I was involved in the analysis of your & rby case on the altt forum. I believe that you received a detailed explanation from the moderator about the final conclusion that was reached there.
On that forum, moderators have additional insight into the account's access history, and there was no connection found between the two accounts. This was crucial for your KingsDen account to remain "intact" and without any markings. (For rby it is a completely different outcome)
You also probably received a verbal warning that the moderators there are not convinced of your 100% innocence, similar to the reasons nutildah mentions here. I will not go into a detailed explanation here either, in my opinion, the case is closed, unless some new information appears
I didn't want to weigh in, but as that mod/judge that closed the case on behalf of the court, I'll add that a tied court isn't exactly the best defence to be pointing to for a few good reasons. Firstly, it indicates that half the court believed you were guilty, the other half considered there to be reasonable doubt (not guilty). As examplens said, we looked at a lot more than just the prosecuting evidence; we also looked under the hood, did our own linguistic analysis, and accepted the defence evidence. But also bare in mind that we were only looking at evidence of multi-accounting on the other forum from when it feasibly possible (namely September 2024, the sign up date). Whether the account was used as part of a farm before then is not something we strongly considered, as not relevant.
Aside from all that, not only are the two forums different, but the way in which tags are distributed is very different. On here it's a lot more decentralized involving hundreds of DT members, on altt it is more centralized among a handful of elected/appointed officials (as it's a smaller forum). Thus the difference in these tags is undoubtedly based on the different levels of requirements for evidence of guilt. On altt
beyond reasonable doubt is the general threshold; on here, it's effectively if a DT member deems the evidence to be good enough, and will appear if others believe their overall feedback to be good enough. Also the access to evidence that DT members have here is less than what we have elsewhere. That's not to say one system is better than the other, only that they are distinctly different (that's a feature not a bug as they say). Negative tags here won't necessary exclude you from signature campaigns, on altt it will destroy the ability to monetise your account overnight as it's considered more authoritative.
As for rby, requesting account deletion is more of less an admission of guilt in my eyes. It arrived after hoods had already been peaked under, and yeh, good chance there are other accounts connected here even if KingsDen was not one of them (one of them with neutral feedback for suspected association with another account notably). The only reason we didn't produce a verdict was out of convenience, there was no need to deliberate over an account that's requesting self-destruction.
In summary, apples and oranges. The different results can't be compared directly, though I'll give it a go. I'd argue that KingsDen doesn't deserve a negative tag on the other forum (based on alternative thresholds of guilt), but that he does deserve negative tags on this forum based on the evidence presented (and lack of meaningful and accessible defence). In precisely the same way that 4 DT members have tagged you believing the evidence to be sufficient, while another 4 DT members might not believe the evidence to be sufficient, even if they haven't directly left the positive trust to affirm that opinion. That's precisely how the system works here, or at least should work, and why having +4 doesn't contradict having -4 either. It's the same +2 and -2 that resulted in the lack of tagging elsewhere effectively, leaving you with overall neutral trust. The systems may be different, but the current outcome is more similar than meets the eye.
