Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 04:33:46 PM

Ok, so after reading and checking the trust I have a few things that concern me.

1. is it confirmed he is BitcoinExpart?

DarkStar_ showed a link between the two accounts posting the same address:

Quote from: DarkStar_ on November 20, 2016, 04:48:20 PM

Quote from: mrjoy15 on November 20, 2016, 06:44:45 AM

You all are guys really doing great and hands up job.Your contribution hard working too fresh and clean this place up.I will be tried my best to take an important part to find out alts account or any wrong that actually against this forum according to the rule.

Maybe start by admitting your own alts?

Accounts Connected: mrjoy15 and BitcoinExpart

Proof: BitcoinExpart uses address 1GFLEkegHRdB16hRYqRspvHiKEuAUjQs5s to apply to the Let's Think About the Future campaign, here. mrjoy15 uses the same address here.

Misc: 1GFLEkegHRdB16hRYqRspvHiKEuAUjQs5s is an exchange address according to walletexplorer (over 8.5k BTC). BitcoinExpart has a -ve tag from yahoo about shit posting, and mrjoy15 has a neutral from monbux about spamming.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 04:33:46 PM

3. How do we know this account hasn't changed hands?

The OP still has that address in his profile, and it's the same address he posted in this unedited post in August of 2016. Since the red-tag was received before the implantation of the Merit system and the subsequent lack of earned merit, it's unlikely the account any value for a buyer. There also doesn't seem to be any change in posting style or the quality of English.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 04:33:46 PM

4. What if the trust was removed but you couldn't join sig campaigns for 5 years? I assume that's your only motivation for this topic as do others.

I don't get this. Of course he wants to join a sig campaign, but so do many of us. I'm wearing one, you're wearing one, anyone who could would if they were to be accepted. There's nothing wrong with the desire to join a sig campaign. The OP's post history doesn't inspire much confidence in his ability to land a position on a campaign, but that's up to the managers to decide.

The trouble is the OP screwed the pooch, and hasn't made amends or taken responsibility. For that alone I think the red-tag is justified. If LoyceV's reasoning for leaving the tag is because he asked for positive feedback, I would reconsider. The OP's English sucks, and in the context of that PM I can see that he may have mistyped. The whole sentence that includes the phrase "drop a positive" is weirdly constructed and hard to understand.