Quote from: marlboroza on February 22, 2020, 11:03:37 PM

Now you are just trolling.

Quote from: truth or dare on February 22, 2020, 10:59:57 PM

Remember who you are talking to, after all... I put them on ignore a while ago and am not looking back.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 22, 2020, 11:06:26 PM

you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not.

LOL. That's objectively bullshit. Droning on about a misconception you had about what I meant when I said "the vast minority" which was clarified before you even started questioning me about it... Either you have poor reading comprehension or were mustering an attack, take your pick.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 22, 2020, 11:06:26 PM

i am perfectly fine with current DT members retaining their status---i'm just hoping we can pressure them towards more objective standards, and that the more abusive ones will be forced to rein in their abuse or be excluded.

Well, lucky for you, that's how the system was designed to operate and is currently operating.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 23, 2020, 04:46:43 AM

None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.

Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting.

This is all purely projection. You've been given several opportunities to bring evidence to your claims and support your overall points (which you are making, therefore the burden of proof is on you) but instead you chose to engage in more projection, which is one of the reasons why people are coming to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite.

As far as bringing forth evidence that "mass tagging stops scams", all that can be provided is anecdotal evidence where people say they might have invested in x if y had not tagged z, which you might be quick to dismiss as non-evidence anyway.

What is probable, however un-provable, is that career scam busters like Bruno, Vod, cryptodevil and tmfp have likely saved investors hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of dollars over the years, and this includes people arriving at the forum through Google searches and other websites in addition to forum members.

Its true that sometimes an innocent account gets caught up in a "mass tagging" and tagged when it shouldn't have been, but the great thing about the trust system is that the tag can easily be removed if a case is presented as to why it was incorrectly left. I see it happen on occasion. This is why comparisons to Mao and so forth are inaccurate as there is no fixing a murder.

Let's use this opportunity to nail down a few uncertainties:

- If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag?

Its OK if you think the answer is "no" to any or all of these -- let's just start with some examples as they are all pretty objective cases of an account having scammer intentions even if there is no proof of them actually being one.