Quote from: Quickseller on October 04, 2018, 02:10:50 AM

Lutpin was asked about this a long time ago and said he is not going to provide any kind of proof/evidence.

Then why are they still on DT2. If they say soomeone is a scammer but don't want to provide any evidence then... Post it with an alt account of something if they're embarrased by it but...

Quote from: Quickseller on October 04, 2018, 02:10:50 AM

The above fact should end this conversation. At least in reference to removing mexxer because he is a "scammer". One could argue mexxer should be removed because his is inactive.....I would not though.

There is another scammer Blazed should remove though.

Ok so to summarise this.
1. You think mexxer should be removed from dt2 (how did mexxer com into this???)
2. You then think of a superposition that mexxer should and shouldn't be removed from DT also because of the time peiod that he hasn't been actibve (I'd suggest putting a security lock on his account if there isn't one already - which there probably is).
3. Where's the evidence of blazed being a scammer, or did he leave little you a negative trust recently Grin

?

Quote from: BTCforJoe on October 05, 2018, 12:20:11 AM

I just want to chime in and say that this logic is stupid, ESPECIALLY since that @Blazed is not a "confirmed" scammer, as there is no evidence or references left in those negs.

I mean he's bbarely an alleged scammer at the start of this point as there's no reference link.
I would argue that since they don't want to give a reference link they could at least include the amount that they lost. If they don't, it makes you think (1) they were paid off (2) they really don't care if the alleged scammer goes on to scam again...