Quote from: nullius on Today at 08:45:33 AM

I had presumed that you simply hadn’t thought this through, and would be amenable to reasonable discussion and reconsideration—rather than blowing off valid concerns with a snide remark stating the obvious.
My mistake.

Your assumption was why I made myself clear. It was not meant to be a snide remark, but a succinct response to whether I think before I act. I may have read between the lines with your comment but you did clear up that you felt I hadn't given it enough thought.

My concern remains that an abandoned and unmonitored account of value should be flagged, up until the Forum acts to secure and protect it. I hold no ill will against anyone who thinks I've overstepped, that's the system at play. I encourage everyone including yourself to do as you see appropriate. I am not uncompromising in any way shape or form, but my threshold for removing my support remains the Forum take onus on locking and securing the account. Which I 100% believe they should do for the history and - to this day - useful and relevant information they created.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 08:33:31 AM

Since this is the Flag reference thread, I'll respond here: I've opposed the Flag.
I don't worry about future scams: the chance of the account getting compromised didn't increase. The risk could even be less than it was for instance a year ago, especially if theymos bans it as Lauda requested.

I respect your decision. I disagree with the risk. Given the elusive and eloquent nature in which we were provided information, it's hard to tell what is meant by compromised PGP keys. There could have been a larger than known data leak or something of that nature.

Why else would it be stated that none of the standard "proof of persona" we normally use are to be considered acceptable.

I really don't know, but until there is some action by theymos, I'll keep my support for the flag.