Quote from: BlarghRawr on December 11, 2012, 04:37 pmQuote from: grahamgreene on December 11, 2012, 04:18 pmQuote from: BenJesuit on December 11, 2012, 03:25 pmNomadBloodbath reported that DPR recently told vendors that FE is now against guidelines and will be enforced. See his post in this thread's first page towards to bottom: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=91694.0{snip}vendors with 35+ illicit transactions{snip}55+ according to what I last heard, from a vendor with access.Hi BlarghRawr!This is a common misconception; I think the confusion comes from all the discussion on the forums taking place around the number 55 for some reason.I had the same conversation back in November with microRNA:http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=63693.msg570295#msg570295Quoted below for convenience:Quote from: grahamgreene on November 06, 2012, 04:00 pmQuote from: microRNA on November 06, 2012, 07:31 amno offense, but in this case you shouldnt have corrected me - i am in a position to give a more accurate answerthe requirement for the roundtable is 35 transactions, not 55 i am one hundred percent positiveHey microRNA, sorry, I didn't see you'd posted just before me. My apologies, you are correct, it is indeed 35 transactions, as stated by DigitalAlch back in June:Quote from: DigitalAlch on June 09, 2012, 05:15 amFigure I may as well post that now that I'm getting some 45 pm a day about this-You have to have over 35 sales, that were accumulated in a decent amount of time (to keep folks from buying used accounts). Must be illegal goods, have your vendor profile linked in your sig, and as has been stated not be disliked by everyone already in the forum. ~DigiI don't know why I was so adamant that it was 55 transactions; perhaps that was he original number needed when the Vendor Roundtable idea was initially being discussed? ???Either way, all cleared up now. :)- grahamgreene