Topic: 270 trust.7 trust.3 trust compared to minus 128 trust - page 2. (Read 1035 times)

And you're still not banned. So yes, allowed. Not considered trustworthy though. Your refusal to separate forum rules from the trust system is a big part of your problem.

Thats not true.At that time there were many valid reasons to buy higher ranked accounts.
One of them was being able to post images on a thread.
You instantly suggest that it was planned to use to scam people by acting as the bought account.Thats your generalisation turning everyone instantly into a scammer.
You are pathetic with these DT members who massivly tagged people for buying accounts.
You wanna know why ?
At that time the forum rule clearly said buying accounts is allowed and when doing my duty by confirming it by a mod if its allowed to buy accounts and he confirms it
than i'm asking myself with what claim you guys gave me a negative rating ?
I haven't seen at that time a single well seen thread indicating that buying accounts will lead to a negative trust which is getting marked as a scammer.

Maybe you can explain to me which normal human who reads the inoffical forum rules which said its allowed to buy forum accounts (in my case even a mod confirmed) will keep searching if there is a group which isn't allowing it.

Normal people read the forum rules and act based on these rules.And thats the biggest hyprocacy trying to not break the forum rules you go to the inoffical list read the information act by it and still get tagged as scammer because a group declared the inoffical forum list as incorrect.

Please show me where have you at that time communicated that this forum list isn't protecting against negative taggs when following it ?

It started with blazed and his choosen people like Lauda who instantly started tagging everything even for past actions where people had no knowledge that DT members are against accounts sales.

You turned valid members who always complied with forum rules into scammers
and it was DT's fault since you never informed majority of the community of these changes.

Giving examples makes you giving red trust ?Seems you are still trying hard to justify your past actions/abuse.


In the real world you wanna know how this would be defined ?As nepotism


@DT members any one of you can give me a exect date from when it was announced by DT members in public that selling and buying accounts will lead to negative tagging ?
Any offical thread about it informing the community ?Or do you again claim that its the community duty to be informed about your endless new rules you try to implement?

The biggest hyprocat himself on this board is theymos.
Allowing to buy sell accounts on this forum but supporting DT members who give negative tag for something he allows.
If he wants to negative tag account sales he should clearly write in the inoffical forum rules.The word discourage doesn't mean you will get tagged as scammer if you obey the forum rules.
At my time it was only written account sales are allowed.
And suchmoon manipulation that technically scams are also allowed is wrong.
It is clearly written they are not to judge what is a scam and what not.Its not saying a word about being allowed to scam where it said on account sales clearly that you are allowed to sell accounts.

I agree with you, and there's nothing I'd like to see more than Theymos finally banning account sales, with some consequences if a member is caught trying to sell an account. 

Assume he's not going to do anything, though (because that's likely going to be the outcome).  The red-tagging of account buyers & sellers will have to continue so as to discourage the practice, and this leaves it up to DT members who use their own judgement and bring their own human failings and whatever else to the table when doing the tagging.  You might have read in this thread the recent incident with grtthegreat and how I gave him a pass based on his overall trust, and the case with iluvbitcoins where initially I did the exact opposite.  Generally I trust my ability to make good calls as far as feedback is concerned, but those two examples were ones where I had a hard time deciding what was the right thing to do.

I think buyers & sellers of accounts should both be tagged in general, but I'm of the opinion that there can be mitigating factors unique to individual cases.  I'd also like to point out that anyone who feels strongly enough about the issue and agrees with my opinion is welcome to step up and hand out negs as well.  This isn't a one man show here--nor should it be.  But instead of the inherent subjectivity (and some other factors), it sure would be nice if Theymos made a ruling on the issue of account selling and settled it once and for all.

I read that thread anyways I will reply here.
Since this is not a forum rule and trust is also very subjective so you are all free (with your reasonable thinking) what to tag or what not to tag.

Actually, main responsibility lies with theymos to declare the "Account sales" prohibitive.  I do not find this logic sound "if we cannot prevent it, so we will not make rule for it".

There are so many sites and games accounts that openly sell in market while there TOS forbid it. They just ban the user who are proved guilty. They are not going with logic "Since we are not able to catch all buyers, so we will not ban anybody".

Persons who buy accounts with a neutral or positive trust are pretending to be honest and more knowledgeable members than they actually are. It is often the case that previous profiles of account's buyers were banned or have been tagged for cheating at the past. If anyone needs to remove Newbie's limitations s/he can just buy Copper member.
After all, high forum ranks must show that their owners are competent people which can share experiences with other members. Therefore, in my opinion, accounts sale should be banned.

That doesn't make any sense. It's allowed by the rules so what exactly are the moderators going to do about it?

Firstly, it not a bizarre statement but rather it can be stated as a genuine view of any forum member as most of them would think the same.

This is the exact point, account buy and sell is allowed in forum rules and anyway its the job of a moderator to look upon it not a DT. Still, we can argue here very long about the buy and sell but just my point is sometimes neutral trust too suites situation and it should be used at that time. Giving second chances is sometimes beneficial to everyone according to me and Tia Mowry .

Yes, if a DT has a decision to work with this for "free" and tag account trades and other spams, I personally appreciate there work and motivation in making the forum a spam free place but they should also take into account that judging a person online is not that easy and you could anytime hamper a constructive and helpful member of the forum. On the other hand, this situation could just be solved with a neutral trust as @Yahoo62278 suggested in my quoted post.

It's a bizarre statement coming from such an old member. The forum doesn't moderate scams, therefore the trust system takes care of that. Conversely, the trust system does not enforce forum rules, moderators take care of that.

So the fact that account sales are allowed doesn't mean DT can't treat these actions negatively. Scams are also technically allowed, but that doesn't mean DT can't treat scams negatively.

BTW buying an account to post an ANN is shady AF. The perp is pretending to be something/somebody they're not. They could "contribute to the betterment of the forum" with a new account just the same. There is no reason to use a bought account other than for deception.

I think you have some valid points here and we can use it to make the cases of account buy/sell to handle effectively as we can't say all the buyers are here to scam with the new account, some of them want to start a business or post an ANN and give an impact of higher level account in management but this does not look scammy always as they can later contribute to the betterment of the forum and become a very active part of the community. As its already stated in the official rules that account buy and sell is allowed as DT member firstly has nothing to do with it as its officially accepted by forum itself but still if someone thinks a bad person has got hands on a good account with proves of the sale, you could  just better leave a natural trust that states the change in hand of the account and the job is nearly done ( its not a job of DT by the way).

Same goes with the case of OP, as he explained he was buying the account for his friend to start an ANN and post images with and at that time in 2017 the copper membership upgrade was not available too by taking into content his post to buy account HERE. He also has the benefits of the doubt due to the recent untagged cases of the account sale.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes your trust rating well deserved, bitch.

Any news on my upcoming lawsuit?

If i would start bitching all your project owners would be already contacted .....You think posting is bitching ?

Where you not the one defending my massiv negativ trust because i tried buying an account ?
And here no actions from you ?
Funny how quickly you change your opinion.
What about my negativ feedback ?I still got them for the same reason you are now denying giving the negativ trust feedback.
Seems legit to me making me looking like the biggest scammer here and letting buddies stay at is.

DT members who abused their power in the past got their own pages all over the internet where people are discussing.
You want a solution ?First fix the abuse to inocent people.Else you will never have a working soltution.Why ?Because you treated all members not the same way as it should.

And anyone beliving you can stop the decrease of lower quality when a forum goes mainstream has no clue.
There is no chance you can get the quality back.You need to realise it.All you can do is trying to inclose.
However the massiv abuse in the past will always lead to heavy discussion and fury because crypto is about decentralising and protecting each individual.
Here a small group took the power and abused inocent people and gives a shit about it.

Thats totaly against the crypto philosohy.
A scumback like Lauda acting like he is in control of that board where in reality this is a peanuts digger.

How many bigger accounts have you guys tagged for voicing their opinions against you ?
Should be set in forum rules voicing an opinion against some DT members leads to negative trust

But you know what people are give shit about the trust system.
More and more people doesn't care about it.As thats the result of the massiv abuse.
They know the trust points are worth horse shit when given by these DT members

Why do you go straight to name calling and asshole behavior? Noone will listen to you if you're gonna act like a damn 2 year old. You need your diaper changed?

On a serious note, I don't know if tagging accounts for buying/selling is the way to go hence why I have not tagged many. I think it would be perfectly fine for users to give the account a neutral stating the account is bought/sold. The problem I see is when someone is given a neutral tag, it does not show up unless someone specifically goes into a users profile and views their trust. Let's face it, most idiots don't even do that when trading. They just look at the trust score and rank and think oh he's an old member I can trust him. How does that work out for most?

If you have a better suggestion feel free to voice your opinion(without being a little bitch about it) and maybe it will be implemented. Maybe theymos needs to create sold account tags or something and if the community proves the account was sold, it can have the sold tag placed on it and trust removed

sorry, i don't quite understand what "such accounts" you are referring to.

You do understand that one of the reasons why we have merit are such accounts?

Not to mention other things...

I was referring to trades of farming/hacked/whatever accounts. grtthegreat seems scammed by 2 such accounts and liquidated collateral. It is not equal to people who are buying accounts for specific purpose or people whose only business here is to sell accounts. So benefit of doubt because of that, because they are somehow established member and probably won't do it again. Tricky situation, actually.

i think He is referring to the merit/DT "gang" bullshit as a whole.

---

it's off topic ,tho he has a valid point in this, having the benefit of  doubt should not be a privilege to certain group of members, just because someone is somehow an established member, that alone should not make him any different from the newbie who joined last night when comes to applying laws or rather standards in the case he refers to,  in fact the contrary makes more sense, the punishment to those members who have been here long enough and have no excuse of " i didn't know this was wrong to do" should be stronger than to the rest.

i am not against giving seconds chances but this has to apply to everyone else to be fair , just my 2 cents.

Merit cycle is an important sacrament in the cult of Lauda.

Those(bold part) are my words but I don't remember tagging you and I don't remember saying anything you posted unless you used my words to say something to someone else, but that doesn't make any sense because you used word "you" and it is referring to me unless I missunderstand you.

Again, who or what is Merit Cycle?

Benefit of doubt because of some reasons. Feel free to post your opinion in that thread.

Funny you lost your benefit of doubt when tagging me.

You stated there clearly any account buying selling is seen as scamming.
And now you start talking when somebody else is doing the same ?Seems like you don't have a clear line.

Benefit of doubt because of some reasons. Feel free to post your opinion in that thread.

What's this? Some users think they should be tagged, some users think they should not be tagged and I don't see you posting your valuable opinion in that thread.
Do you think they should be tagged?