Your reference does not accuse, at worst it implies, and he basically agreed that it probably wasn't you..
Different user (ibminer).
Good catch, yeah I slipped..
I fix/edited it with
SI don't mind admitting my mistakes when I make them..
And again, the context matters very much. ibminer makes fun of Og's mining coin thingy or whatever it is. Og posts an accusation with a question mark. Then deletes it. Then refuses to acknowledge it ever existed. Then finally... "you shouldn't fear people seeking clarity".
So he did accuse, then deleted it?
Do you think LoyceV's glowing post logger bot caught it? LoyceV?
I don't know how to work that thing.. Professional witness to the stand?
"weak sauce"
Yeah, it's "weak sauce" untill I see it..
I trust you to not lie to me but I don't even really understand what you mean about some accusation with a "?"..
I believe he edited his post a lot because I do too.. I might edit my posts 5 times in the first minute or so after hitting posts the first time, heh..
Sticky spacebars n such..
He used to post red trust with that "weak sauce" when he was in DT and his victims were not. Thankfully that doesn't quite work these days.
True, he may have been a bit heavy handed back then against some he personally didn't trust/like but things were stricter back then and with a bit different code of conduct..
DT1s and DT2s get away with a lot today they wouldn't have back then.. Now it's a lot of "I stopped so many scams and spam I deserve to get away with xxx" (virtue signaling), so no consequences for bad actions for anyone with half a decent reputation.. If you leave a whole lot of correct feedback then your feedback is worth more than booting you for whatever stupid shit you did..
(Not "you" but just like in general, I'm bad at the "you" thing)
Back then saying anything false would get someone red trust.. Their are more checks and balances these days but most up-and-coomers are more liberal so there have the standards gone..