Quote from: actmyname on February 05, 2019, 06:47:47 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 05, 2019, 06:39:23 PM

I would point out there doesnt appear to be any motive in hacking the account as to my knowledge he hasnt even tried to conduct any business. Putting a lot of effort into falsely claiming you are the owner of an account isnt logical to me in this case.

If it is illogical for a user to do A for R and that is your proof of ¬R then I vehemently disagree.

That is called an exploitable vulnerability. A flaw in reasoning. Illogical ≠ Impossible.

No, the hacking of the account being illogical does not mean it is impossible, obviously. But it is evidence (circumstantial) that there is no hack. It should be weighed with other available evidence.

Quote from: qwk on February 05, 2019, 06:49:40 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 05, 2019, 06:39:23 PM

Quote from: theymos on February 05, 2019, 05:44:52 PM

I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original BTC_Bear.

I dont think a 75% chance is appropriate for a negative rating.

Well, that's obviously a matter of judgement or opinion.
I personally consider someone I'm only 25% certain being the person in e.g. the passport he's showing, not trustworthy.
Not trustworthy for me is reason enough for a negative trust rating.

I think you are using the wrong standard.

If a stranger asks you to trade (when you are known to engage in similar trades), you will see this person as not trustworthy, and as such will put yourself in a position in which he is in possession of money that belongs to you. It would not be appropriate to give this person a negative rating.

BadBear had a standard that he wanted to be 100% sure, without any someone was a scammer before leaving a negative rating (which from what I could tell, was more strict than beyond a reasonable doubt), and Tomatocage worked to ensure his ratings were fair and accurate, and I believe he has a very high standard for tagging a scammer (although probably not as high as BadBear).

I don't have an issue with a "tag first ask questions later" trust policy, so to prevent someone from quickly scamming multiple people, and continuing doing so after being called out as a scammer, however once questions are asked, a high standard should be used. I don't think "75% certain" is a high enough standard, especially considering the lack of motive, and the ~month delay in getting "caught", during which time a hacker would likely have tried to either scam or build up reputation, neither of which happened.