I thought so LOL
I accept your explanation.
But should I say what you are saying, it's not right?
How about if I go hard, overreacts and say that the theory given by LoyceV is what I believe right or 90+% possible to be right. You saw Little Mouse distrusted you, then you looked through his profile to find something to distrust him too. Accidentally you found something even better and took the advantage of it. But now you are trying to hide the truth because you know obviously it was a wrong practice and others will start to distrust you for this since it came to light, which eventually will lead you to be out from your DT status. How would you defend it? How would you defend my overreactions?
No, I will not go with LoyceV's theory since accused person was you, and you already gave an explanation which is possible. It's a mutual respect to each others and I would practice it. Yes, I will become hard against you if I have obvious evidences against you and I find you scammed anyone.
My point is - Little Mouse gave his explanation and let it be. It can be true, or it can be something else. We don't know. But there are no need to overreact in it. There are no need to push it too much. I have not seen him to scam anyone. I do not see there are any obvious evidence against him so far to him become a scammer too. By the way, it's just not for Little Mouse, but it should be for everyone too. We need a level of respect to each others to practice our own rights and privacy.
Quote
On a serious note, I have a question. Why after 15 long months you felt that Little Mouse and RapTarX should be tagged? LoyceV gave a crazy theory, but I would like to believe that it's not true. FYI, I am not saying that one should not do anything in such type of case but why after these long times. It seemed everyone forgot about it. I did to be honest until I was quoted.
From what I recall I was going through a routine of adding members to my distrust list and was tagging away at various accounts and noticed nearly all of them already had red or negative, it so happens I found the Little Mouse account and read the feedback given by Lauda.But should I say what you are saying, it's not right?
How about if I go hard, overreacts and say that the theory given by LoyceV is what I believe right or 90+% possible to be right. You saw Little Mouse distrusted you, then you looked through his profile to find something to distrust him too. Accidentally you found something even better and took the advantage of it. But now you are trying to hide the truth because you know obviously it was a wrong practice and others will start to distrust you for this since it came to light, which eventually will lead you to be out from your DT status. How would you defend it? How would you defend my overreactions?
Considering I just bumped this topic after 15 months, this looks like retaliation, which I don't consider correct use of the Trust system.
No, I will not go with LoyceV's theory since accused person was you, and you already gave an explanation which is possible. It's a mutual respect to each others and I would practice it. Yes, I will become hard against you if I have obvious evidences against you and I find you scammed anyone.
My point is - Little Mouse gave his explanation and let it be. It can be true, or it can be something else. We don't know. But there are no need to overreact in it. There are no need to push it too much. I have not seen him to scam anyone. I do not see there are any obvious evidence against him so far to him become a scammer too. By the way, it's just not for Little Mouse, but it should be for everyone too. We need a level of respect to each others to practice our own rights and privacy.
Quote
That resulted in everything that followed after Little Mouse sent PMs to at least one DT member which (to my knowledge) was claiming some form of retaliation on my part rather than using the PM to protest his innocence in the strongest possible terms.
This is irrelevant.