Topic: Bitcointalk Rules..Bend/Break - page 2. (Read 299 times)

No bans, just negative trust ratings.

That's right. The worst thing about that is that the buyer might use that reputation to scam other members who don't know that the account has changed hands. Imagine the consequences of buying or hacking an account of a trusted escrow who uses that reputation to begin an escrow deal worth several Bitcoins?

There is actually no rule against it, but that doesn't mean it should be done because it shouldn't. When talking about merit rules, theymos only mentions that merit sources are not allowed to sell their merits. But if you merit yourself, you can expect to be tagged by forum members for abuse and rightly so.

This is also not something that the Bitcointalk forum rules prohibit. It's a rule that signature and bounty campaigns have if they want to. But the forum admins don't don't oversee any of it.

That's exactly what happened to bill gator if I remember correctly. He got a temp and sig ban for a plagiarized post that he admitted he never wrote because he bought the account long after it was made.

I have a topic regarding sales of Bitcointalk account and why it should be discouraged, you can read it, it indirectly talks about what you are asking about.

Sales of bitcointalk account must be discouraged

Regardless of an account bought or not, the user will be banned if there is any cases of plagiarism, that is why it is good to start from the scratch just like you did.

I also once wondered what to do with alternative accounts that previously received negative tags, and subsequently opened new accounts. But practice shows that if someone receives a negative review, he can freely open a new account, without further consequences for himself.
This is done regularly by bounty hunters. I have met very few people who would be marked negatively for opening a new clean account.
Here, of course, in my understanding, double logic works. The person remains the same, we know his past mistakes, but it is worth changing the name, and he turns into an innocent character.
This can be called common self-deception. And this is one of the reasons for the existence of various scammers on the forum, as they understand that getting banned is more difficult than getting rid of a negative tag.

In my opinion, there should not be any sort of plea for such case, the user already went against the ethics guiding forum users from purchasing accounts, and once the account has been bought and ownership transferred, whatever offense or wrongdoing on the account is automatically transferred to the new user (the one who bought the account), that is exactly the same way good reputation is transferred when accounts are bought, and most times the new user uses it to scam people, that's why account sales are 'discouraged', cause you can't tell what the new owner would do with the account.

Having said that, if you buy an account, and it's discovered that the erstwhile user committed the offense of plagiarism, the account is definitely going to be banned, notwithstanding 'who' actually plagiarized, and if the user makes a case that the account was actually bought and he/she didn't commit the offense themselves, that still isn't a good reason to unban the account cause a user who buys an account is more often than not, not an asset to the forum, and the mods will see no reason to unban the account.

not sure about you but for me, it is pretty straightforward. it means what it says. giving a negative tag to the user selling an account or to the one buying the account is pretty much up to the members of the forum.

as far as I know, there isn't. (I guess, there is a special case based on what DdmrDdmr wrote)

yes, and yes.

if an account is found out to be connected to a tagged account, as far as I know, members tend to put either neutral or negative feedback saying that the account is connected to a negatively tagged account.

A fair share of questions, and not something that has/has a lack of debate on the matter.

Let’s start by saying what’s already been reiterated many times: One can have multiple accounts if he likes (I’ve got another for scraping the forum for example), and there are many legitimate reasons for having one such as separating business from opinion, distinguishing between when you’ve got your full attention and when you’re on the road, and so forth .. or even for bounty hunting through various accounts, or expressing an opinion from an account for fear of retaliation or loss of reputation from his main account.

What one can´t do is, what’s been said many times: talk to himself in order to bump a thread, merit himself, participate in the same campaign with multiple accounts (lest the rules let him do it). In general terms, one should be ethical with his accounts so as to say. One could even have a farm if he wishes, but under this principle if be, and respecting the concerning rules.

In terms of account selling, these are not encouraged, and generally frowned upon. What does that really mean? Well, likely that there is no way of controlling account sales if people have more than one working non-alcoholised neuron, so prohibiting them whilst vouching for freedom, when the end result is near to null, is possibly the reason for not doing so. I’d prefer them to be prohibited, leaving a solid reference rule if caught, but they are not. KYC is obviously out of the matter.

Account sales, nevertheless, do kind of go against the principle of effort that one is accustomed nowadays to rank-up an account, and if does seem like skipping the line with a fast-track pass, which fells like a kick in the genital area. Again, not prohibited, but not really liked.

They also could potentially, but not necessarily, lead to piggybacking of other’s credibility, and just the mere rank is often viewed in awe by newcomers to the forum, often believing more that said from higher ranks. That is a potential scenario that allows some to try to scam based on this trust on rank, but you never really know.

Others may purchase accounts to fast-track their participation in bounties with a better pay, although often campaigns require earned merits in the last x days, which is not often part of the bundle.

Eventually, some may get tagged (both buyer and seller), but it’s a delicate matter, and the opinion is divided between those that believe that a sold account is a potential scammer and should be tagged as a threat, and those that do not believe it should, lest there be clear evidence that the account is very likely (not just potentially) to be a scammer. I’m with the latter.

Concerning the baggage that a bought account may have, that is the buyer’s risk. It may indeed be tainted with plagiarism, and could well be spotted later on and banned. I recall one such case of a well-known forum member, who got banned for plagiarism committed by the prior owner, and was eventually let off the hook. That is practically a one-off I’d sat though, and if one chooses to buy an account, he should be prepared to potentially be banned (if his posting history contains plagiarism for example), or tagged as things stand.

You should not view this as an impact only on yourself (eg as the account owner), but also on others (who have or want to trade). "Not recommended" because of the level of risk.
If you are an account seller, you will not know the exact background of the buyer. Maybe the buyer is just taking advantage of the trust level of the account you are selling to deceive others. If you're the buyer, the seller may have an unresolved agreement with the account that you didn't know about or the owner kept secret so that it becomes a problem for you someday.

Yes, imo the tag is required according to the conditions and level of risk (not always negative).

Forum rules are vague. Admin leaves the floor open for interpretation. This rule in particular was not well detailed because of this I think the rules are bent by users to suit their wants. When we say accounts sales are discouraged, are we talking ban, negative tags or just frowned upon. Buying an account other than copper membership sounds like cheating because I have discovered in Bitcointalk each user has a reputation. Therefore transferring ownership of an account to another is transfer of reputation. Then there is the risk of plagiarised content on the account. One can buy an account that has cases of unreported plagiarism without knowing. In the future, when the plagiarism comes to light the person loses his/her account. Is there a plea for such case? I read a case where someone was caught having multiple accounts on a bounty. He didn't seem sad about it he only said "it took long before they finally burst his account farm" or something like that. My point is he admitted to owning a farm and wasn't angry he would lose his account. In my opinion he saw account farming as a lucrative business.
If someone is caught selling accounts. Should the user be tagged? And the sold accounts tagged also? Should a user decides to create alt account for himself and gets a negative trust on one account. Shouldn't the negative trust be applied to both accounts since they are managed by the same person?