The TOS of coin chat was something along the lines that if you are running a bot then you must include the substring "bot" in the account you are posting from
I don't think that's true. When the API was first introduced the ToS didn't mention anything about naming bots. That came later.
He has a history of using bots to earn money from websites when doing such would be against the rules and fraudulent.
Not that I know of, unless you're referring to the misunderstanding with coinchat.
I believe that stunna would consider someone using a bot to claim the faucet on PD from multiple accounts to be fraudulent. I would also say that faucet farming that occurs on PD is likely to somehow include the use of bots.
Stunna is offering free money for people to visit his site. He knows that people will try to game the system using bots. He's free to try to fight against it by using CAPTCHAs and such like, but to cry "fraud" when someone successfully games the system isn't accurate.
His inquiry is similar to a convicted rapist asking a victim of rape how the perpetrator got away with the crime against her.
That's just silly talk. To compare a guy who wrote a malfunctioning bot to a rapist? It's just wrong to judge people for their curiosity. I was watching the movie "Cop Car" recently. The killer used a bag of Lime when burying a body. I was curious as to why, but was too scared to Google about it, because I didn't want "using lime to help body decompose" in my search history. It's a sad state of affairs when our curiosity can bring suspicion upon us. "Why would he be Googling that if he didn't kill somebody?"
Edit: I couldn't resist any longer:
It doesn't destroy bodies, it dessicates them to greatly slow decomposition. The advantage? Eliminate the odor. [...]. For murderers, it is a gambit to avoid discovery of the body.
This would be similar to if JD had a rule that when people make bets they should verify the bet and submit the outcome of the bet so JD can debit/credit their account accordingly (and JD would not check all of the results to ensure that everyone was reporting honestly). This would obviously be a very poor implementation and would be asking for fraud, however it does not mean that anyone who lies about their bet result would not be committing fraud.
Such a system would be inherently broken and need fixing ASAP. Of course people are going to try to game it. But that's not relevant here, since tsp wasn't trying to game anything.
He created multiple threads trolling me, and was posting in various threads for months trolling me. He made it clear that unless I would remove my negative rating against him that I would continue to receive such trolling.
It sounds like he isn't willing to roll over and let you leave your multiple unfair feedbacks stand against him. He feels like you've taken a stand against him for some reason, and doesn't want to just forget about it.
The issue is that he agreed to name any bot with the substring "bot"
What makes you think that is true? It seems your entire persecution of tsp stands on this point and yet the point is false.
I'm not aware of him having lied about anything. Is there some example you can quote?
See that last post in which I replied to you. I gave several examples in this thread in which tsp said that I was wrong in my rating. My rating is factually accurate as he did deceive coin chat when he told coin chat that he was not using a bot
He disagrees with your rating of him. What if that's because your rating is unfair? That wouldn't be him lying now would it.
What if your rating is based on a misunderstanding of the T&C of a site you weren't a user of and have little to no experience of?
In other words, what if you're wrong?
Yes, there are no rules regarding the DT List, but I would suggest to remove the rating or at the very least change it to neutral.
I agree.