This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. As I've recently said in another thread:
Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest!
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.
This is in no way limited to Blazed's trust list, and you would know that if you were actually analyzing DT1 for the right reasons. The group that was linked back then was much bigger; someone could find it if they wanted to. We are talking about different times here. The general consensus a few years ago and now is much different.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". There is no point. I can leave merit to whomever I want[1], wherever I want and in whatever amount I want. If you don't like it, then ask theymos to change the rules.
...
[1] This works when you don't have an army of alts (see Quickseller et. al.).
...
[1] This works when you don't have an army of alts (see Quickseller et. al.).
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. Have you been inspired by Quickseller?Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest!
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).