III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.
As to your objection to III.b, I recall seeing somewhere Usagi claiming that (a Goat quote, if memory serves). You may well be correct, it's quite impossible to know the truth of that matter.
It is actually quite possible to know as I'm one of the GLBSE user who was included in said group. Hence why I claimed this. It is true however Usagi actually wanted to have a group which had voting power on listing new assets, but Nefario never agreed to that. He strictly agreed to receive input and opinions. He kept all decision power.
It is this kind of situation for which you should have full quotes from an official source before claiming things as facts. People spot those false "facts" in your posts constantly, which pass a lot of hearsay as "facts".
I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.
What's this to do with anything? Quoting in full is not practical for the obvious reason that even if I could be bothered to do it nobody'd be bothered to read it, some summarization is unavoidable. Otherwise the facts are pretty much straight, I would say (even if you've offered your own opinion as to what may or may not have been the case with III.b., that opinion is not a fact quite yet.)
Neither would your opinion be more of a fact for III.b., although you present it as a fact. I however can confirm Nefario never appointed Usagi to take any kind of decision.
It has to do with the fact you're the public face of MPEx and it seems you promote MPEx by attacking competing services' credibility. But it hurts your own credibility when you present as facts what is actually hearsay without quoting an official source. I would simply appreciate that better diligence be done when researching information before presenting them as facts. If claims are made by an unofficial source to the concerned party, it would also be good to quote that person so people know who made that claim which is just that, until proven false or true. People have been spotting and complaining multiple times in your reports lines that are without any quotes making affirmations as if they were fact, when you are simply reporting claims made by others.
As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.
I would have to say, this seems like negligence. But again, he acted once on DMC because it went to around 1% of IPO price, something unseen before elsewhere, which is why he acted this way. Normally, he does act (suspension of trading) when an asset operator runs away. He never quite moderated the GLBSE market and moderates it more and more strictly under pressure from the public. He never claimed to verify if anything issuing on GLBSE was to be a scam or not, as it is not verifiable. He also chose to allow anyone to issue, regardless of the risk for it to turn out to be a scam.
Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise. The fact he allows most people to issue on the platform and does not investigate who the issuer is does not suddenly make him the cause of the scam occuring, just like you don't blame the forum owner here for scams occurring in the marketplace. Bitcoiners are left to do their own homework before departing themselves of their Bitcoins.