I also have good reason to believe he has been trying to get some people who are active in handing out tags to notice this connection "on their own".
Further, with the near admission of puppetry used in this thread, I would question your claim of lack of involvement in this
thread, and
this one...
It is clear to me this has been spread by Suchmoon since
mid May, this included by a trust exclusion and a neutral rating (I don't remember which one came first). This happened to be within a few weeks of getting a rule prohibiting the sale of KYC verified accounts without explaining how they are not hacked
enforced. It has long been my presumption the rating was in response to my weeding out this particular type of fraud in the marketplace as a form of retaliation.
For me, posts like these are just as incriminating as any of the evidence presented here. These read exactly like someone who has had a grudge against suchmoon for a long time (i.e. QS), and not at all like a relative newbie. Why not rally against nutildah, or The-Devil, who started the threads? Why not against Lauda, who has left red trust? Instead he chooses to rally on suchmoon and even make completely unrelated and unsubstantiated claims about selling accounts?
I have seen Suchmoon insinuate this connection for months and have tried to bring this to the attention of people who are frequently tagging people. I have been paying attention and all this ultimately can be traced to what Suchmoon has posted. The OPs role is puppet, the-devil is a suspicious merit farmer who abandoned his account as soon as he created another thread about me. The-devil has no real reason to highlight the connection because QS who created a flag on him has no power to harm his account and he cited literally nothing as proof. Lauda is not acting fairly in my opinion and I think he should remove the tag if he cant articulate evidence. Another suspicious new user made an attempt at getting Lauda to look at merit he sent me months ago. I have seen Lauda get attacked a lot but I am willing to bet that wasnt the last time he accidentally quoted his own post.
I think you bring up this detail is akin to pettifogging.
I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...
I have reported many posts, without the expectation of any kind of recognition or reward (unlike some other people who brag about their report count), and for no reason other than to make the forum better and cleaner. I however will no longer be reporting posts as this has been rewarded with information from this activity being used in a witch hunt. I would recommend others do the same if the official stance on disclosing this information is
too bad, we have the right to disclose it when we wish. I dont think many other people would feel this kind of disclosure is appropriate.