nutildah got red trust recent hours. Is the red trust fairly for him?

[TECSHARE]

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise

As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.

I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.

Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.

As evidenced by your continual frothing mouthed attacks any time I try to argue for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Also your willingness to support people who do exactly what was done to you to others on a daily basis by the dozen. If you yourself do not endorse such principles I am not sure why you also get to demand protection by them as you continue to poo poo at the standard.

I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

It would be like North Korea saying hey USA, we will disarm our nukes, but only if you do it first ok? Oh China and Russia, they are going to keep theirs for now don't worry about them. In essence you are demanding those I associate with all keep a standard that is not yet a standard, which is asinine. If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Our main disagreement stems from your inability to understand that "a body that enforces" already exists, only they operate on completely arbitrary standards. I don't know where you get the idea some new body of people will need to be assembled. People are VERY prone to subjectivity. That is why we are badly in need of some structure from Theymos, such as issuing the notice he prefers we operate with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am advocating all the same people now present evidence to support their negative rating before doing so. That's pretty much it. The rest is your pure imagination.

[1714984630]

1714984630

[1714984630]

1714984630

[nutildah]

I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

Perhaps you should try leading by example.

Its extremely hypocritical of you because it goes against your entire philosophy when it comes to trust ratings.

You know exactly why his rating is invalid.

But you're not going to change anything; you never were. However, if you did, it would probably work to your benefit. Earlier today you were shown to have trusted two known scammers -- your judgment is highly suspect.

I should have known better than to fall for your trolling attempt. I won't be responding to you here any more.

[suchmoon]

It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

Yeah... no. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Didn't you compare DT to democracy recently? Perhaps you should do what some politicians do when caught in an obviously blatant hypocrisy.

BTW your standards are a subset of the current guidelines so there is really no reason for you to not do what you preach.

If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Don't be melodramatic. I'm sure someone agrees with you on those standards. Otherwise you'd be really stupid to push for them if neither yourself nor anyone else is willing to follow them.

[TECSHARE]

I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

Perhaps you should try leading by example.

Its extremely hypocritical of you because it goes against your entire philosophy when it comes to trust ratings.

You know exactly why his rating is invalid.

But you're not going to change anything; you never were. However, if you did, it would probably work to your benefit. Earlier today you were shown to have trusted two known scammers -- your judgment is highly suspect.

I should have known better than to fall for your trolling attempt. I won't be responding to you here any more.

I want to know why YOU think this rating is invalid. See how that works? Of course you can't answer that because you know if you do your own actions will then be revealed to be hypocritical BY YOUR OWN WORDS. Run along now sweet summer child.

It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

Yeah... no. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Didn't you compare DT to democracy recently? Perhaps you should do what some politicians do when caught in an obviously blatant hypocrisy.

BTW your standards are a subset of the current guidelines so there is really no reason for you to not do what you preach.

If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Don't be melodramatic. I'm sure someone agrees with you on those standards. Otherwise you'd be really stupid to push for them if neither yourself nor anyone else is willing to follow them.

The constant projection you people partake in would be hilarious if it wasn't so destructive to this community. I brought up democracy because it is the most similar existing governmental system to what we have here, except for the informed populace and accountable representatives part. Good try at a smear though bringing up politicians to tie me with visceral emotional sensations in lieu of a logical argument.

I do, do what I preach. I didn't leave this rating iCEBREAKER did. Funny this whole time both of you are screaming hypocrisy at me while you yourselves are A-OK wit this standard every other time it is not you or your friends. I am holding you to your own standards then you turn around and call me the hypocrite for not removing some one for doing what you do every day dozens of times a day. You have no principles, and your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding is quite hilarious to me.

[suchmoon]

Funny this whole time both of you are screaming hypocrisy at me while you yourselves are A-OK wit this standard every other time it is not you or your friends.

I'd be honored if I could call nutildah my friend, but that's not relevant here. Yes, I think you're being a hypocrite, but also yes, you can do this to whomever you like. I don't need theymos to set a standard to my liking. I can simply exclude you. I'm a little disappointed that some people seem to be including you because of things you say and not the things you do, so it's important to point those differences out.

I am holding you to your own standards then you turn around and call me the hypocrite for not removing some one for doing what you do every day dozens of times a day. You have no principles, and your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding is quite hilarious to me.

Really? Do I red-trust people for making fun of my favorite shitcoin "every day dozens of times a day"? Well, sounds like you should include me in your trust list then... or at least have a look at the dictionary. Hypocrisy doesn't stop being hypocrisy because "others do it too", even if that were true. Your hypocrisy is entirely about your words and your behavior.

[TECSHARE]

Funny this whole time both of you are screaming hypocrisy at me while you yourselves are A-OK wit this standard every other time it is not you or your friends.

I'd be honored if I could call nutildah my friend, but that's not relevant here. Yes, I think you're being a hypocrite, but also yes, you can do this to whomever you like. I don't need theymos to set a standard to my liking. I can simply exclude you. I'm a little disappointed that some people seem to be including you because of things you say and not the things you do, so it's important to point those differences out.

I am holding you to your own standards then you turn around and call me the hypocrite for not removing some one for doing what you do every day dozens of times a day. You have no principles, and your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding is quite hilarious to me.

Really? Do I red-trust people for making fun of my favorite shitcoin "every day dozens of times a day"? Well, sounds like you should include me in your trust list then... or at least have a look at the dictionary. Hypocrisy doesn't stop being hypocrisy because "others do it too", even if that were true. Your hypocrisy is entirely about your words and your behavior.

Of course not. Why would it be relevant that you all run around like one unit together forming the perfect brown nosing human centipede all backing each other up no matter what and including each other, and excluding the members they also choose to target. You have a lot of nerve pointing at me and crying to do as you say not as you do.

You and the people you support run around negative rating people based on suspicion, which is exactly the standard iCEBREAKER is operating upon. You scream about the injustice when it applies to you and yours but I am the hypocrite for not removing him because he doesn't meet the standards I would like exactly? If you keep stretching like this you are going to snap, be careful. Feel free to start a separate thread in reputation about my supposed behavior you find objectionable and I would be happy to discuss it. Of course you won't though because this is all just desperately crafted sophistry to try to cover for one of the members of your brown nosing human centipede of a trust mob.

[cryptohunter]

It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

Yeah... no. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Didn't you compare DT to democracy recently? Perhaps you should do what some politicians do when caught in an obviously blatant hypocrisy.

BTW your standards are a subset of the current guidelines so there is really no reason for you to not do what you preach.

If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Don't be melodramatic. I'm sure someone agrees with you on those standards. Otherwise you'd be really stupid to push for them if neither yourself nor anyone else is willing to follow them.

However, suchmoon is already an observable hypocrite. This is regardless of which standards we adopt because she has observable double standards. Those are the only standards she wants to be able to enforce selectively.

xcoin aka darkcoin aka dash is a proven scam. The dev even offered a 2,000,000 million coin (reaching value of 1000 bucks each) to make up for the scam launch and the subsequent slashing of the minting to magnify that captive instamine after promising it was a fair launch AFTER much battling and lying from their crowd that it was all a bunch of shit and the launch was fair and there was no captive instamine.

Lauda is actually a scammer. Lauda claimed he was on the launch and that there was no instamine so he knew that for SURE. He lied for financial gain which is what scammers do...they lie for financial gain.

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

So suchmoon red trusts persons because she believes the projects they are supporting may "possibly" be a scam.

Then suchmoon goes and includes on his trust list these same liars, scam supporters, trust abusers and proven greedy sneaky racist trolling sig spamming puppets  and does not red trust them does she?. Now she is crying about one of them getting red trust.

Now she is claiming hypocrisy and talking about "standards"?  Which ever standards you adopt you can't get out of having observable DOUBLE standards. Subjectivity can excuse most devious scheming ... but treating identical situations COMPLETELY differently demonstrates what sort of person she is. Dirt.

It is pointless to try and debate with these fools because they already know that what I say is true, but will never admit it. They do not need to, their actions demonstrate clearly how they are abusing the systems of control that they have been allowed to entrench themselves in.

[nutildah]

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful.

That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane.

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

I traded Dash back when it was Darkcoin quite a bit. I had a laptop containing about 63 Dash that was stolen out of my apartment in 2016. Lost about $20k worth of crypto that night. I had .dat backups on a USB stick, which I unwittingly kept in the laptop case, which was also stolen.

Here is my Dash address, you can see exactly the last time I moved any Dash:

Xhrj1twMEYYavovibiuzpYTvPoz7fGxQmD

[TECSHARE]

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

I am not implying anything. I repeatedly stated I am open to reconsidering iCEBREAKERs inclusion on my list if you can simply explain to me why you think his rating is not valid. That's it. You haven't done that, you just told me your side of the narrative without actually answering my question.

"Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features. "

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

[nutildah]

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

I am not implying anything. I repeatedly stated I am open to reconsidering iCEBREAKERs inclusion on my list if you can simply explain to me why you think his rating is not valid. That's it. You haven't done that, you just told me your side of the narrative without actually answering my question.

"Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features. "

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

It depends on whose guidelines you want to go by. These seem to be the generally accepted standards:

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral
Merit sales / swapping / Sending trust/merit between your alt accounts
Offering escrow without a track record
Providing fake or insufficient collateral. (When misleading)
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"
Committing fraud by selling bank details or other sensitive data.
Inherently risky business practices - PayPal and other reversible payments, discouraging escrow use, autobuy sites, locked sales threads etc.
Impersonation of any kind (although this probably falls under outright fraud)
Fake ICOs and other projects - fake teams, plagiarized whitepapers, etc
Any ponzi-related behavior.
Any behavior that involves an involuntary monetary transfer.
Shilling scams.
Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.
Selling gambling scripts or any "strategy" in a statistically -ev game.
Fake translations.
Hacked account.
Spreading malware
Constant begging
Unrealistic loan applications

Unacceptable conduct that is directly against the forum rules:
Plagiarism. * Should be reported to admin for permaban
Ban evasion.  * Should be reported to admin for permaban

Unacceptable behavior that could result in a red tag:

These items are subjective and require some community discussion.

Extreme harassment *Subjective
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others. *Subjective
Asking for a no collateral loan *Subjective This should only apply if the user has little reputation/is asking for an amount that is way too unreasonable for what reputation they have.
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time)
Colluding *subjective
Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective

Considerations:
Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Leaving an unsubstantiated negative rating, if the user is not shady outside of this.
Promoting altcoins.
Using an alt account.
religious statements*subjective
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*

I would like to point to items in this last section, which I believe in principle you are in agreement with. Please note that none of the trust left by me in the past 4 years falls into this section.

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Promoting altcoins.
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*

These 4 items all pertain to iCEBREAKER's feedback. About the news of Monero being excluded from Poloniex, it was true at the time, but obviously they had a change of heart and decided to continue listing it. I also pointed this out in the referenced thread. About Dash being a "scam," that is an extremely subjective viewpoint at best. Over the years, the markets have dictated that it is not a scam, and it has real world utility, as I admit Monero does as well. I just did not care for the way that the Monero supporters went about promoting their project, and I still don't, but its not worth leaving somebody a red trust over. (For example, it would never occur to me to red trust FluffyPony or Smooth or any of those guys).

OK, so there you have it.

[TECSHARE]

More evading the question.

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

[nutildah]

More evading the question.

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

Your exact words were these:

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

I thoroughly complied with your request. This is entirely based on my opinion, which holds in regard the opinions of others.

Edit: BTW, thanks suchmoon, I appreciate your kind words, and your earlier guidance in matters surrounding what DT should be used for.

[tranthidung]

LOL. It looks like that I started a hot topic, that might long-last over weeks or months. 
To be honest with you all, I don't really care about Trust system, because it is too complicated to me.
Of course, for someone who are famous, reliable in the forum, with or without Trustscore, they will always be well-known.
Trustscore is only make sense when I see some accounts the first time, I don't know who are they, how about their reliablity.
In such cases, Trust score makes lots of sense.

[Lauda]

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful.

That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane.

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.

LOL. It looks like that I started a hot topic, that might long-last over weeks or months.  

Even if you exclude the trolls that get involved in most threads, you're touching on multiple hot subjects at the same time most notably "I know what a good coin is" beliefs.

[nutildah]

This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.

Well, I beg to differ, as do the markets... It was the first of its kind and often imitated. Whether or not it will survive the long haul remains to be seen, as with every single other cryptocurrency, but its been in the top 20 coins by market cap for several years. I reserve the term "shitcoin" for more bland coins than this with less real-world adoption.

[Lauda]

This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.

Well, I beg to differ, as do the markets... It was the first of its kind and often imitated. Whether or not it will survive the long haul remains to be seen, as with every single other cryptocurrency, but its been in the top 20 coins by market cap for several years. I reserve the term "shitcoin" for more bland coins than this with less real-world adoption.

A good market is not proof of anything. Pretty much everything in top 100 is absolute and utter garbage (ETH, EOS, Tron, etc.). There's nothing to "differ". Either the tech is objectively good or it isn't, which in Dash's case it isn't.

[nutildah]

I deleted my feedback on eduffield's account in the spirit of not leaving retaliatory ratings.

I'm also doing the same for gembitz and IconicExpert.

[Lauda]

I deleted my feedback on eduffield's account in the spirit of not leaving retaliatory ratings.

Your rating was a counter-rating not a retaliatory one, unless I mixed up something here.

[nutildah]

I deleted my feedback on eduffield's account in the spirit of not leaving retaliatory ratings.

Your rating was a counter-rating not a retaliatory one, unless I mixed up something here.

Right, I mean since it wasn't against me, I guess it was more of a counter-rating. I almost put counter-rating but then edited it.

[cryptohunter]

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful.

That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane.

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.

LOL. It looks like that I started a hot topic, that might long-last over weeks or months.  

Even if you exclude the trolls that get involved in most threads, you're touching on multiple hot subjects at the same time most notably "I know what a good coin is" beliefs.

Some words of truth at last (by lauda not nutildah)

Nice to watch Lauda give the underlings a bit of bitch slap now and then if they step out of line. POW haha

Nutildah is observably lying again. It is not subjective. It's a proven scam.

A scam is "deliberate deception often to ensure unfair gain" ... you know what a deception is right?

Well, to give you an example: saying there will be a fair launch and no premine. Then going ahead and captive instamining (same as a premine for all intense purposes) then deciding to chop away the remaining 75% of the minting to magnify the huge captive instamine. Then creating a mechanism where those that held all the loot took more from any remaining miners and made the decisions too.  If this is not a scam then there are no scams here.  

You and others are simply telling blatant lies to profit and protect it. Actually the most honourable person was Evan who freaked out at all of the pressure that I and others that joined in  applied to him (whilst fighting their protectors like some in this thread) to offer the 2 Billion dollar air drop that the board was too sloppy to even claim at the time. I wonder how many of you were on that vote to prevent the airdrop going through? Would be VERY interesting to see that poll made transparent in the future for historical purposes.

I was less hostile to the project after this because  he did offer to do the right thing but was pressured by others to drop it. I think the project later on became more important than just the money to him.

I don't care about any of that now since capped ico's are essentially monster instamines  which ensure super narrow distributions. They like it like that so they  can collude and drive up market caps and dump it to suckers for hugely inflated prices (most are worthless)  before creating the next great white paper dreams and talk bunch of fantasies for investors to get duped into investing in.

Your only hope was to retain persons like AM who analysed a lot of white papers and debunked their dreams and nonsense or pointed out occasional interesting designs. Let's face it only 0.01% or less of the board have the tech chops to know a new interesting and plausible design. The rest is all guessing and hoping.  Most don't bother even attempting it and prefer to find other ways to milk the board.  

Even then you are bound to get those blinded by greed that will risk their btc on even the most obvious scam promising huge returns only to start crying they were scammed after. You will not be able to save everyone from .... themselves. Trying to do so is actually more damaging really. Best to let evolution take its course naturally. This is like some genetic engineering experiment that caused some damaging and dangerous mutations that likely need not have ever existed.

As I have said before many times. The most damaging scams to this movement are not the 2 bit run with the btc scammers. They are the projects that sound credible, have a solid white paper (to most peoples standards of understanding) they have strong backing and support and some talent, they grab headlines. They don' just exit. They gradually dwindle and erode the dev funds and eventually seem to stop pushing updates.

Perhaps some middling drama and dev friction and founders leaving.. then the full dump and investors capitulate and let go at huge losses......time passes guess what the devs have been working secretly and diligently and some great updates " meanwhile accumulating all the cheap tokens back that they originally sold to investors for huge sums" and again it spikes back right up to where it was before and a period of enthusiasm and belief returns. Then the cycle repeats until eventually one day it does not come back and it is found on page 20 of coinmarket cap.  These are the killer scams and they are the ones that crush the spirit here more than those that cut and run straight away. They are also impossible to stop unless you have experts who tell you flat out this white paper would require likely 3 nobel prize level break throughs or is just technobabble dreamed up by some marketeers that could not con seed money from anywhere outside crypto fantasy land.

So given those are unstoppable and only the 2 bit whack a mole scammers are temp preventable let us not over estimate what the DT can do for projects that are hugely damaging scams. DT for the trading board is different and should be attended to by long term trusted traders that have dealt with vast sums over the years.

I mean this is without really factoring in the damage that DT members advertising, campaign managing, and in any other way supporting these "long game" scams can bring by seemingly guaranteeing their success/legitimacy in the minds of noobs.

Keep DT for the trading forums, and only for proven scammers. I mean if someone is a proven scammer lets fucking delete that piece of shit anyway.