Quote from: actmyname on March 26, 2018, 07:00:29 AM

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 06:40:05 AM

If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter.

Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales.

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

We are not discussing a social norm, we are talking about Red Tagging people as scammers. Doing something that makes the person a scammer still makes that person a scammer regardless of when they did this.

Quote from: digaran on March 26, 2018, 08:30:24 AM

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 06:40:05 AM

Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section.

Where is staff section?

Staff section

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me.

Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:

Quote from: Lauda on March 25, 2018, 05:44:31 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on March 25, 2018, 01:59:30 PM

and @ lauda how do I know the op is not you? or anyone else

You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).

Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim.

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged.

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 02:50:22 AM

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate.

You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay.

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 09:53:55 PM

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with.

That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want".

Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 09:53:55 PM

He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book.

What is the lie?

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

Quote from: actmyname on March 26, 2018, 07:00:29 AM

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).

We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.