@marlboroza
From what I can see the negative trust was removed just recently (minutes ago) but regardless of that you correctly pointed out there was a valid case for it to stay. I have checked some posts and threads and tend to agree with you because after engaging with the OP on and off the past few weeks I have concluded he is not to be trusted at all. There will of course be those that will find him trustworthy and that is a great thing to have varying views across the board.
I would go so far as to say if there was any doubt the original contested feedback being considered harsh/wrong then the second feedback which was uncontested was probably highly accurate going by evidence available. I am unsure as to why the updated tag was removed but I think the responsible way forward would be to add an appropriate tag ensuring a caveat that it will be removed in future as long as no more issues arise.
I mean, does anybody actually know how many alt-accounts he was using before and if he is using any right now?
Does anybody know the names of his present or previous alt-accounts?
In my opinion if a relevant tag was added and the OP continues to post intermittently about scams and add to that there are no complaints mentioned about his campaign management for EARNBET (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217830.0) then the tag would probably be removed sooner rather than later but to leave no tag at this stage would probably be a mistake. That is my opinion.
The original tag quoted was this:
Lauda 2019-12-29
Reference Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say. It was then replaced by this before it was removed:
Lauda Lying, malicious attempt at perpetuating slander, account farming, trading, ICO bumping, where does it end with this user?
Do not trust this user with anything financially, nor anything that is written by this user as he clearly writes whatever the payee pays to be written @eddie13
Much respect to you for your comments and background explanation about the issue in both posts.
You are absolutely correct, tagging anybody on the basis of leaving merit for another user is wrong. Personally I would only consider tagging a user for leaving merit
if there was case of merit abuse. From what I can see (and as you mentioned) nobody contested the updated tag but that has been removed.
Your suggestion for marlboroza to re-enforce or re-instate the tag seems a great idea but if there is consensus another user could add it but in my opinion it would be far more conducive to take precautions and add a relevant tag rather than not add it.
As for not keeping up with everything, to be fair there are always things going on around the forum and nobody can be expected to keep up with everything. Some threads and issues will always go under the radar. I lose track of what is going on frequently then try to catch up when I get a chance but it is not always easy.