Quote from: Rewards.com on June 14, 2018, 08:34:03 PM

You're again making 2 big assumptions.

* assuming that @BitcoinBazaar is actually not the hacker himself or someone w/ a vendetta against the account holder.

* At the time we reviewed his bounty he had negative trust.

* WE DIDN'T' APPROVE HIS BOUNTY!

We have done nothing wrong, in this situation except to protect the TRUE owner of the account on our Bounty Platform... I hope the true account holder gets validation in the end.

I'm not making any assumptions. You said yourself that you can't check every user participating. Even, if you employed a manager to do it, and for some reason they aren't or can't right now you have to be prepared to come up with a temporary solution to this. You also personally said yourself that you listen to reports of other users. Where are my assumptions in this?

Sure, I hope the account does end up in the hands of the true owner.

Quote from: BTCforJoe on June 11, 2018, 06:15:59 AM

but I will say that any reputable campaign manager won't accept red-tagged members. However, the campaigns that are just created here for the views (a.k.a. the bad actors) don't care about the negative score. They just care about how many times they can get their sigs displayed on the forums here. This issue isn't a problem with the DT members, but rather the campaign managers who accept neg-trust members, and the companies that hire them to manage their campaigns.

For the record, the majority of these campaigns are for shitcoins and airdrop bounties.

I for one don't actually care about them accepting red tagged members. I do care, and I would hope that their employer cares about accepting untrustworthy members. In my opinion a good manager wouldn't just restrict anyone with a red tag, but only those which have legitimate red tags, and they've investigated it themselves, and deem it an accurate tag.

There's several members on this forum which have received negative ratings from other members on DefaultTrust depth 2 that I would consider trustworthy. It seems that most campaigns restrict them from applying, but that's actually pretty lazy in my opinion. It doesn't take much to look at why that feedback was given, and whether it has any credibility. Plus, not everyone is going to agree with the rating, and it could well be subjective.

Moreover, due to the moderated nature of the trust system, and how anyone can leave a rating for any reason it would be unfair to prevent someone from something or view them negatively, because they've changed their email in the last 30 days for example. (Especially when backed up via a signed message)