Re: Bitcointalk Charity and its funds

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 01:36:21 AM

I'm not buying it. The information provided is way too vague and without receipts there's no way to validate it. Only one of the individuals even offered any information, and a generous amount time has passed since the data was requested.

And what's with the lack of receipts? I can only think of two reasons why someone handling other peoples money wouldn't ensure he has all receipts to verify his transactions; malice or ineptitude. Neither inspire much confidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2895
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2894
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2893

Ok, so I'm going to explain why I am going to support the flags against Cabalism13 and bl4nkcode but not against crwth.

As for cabalism13 it is clear. He was in charge of the operation, admitted to taking $500 for personal use, posted that donations were accepted at non-escrow addresses via PM and admitted to yahoo62278 wrongdoing.

As for bl4nkcode, he is the escrow and had responsibility for the money. Just yesterday I created a neutral tag with this thread as a reference because between people asking for more time and yahoo62278 talking about an audit again, plus the recent hurricane, I could see a couple of months without even getting a neutral tag. I'm going to support the flag and delete the feedback.

As for crwth I think he is clearly less at fault than the other two. If this were a trial for misappropriation of funds in a company, the most serious penalties would go to the boss (cabalism13) and the treasurer (bl4nkcode,) the employee would surely receive lesser penalty if he received any. Also I don't think we have strong evidence against him unlike the other two. In this case I will neither support nor oppose the flag and will stand by my neutral tag.