Re: I no longer trust anyone who supports BC.Game, and neither should you.
Who would that be, and how much should they be paid 
You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.
You're taking what I said waaay out of context. That post isn't even from this thread; its addressing an entirely different subject.
The point was that a current theme of the environment of the forum is financial motivation over being a good Samaritan, hence my belief about holydarkness.
If what you were saying, that someone should be paid to simply manage a key of a multi-signature wallet (which to me is still laughable if it's in the name of a community like this one) doesn't apply to my point, then how about this one where another highly reputable member stated that a salary is needed just to get advice from trusted forum members before spending money on development?
I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.
First point on the agenda: the salary of the forum board members 
Who would that be, and how much should they be paid
You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.
And that issue was that no matter how you dice it, theymos would have to rely on somebody to manage forum donations.
No, theymos does not need to rely on anyone to manage forum donations if it was managed by a council of multi-signature key holders. The control that he has over forum donations is not a necessity, it's a choice (a choice that lead to the irresponsible management and ultimate outcome of the new forum software).
This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.
How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?
If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.
If we were to go deeper into your question, I'd ask a few back:
- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?
- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?
- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?