Quote from: marlboroza on Today at 12:10:01 PM

It wasn't on me to mention it, besides, there wasn't solid proof of connection.

Yep. Full disclosure: I had talked the possibility over with marlboroza back then but as he mentioned there wasn't enough proof to move forward. So I shelved the whole thing for almost a year, until this came up.

Quote from: eddie13 on Today at 06:38:28 PM

And NO nutildah I’m not saying that it’s perfectly OK that he broke the campaign rules.. It is an untrustworthy action surely..

OK good.

Quote from: eddie13 on Today at 06:38:28 PM

But quite “tame”, and not as bad as the cheating the giveaways actions..

If you say so.

Quote from: eddie13 on Today at 06:38:28 PM

People are pissy because it’s chipmixer..
They think the world should be “fair” or something..

I didn't see people being pissy at all. I saw a lot of people who commented on the implications of this, and then a few people expanded on the findings, and then you came in judging people in an almost strawman-type fashion, for whatever reason. Which just seems bizarre to me given that you said this the previous week:

Quote from: eddie13 on January 29, 2021, 03:58:49 PM

Should be putting a neutral on the project representatives, ANN posters, and managers..
“Bounties full of alt accounts, poor advertising practices” -warn investors..
“Manager repeatedly hires multiple alt accounts” - warn projects of poor managers..

Make the project and managers feel some pain over it..

For all we know the managers accounts and project rep accounts are all alts too..

It sounded like you thought bounty managers that hire alts should be actively punished while higher paying sig campaign managers should look the other way when it comes to rulebreakers, but you've since clarified that's not what you believe. I think that's why I felt some of your input to be problematic, LOL. First time I've ever used that word.