I had read that thread back when I was reading up on the controversies of the time. It doesn't really tell the whole story though. Whether this was an oversight on your part trying to move on from the Atriz brand at the time or not; but there is no accusation or proof on your part they did anything wrong. I don't even see any feedback from any of your accounts

I obviously don't know the details, but given the current situation (see below), it might have been a good idea to have aired the dirty laundry and had pinkman tagged. Assuming the reason you have for not paying them was NEG worthy. All I can find is the positive feedback you left pinkman that is still positive but has (delete) at the end of it.


Moving forward can you provide the information now so that anyone who has tagged Pinkman12345 can also go and tag the snakey account. We wouldn't want to leave any loose ends out there.

---

I feel like we've all been using the second chance thing improperly, myself included. No one gave a second chance; the closest would be Loyce not exposing Zapo - but still keeping tabs on the user and account (this was fair IMO). What has happened is an Alt account was used to try and shed the glaring RED trust that had essentially nuked a previously trustworthy user. Zaptriz has been tagged, and that's good. Not that I feel they are 100% untrustworthy, but that a record of members and how they have interacted and behaved on this forum should follow them and be visible. This way we can tell if they have changed for better or worse.

When you bring up The Pharmacist if you check the Atriz trust profile you can see that while he was not personally burned the feedback went from green to neutral to reflect the changing times. There are actually quite a few people being given second chances if you consider marlbaroza's feedback for promoting scam ICO's. They are giving members the opportunity to repeal the harm they have caused and be made whole again. Like I said there is no second chance here; it's more of a long standing service provider falling short, and having to deal with that while moving forward. This brings clashing opinions between past and present.

For there to be a true second chance example there would need to have been a license or some permission granted to a select few to manage campaigns; this having been revoked, and then granted again. There is no such thing anyone no matter there trust score can manage a campaign. People will join any campaign regardless of who runs it, just look at the 2 started by a "newbie", of which one actually provided second chances to a couple red trust members.

I can understand why Zaptriz went this route they are trying to provide a service to clients outside of this forum, using the forum as a platform for this. Most of his clients I'm assuming would want the manager to be a neutral or nice shiny green color but that was likely never going to happen without going this route. Assuming they did accurately portray the situations to their customers and they were okay with it, not much to be said they can hire who they like. I do feel like it was shady doing this to the members who would have joined your campaigns as they should have been given the same information, being essentially contractors.


Zaptriz - Just keep doing you. Again just some advice take it or leave it. No more alts, just ride it out and try and earn back some of that 2017 reputation. Escrow and transparency are always advisable. Try not to leave any loose ends out there, it may burn someone else down the road.


EDIT for clarity - Zaptriz does not exist but I like the way it sounds, I'm sure most will get this but I'm sure some will not.