Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 23, 2020, 08:40:09 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 23, 2020, 06:01:39 AM

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.

you can accept the truth (see below) or you can keep dwelling on a nothingburger.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 23, 2020, 01:45:01 AM

the post you linked to was a direct reply to TECSHARE, not to me, so i didn't actually see it, since i was directly responding to nutildah. you are assuming malice where there was none. TECSHARE obviously interpreted nutildah's words the exact same way i did.

you can continue making mountains out of molehills, but this point still stands:

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 22, 2020, 08:23:06 PM

nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority" here. i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so here. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

Right, so the "truth" is you continued to have a misconception about my words after I had already clarified what I meant. That renders your assumption unreasonable.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 23, 2020, 08:40:09 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 23, 2020, 06:01:39 AM

- If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag?

"fraud" is a necessary standard. i assume it would fall under "violation of applicable laws". intentional deception to secure unlawful gains seems to apply here. if we're talking about coin-stealing malware, then it constitutes theft as well. if proven, it seems tag-worthy.

Quote from: nutildah on February 23, 2020, 06:01:39 AM

- If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag?

this one is pretty loaded. what does "obvious" mean? do we actually know it's a ponzi scheme?

what do you mean by "supporting"? are we talking about actively operating the scheme, actively shilling for it? wearing a paid signature advertisement?

Quote from: nutildah on February 23, 2020, 06:01:39 AM

- If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag?

if proven, this seems like another case of fraud. victims are being intentionally deceived for the operator's unfair gain. red tags seem okay under this scenario, assuming the proof is well-documented, but i'm curious to see if there are opposing arguments.

thank you for engaging in a real discussion about the topic. this is exactly the sort of stuff i'm hoping we can discuss and build consensus around.

As reasonable as they may be, I'm not really interested in your opinions on these subjects. These questions were directed at TECSHARE as he is the one who opened this thread. Your answers have been noted, however.