Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 11:44:47 AM

Quote from: BitcoinGirl.Club on Today at 11:24:12 AM

Without any concrete evidence you can not leave a negative feedback to an account.

Where do we draw the line? In another case, theymos posted this:

Quote from: theymos on February 05, 2019, 05:44:52 PM

I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original

That was enough for several red tags.

There are no line to draw unless clear evidence that can warrant a negative feedback. No clear evidence, in my book there are doubts, when there are doubts, I think a neutral could be the best we can go.

Even when the main man thought it's 25% which is one forth of the equation, he still has not gone for a negative feedback. But some over enthusiastic members did not mind to leave negative feedback. That's where we can see the DT became to easy to gain.

Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 01:32:39 PM

Quote from: BitcoinGirl.Club on Today at 11:24:12 AM

No one cares what you trust or not. Without any concrete evidence you can not leave a negative feedback to an account. Let's see what your feedback starts with

How much more evidence does one need that dealing with Ratmetric would be high risk?

Petulant deleting of posts, rescinding sponsorship ("donation" LOL), removing trust ratings/inclusions/exclusions, name change, e-mail/password change, the list goes on and on. Not even talking about the verbal attacks on anyone who dares to mention him (freedom of speech FTW).

Alleged sale of the account is just one of many issues with this user. I can't blame anyone for adding red trust - there is enough stuff going on with it to call it "high risk".

I am not a Symmetrick Ratimov's fan, in fact if anyone looks back to the history, I am fairly sure that they will find I was one of the early Ratimov critic. His plagiarism and such things, as a result he never liked me. Many times his dis-likeness escalated in the reputation board. But even after all these, I still don't see there needs a red warrant where no clear evidences of him is not the original owner.

A wrong is always wrong. Just because a person has lost all his credibility does not mean we justify a wrong as right over him.