Quote from: Quickseller on June 15, 2019, 10:30:09 PM

~snip~

You're OT and I'm sure you have a thread about it somewhere just can't seem to find it. Please delete your own comment or edit it to be an entirely on topic reply, currently it has no on topic content.

I never even really considered Bounties, as the activity doesn't happen on forum except for their reports.

Quote from: 1miau on June 15, 2019, 07:23:32 PM

It would be appropriate if they only accept accounts with less negative ratings than positive ratings. Neutral would also be allowed of course. That would come closest to the rules we had before the update.

This would be an interesting metric to see used. I think it would still be to rigid though as it still gives a single Dt user out of hundreds the ability to taint an account for what they believe to be a good reason. Then the user would have an uphill battle to get someone to counter it, if they have no history with any other DT. Just a possible issue.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on June 15, 2019, 10:16:58 PM

Now as far as btc paying campaigns go, this will be handled on a case by case basis. It's not hard to look at a users trust and see what they have been tagged for. So, depending on the reasoning, users with neg rep will possibly have a chance to join campaigns. (Kinda gonna be a longshot due to what happened when Hhampuz allowed QS to join a campaign and look at the DRAMA that ensued.)

I prefer this approach case by case sounds better than a hard line. It also feels a little more in keeping with a forum vibe of taking everything into consideration. Ideally a few bad experiences won't taint everyone, for the campaigns that don't explicitly forbid them. I do recall Mdayonliner doing okay with his red paint.