, the rational behind the Red Tags by those listed in my OP is that the act of buying, selling, bidding on, inquiring on, or whatever, forum accounts makes you someone who will plan on (trying to) scam someone (to try to help someone scam someone) in the future.

If you accept the premise described above, then existing trust does not matter. You are describing an environment in which someone who steals money after building up a lot of trust is given a pass because they have existing reputation....in other words, someone who pulls a long con is given a pass because they have reputation and are allowed to continue to scam. That logic is simply irrational.

My OP is implying that Blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring that selectively Red Tags users that are not a part of the ring, including accounts controlled by those within the ring, and intended to be sold by the ring. Your argument is that Blazed's trust list is part of a good 'ole boys club, which would not be as bad, but would still not be good for the community.

Maybe there needs to be a discussion if Red Tagging is appropriate in these situations if there are many instances in which users have engaged in this business activity, but have turned out to not be a scammer. I would welcome this discussion and might give my own input.

[MadZ]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the conflict of interest? How exactly does Blazed benefit by adding people who share trust with one another? You raise some valid points, but I don't really see what he stands to gain from this.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

That isn't true, not by a long shot.  The gray area is the whole reason why scammers aren't banned and DT members have to take care of them with feedback.

I have indeed removed feedback from users when they've proven themselves to be good members of bitcointalk.  It's rare, but it's happened.  I consider people who deal in bitcointalk accounts to be guilty until they prove themselves otherwise.  My thought is that when you are buying an account, you're either going to use it for its reputation to scam, or you're going to use it for its rank to get into a campaign--probably to shitpost with.  Either use is pretty sketchy.  But people have earned positive trust and have proven themselves to NOT be shitposters eventually, and I am willing to give second chances in those instances.  

Ignoring concerns is not okay.

You don't understand what we're dealing with here.  My inbox is not filled with rational arguments for feedback removal, which I certainly would consider.  It is filled with stuff like the following:

Dear Sir,
I m a poor person. I m suffering my life with the earning of btalk. After few days later my moms eye operation I need money either she will blind.Its only my earning way.  Please boss forgive me if I did any wrong.  And remove my red trust. Its only my one account I do not use any account more. Please sir help the poor god will help u.

Dear Sir
I know you are good person. I will die sir if my mother will blind. Plz help me sir I will follow what you say I never do mistake more.  Plz boss save my life.  I m bagging you!!!

Dear manager
I hope you are doing good.
It is my humble request again, please give me one more chance to improve my post and knowlwde and i'll try make quality post, please reconsider your decision of negative trust that you have given me and please give me a second chance.English is  not my first language so i am not so good at english. please re consider  your decision and give me one more chance to improve myself..
If you find me in future doing low quality post you can BAN my account but please give me a second chance.

Regards: Shaour Zafar094

^^Note that I'm not a manager of anything.

Tell me reason bledy fuck you stupid fellow you have sense tell me currect reason

sir pls, im sorry

Hi good eve.

I would like to apologize what I've  did, I'm just a new beginner and I dont know that it's not allowed to qoute legendary people.

I'm begging, I want my account clear with no problem by others.
Can i have you're trust again sir?

Best regards,
Jraf95

Hi sir, please can you remove the negative trust on me, that post was very long ago when i was a newbie.
Please give some little consideration. Thanks

^^Note that the "very long ago" part is referring to my feedback being left 2 months prior.

sir, can u review again why u give me redtrust.... and what do u mean about "3 world shitposters" ?

hello sir, im newbie in bitcointalk ,please remove my red trust because this the only way i earn money, promise i did not do it again. .

Hi sir, I'm sorry before. I will ask to you how to erase my DT-2 and negative trust? Can you help me, please. I hope you read this message and help. Thanks

And on and on...hopefully you get the picture.  What I'm getting is begging, and these people can barely do this coherently.  

If someone really has a strong argument that I've left feedback in error, they can start up a thread and some community feedback wouldn't hurt.  But if I don't block them?  They will flood my inbox with this gibberish, and there are just too many for me to allow that.

And who is it you think I need to defend my position on each and every feedback to?  If the people in the trust hierarchy think I'm getting it all wrong, they will cast their collective vote and I'll no longer be on DT--it happened before and it could well happen again.  I accept that.  But in the meantime, I think I'm doing a reasonably good job tagging the ones who need to be tagged.

why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag?

Because they haven't earned my distrust.  Lauda & Yahoo62278 definitely have earned my trust, mexxer-2 much less so.  I'd probably leave mexxer-2 a negative for scamming Lutpin if I thought it would make a difference, but it wouldn't.  I'm leaving that entire matter to Lutpin and Lauda, who have already negged him and know far more about what happened or didn't happen than I do.

[whistleblower2]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the conflict of interest? How exactly does Blazed benefit by adding people who share trust with one another? You raise some valid points, but I don't really see what he stands to gain from this.

If certain people are leaving Red Tags for certain business practices, but neglected to do so for Blazed, he benefits by way not avoiding the Red Tag, regardless of if these people are in DT or not. This cannot be disputed.

If you believe those listed in the OP are still selling forum accounts (you cannot dispute they traded them in the past, or attempted to do so in the case of Lauda), then the ability to Red Tag others engaged in similar business would be indisputably beneficial to those listed in the OP, and as such, Blazed may be receiving a portion of the profits. In other words, Blazed may be selling the ability to Red Tag the competition.

If you reject the above, it is very difficult to dispute that those within Blazed's trust list all have an abnormally high number of ratings from each other, so DT2 spots may be being sold, and purchased by those in a trust farming ring in an effort to make certain signature/bounty campaign managers appear more credible/trustworthy than they really are.

[actmyname]

Just going to respond to the point regarding me.

User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

-thermos sealed-

Gotta love coming back to this. There may have been a disagreement between theymos and I regarding the merit farming tags (to which I changed some ratings) but it's a matter of perspective. Stating that any merit abuse would be a 'rounding error' is true but allowing it to pass shouldn't happen on principle, in my opinion. Might be a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think it's good to allow that kind of scummy behavior since it begins to build the foundation of false thinking, leading to recursive scumminess.

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts.

Should I start?
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. In terms of tagging the users that abuse bounty campaigns, it's simply breaking the rules. Users have no excuse. In regards to account trading, I believe that it is common knowledge (or with a little bit of thinking) that the act results in either scams (from the actual trade or post-trade via the account) or participation in a signature campaign. The former is obviously bad so we don't need to discuss this.

However, it seems that in the local sections, users believe that account trading is fine, normal and is perfectly fine because it doesn't violate the rules. Many marketplace sections have built entire communities based on account sales and I don't think it should be this way. Firstly, if users are congregating in the Local sections to trade, they may not understand English well enough to create substantial posts that would be useful in the English main sections. In that sense, the account sales may produce unwanted spam. The other problem is that this creates a culture that accepts account sales and creates justification for the act (a precedent). "It's not against the rules so it's fine" is a common point that they may bring up which falls apart when you consider that scams are also not against the rules. I don't think this is great, especially when Newbies enter Local sections as they begin to believe that account sales are normal on the forum. It also begins to morph the forum not into a hub for discussion but rather a place to nab a half dozen accounts and farm bounty campaigns. Plenty of people have PM'd me stating, "I want the red trust removed so I can participate in bounties again" (paraphrased). That's not right.

He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

Those trust ratings are pre-DT addition. And Hhampuz was added by SaltySpitoon, not Blazed.

As for the ratings post-DT (from me to others), I have rarely given out positive trust. It should be only a few members (IIRC I was added in January) that were given trust after the addition.

[whistleblower2]

Just going to respond to the point regarding me.

User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

-thermos sealed-

Gotta love coming back to this. There may have been a disagreement between theymos and I regarding the merit farming tags (to which I changed some ratings) but it's a matter of perspective. Stating that any merit abuse would be a 'rounding error' is true but allowing it to pass shouldn't happen on principle, in my opinion. Might be a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think it's good to allow that kind of scummy behavior since it begins to build the foundation of false thinking, leading to recursive scumminess.

Here is where you are wrong. theymos built the merit system so that "merit abuse" does not matter as one merit received equals roughly 0.97 merit that can be sent to sock puppets. The merit system will be unaffected by "abusers" as long as no merit source is involved.

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts.

Should I start?
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. In terms of tagging the users that abuse bounty campaigns, it's simply breaking the rules. Users have no excuse. In regards to account trading, I believe that it is common knowledge (or with a little bit of thinking) that the act results in either scams (from the actual trade or post-trade via the account) or participation in a signature campaign. The former is obviously bad so we don't need to discuss this.

Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged those those listed in my OP who have very clearly sold accounts in the past, including Blazed.