Exclusion is the best course of action.
Please any further debate should be on another thread then the outcome can be updated here. We do not wish a stream of deleted posts.
Yes... these irrelevant points should be discussed on a separate thread.
What makes you assume we believe he is guilty?
Nothing.
you are seemingly trying to put words in our mouth.
You are doing the same.
We believe it "looks" bad but could have a believable and reasonable answer that would demonstrate it to be other wise.
All that we know so far come from presumptions towards either side.
We clearly said that in light of the OTHER instances of behavior that are far from optimal this should merely be NOTED down for further investigation at another time. Or to form part of the context in the future.
So... character evidence?
Sorry we thought we were on the other thread replying to you.
Then we are on the same page for the most part it seems on the guilt/non guilt. ha well so to speak (not an intentional joke)
Think of it like this. Say you had children and you were considering getting a new dog. You don't mind and perhaps even enjoy to hear from all the people that said hes a lovely dog, he can catch a stick, he shits outside straight in the poop bag, he shakes paws with you. You REALLY MUST HEAR the person that shows you the video of that dog attacking a kid in the park and biting its fingers off. That is an extreme example to demonstrate 100's of good reports are null and void under certain circumstances where trust is required when 1 verified BAD report is presented.
When dealing with positions of trust or financial responsibility you want to hear ANY INSTANCES of wrong doing. Not be fooled/distracted by a ton of "good points".
Many scammers are good for a time that is how they gain trust. They can get plenty of character evidence.
When applying to work in the bank they do a criminal back ground check not ask you to bring your pals in who will tell you want a good laugh you are and generous at buying drinks.
Observable instances of prior wrong doing or supporting those that do wrong are very valid and important context for the reader to consider.
We are simply saying is hhampuz guilty of stealing or not? NOBODY BUT HHAMPUZ knows this, well perhaps bestmixer. Is there a chance he stole it. YES THERE IS. Our opinion is it is worth NOTING DOWN and placing in in the list of hhampuz other observable instances of shady looking or potentially shady looking behaviors.
We get the point that others are claiming QS brought this to light because he was excluded from HH campaign. The motivation is irrelevant. Plus that may not be true.
1. it does not change if hhampuz stole the btc or not
2. it opens a new can of worms as to WHY hhampuz can exclude/include without giving clear detailed explanation that stands up to scrutiny and seems fair when matched against transparent and fair thresholds that are applied equally to all members.
3. does not alter the support of the dox of the forum treasurer
4. does not change what we believe is HHampuz prior support for observable scammers.