Quote from: BadBear on May 29, 2013, 09:58:37 AM

Quote from: 00null on May 29, 2013, 09:24:16 AM

Quote from: BadBear on May 29, 2013, 09:16:25 AM

Quote from: 00null on May 29, 2013, 09:09:07 AM

Quote from: server on May 29, 2013, 09:07:20 AM

Quote from: theymos on May 24, 2013, 12:01:15 AM

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

Quote from: 00null on May 20, 2013, 11:02:33 AM

Quote from: Inaba on October 19, 2012, 09:04:56 PM

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Quote from: theymos on May 17, 2013, 02:50:00 AM

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

Showing newbies that the account they're trading with has no trust or rep is 'working' don't you think?

And BFL is hardly the only one to not get a scammer tag, going by your standards coinabul and bitinstant should probably have one as well. Not speaking for theymos, but the acammer tag isn't appropriate for businesses in general, shouldn't be judged by one action. Newegg and amazon would probably have scammer tags if everything was as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

1. How is the scammer tag not appropriate for businesses? Bitinstant from what I can tell actually resolves their customers' issues. Coinabul well that is another story, but BFL is blatantly not exempt from a scammer tag.

2. "Shouldn't be judged by one action". Well BFL has approximately 20k+ preorders and that is being quite conservative. Should I assume that taking PREORDERS for 11+ months by many thousands of customers as ONE ACTION? Come on that shouldn't even be used in the same page of text when writing about BFL. ONE ACTION? Hardly...

You know BFL and Josh needs a scammer tag but are delaying the inevitable for what reason I do not know.

The TWO 1000 BTC bets that are unresolved are TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS MADE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED TO DATE .Thus a scammer tag is warranted.