The PM looked scammy but I guess it was "okay" after reading this thread.
However, methods like this are inacceptable:
I was able to get access to SPQRCoin yesterday answering "1+1" with "2". No joke. He is in DefaultTrust level 2.
greenplastic gave negative trust to me. Now he is security locked for using "5" as answer to "how old was justin in 1980?". He was warned and had left this stupid question (answer should be between 0 and 99, the rate limit is one try per 45 second and IP address - in reality, you get a bunch of IPs and laugh about the limit).
Would you prefer that he have left an insecure account wide-open for someone else to hack? While greenplastic himself not only ignored good advice about securing his account, but attacked the giver of the advice with negative trust feedback? Please advise if you think that would be a better solution.
If he
only locked the accounts, I don’t think he did anything wrong. (
Not legal advice. Speaking ethically here.) theymos can check server logs to see what he really did.