If one of forum moderators started with a bought account, then become moderator, I think that there are always chances for bought accounts to see their negative feedbacks lifted. However, it is a very very tough journey for them to be recognized by forum community, admins, and DT members. Maybe years after getting negative trusts, but if they keep using their accounts, and do constructive things, without any kinds of scams, cheats, and other bad things. Maybe, some day, they might see a light at the end of tunnels. There are chances, but not for all.
However, because it is a very long journey, and requires huge efforts from them, as well as deeply sympathies from DT members, we should come back to the question: Why do they need to buy an account? If they can do constructive things, they should not buy an account, and can build up a good account by themselves, without risks of negative trusts, and without need to keep hopeless hopes over years.
Topic: [Choose 1]Trade Forum accounts, or DT neg trust for trading accounts - banned (Read 1176 times)
May 31, 2019, 01:56:38 AM
May 31, 2019, 01:34:41 AM
Accounts here are worth exactly 0 BTC, you should have no expectation otherwise. Your account could be deleted/banned tomorrow for absolutely no reason, without any sort of recourse.
The market seems to disagree with you. There appear to be willing buyers and sellers who are willing to exchange valuable property for forum accounts. This is in light of the risk of accounts getting banned for arbitrary reasons (or legitimate reasons for actions done by prior owners). Just because we've come to expect a certain level of fair treatment doesn't mean its guaranteed.
I don't think it is appropriate to intentionally have unfair policies in place, nor to encourage people to act unfairly, nor to facilitate unfair behavior If the problem is that users see any negative feedback as a blanket statement that someone will scam them the second they trade with them, thats not an issue with the system, thats a problem with the userbase. If I can leave people negative feedback because they like lemons, and it effects their trading in the slightest, we don't need to issue a rule saying that I shouldn't leave people feedback about lemons, we should issue a mandatory exam and pledge that people will think critically about all features of this forum before using them.
Every negative rating affects a person's score the same way, regardless of the comment attached to the rating, to the extent the person is in your trust network. Many businesses that operate on the forum will use the DT network as a basis for evaluating someone's trustworthiness, including as a basis for hiring someone. If you do not agree with a particular rating, it is not possible to ignore the rating when calculating a person's trust score. Also, once a person has a strong foot in the door of being on DT1, it is nearly impossible to exclude them, regardless of how controversial they are. I am very against setting up rules surrounding what you can and can't leave feedback for.
I am against this and regulating the marketplace. However, the current situation is sufficiently harmful to the economy and the community that I believe some regulation is appropriate. Personally, I don't find people that default on loans deserving of red trust if they stay in communication with the person that lent them the money, and proactively make an attempt to rectify the situation. How many people do you think would be thrilled if I managed to make it a forum rule that you can't leave people negative feedback for defaulting on a loan if they stay active after doing it?
The difference between your example, and leaving negative trust for trading forum accounts is that a loan default is the breaking of a promise, and not honoring the terms of a contract. The trading of a forum account, or the discussion of doing the same is neither. 
May 05, 2019, 07:14:07 AM
you obviously don't trade here, plenty of physical traders here spend 10's of K with each other regularly. shit I've done deals worth $100K plus multiple times without escrow - you trust who you know, hence why buying a rep is such a bad thing
This. I've known many of the physical bitcoin collectors for years. I even trust some of them with my priv keys.
I would trust TMAN with $100k because he sounds like a nice guy and it'd be impossible for someone to impersonate him 
I find it awesome that you guys got so many trusted people here to deal with. May be one day I will also able to say the same.
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem. In order to deal with someone you have to trust them, at least a little bit. I would probably trust most non-batshit users of this forum with $10 but even at that level I'd still do some basic due diligence to ensure that the user I'm dealing with is who they appear to be.
Once you get red tagged, I think your economic perspective in this forum is almost over.
I guess for amount like $10, I can trust this user without an escrow but I am not willing trade with this guy even if escrow is offered.
Accounts here are worth exactly 0 BTC.
Even they are worth zero in your eyes but market is willing to pay the price.you should have no expectation otherwise. Your account could be deleted/banned tomorrow for absolutely no reason, without any sort of recourse.
That is true but probability of theymos doing so is very low or almost zero.(banning user without any reasons.) 
May 01, 2019, 08:29:46 PM
Accounts here are worth exactly 0 BTC, you should have no expectation otherwise. Your account could be deleted/banned tomorrow for absolutely no reason, without any sort of recourse. Just because we've come to expect a certain level of fair treatment doesn't mean its guaranteed. A more realistic example than Theymos deciding anyone with a vowel in their username is banned, is that signature campaigns could get banned from the forum (not immediately likely, but possible for the sake of argument). Would you be able to claim that you've suffered a financial loss in that case? People really seem to be forgetting that this is a forum... DT, trust, etc, no one outside of this little pocket of Meta users cares about any of it. Some users come here to discuss crypto, others frequent the alt coin section, some speculate, others want mining advice or technical help. If you aren't involved in the marketplace sections here, feedback should have 0 effect on you. We don't need to cater to those that discuss hypothetical situations that'd result in them being treated unfairly, the marketplace section is the only section that should have consideration.
That little grounding rant complete, I personally don't care about account sellers or those that choose to buy/sell accounts. I don't leave them negative feedback unless they are pretending to use the previous owner's identity to pull a scam, but I don't see why I'd have the right to tell people that they can't express their opinion on the matter one way or another, or that they can't leave feedback based on their opinion. If the problem is that users see any negative feedback as a blanket statement that someone will scam them the second they trade with them, thats not an issue with the system, thats a problem with the userbase. If I can leave people negative feedback because they like lemons, and it effects their trading in the slightest, we don't need to issue a rule saying that I shouldn't leave people feedback about lemons, we should issue a mandatory exam and pledge that people will think critically about all features of this forum before using them.
I am very against setting up rules surrounding what you can and can't leave feedback for. I'd much rather leave the interpretation of what constitutes a threat up to the individuals participating in a trade. If you think that being left handed is an untrustworthy trait, weird, but maybe I'll read your comment, agree and refuse to trade with a lefty. Otherwise, I'll disregard your comment and potentially ~ you if I find your ratings to be gibberish.
Personally, I don't find people that default on loans deserving of red trust if they stay in communication with the person that lent them the money, and proactively make an attempt to rectify the situation. How many people do you think would be thrilled if I managed to make it a forum rule that you can't leave people negative feedback for defaulting on a loan if they stay active after doing it?
That little grounding rant complete, I personally don't care about account sellers or those that choose to buy/sell accounts. I don't leave them negative feedback unless they are pretending to use the previous owner's identity to pull a scam, but I don't see why I'd have the right to tell people that they can't express their opinion on the matter one way or another, or that they can't leave feedback based on their opinion. If the problem is that users see any negative feedback as a blanket statement that someone will scam them the second they trade with them, thats not an issue with the system, thats a problem with the userbase. If I can leave people negative feedback because they like lemons, and it effects their trading in the slightest, we don't need to issue a rule saying that I shouldn't leave people feedback about lemons, we should issue a mandatory exam and pledge that people will think critically about all features of this forum before using them.
I am very against setting up rules surrounding what you can and can't leave feedback for. I'd much rather leave the interpretation of what constitutes a threat up to the individuals participating in a trade. If you think that being left handed is an untrustworthy trait, weird, but maybe I'll read your comment, agree and refuse to trade with a lefty. Otherwise, I'll disregard your comment and potentially ~ you if I find your ratings to be gibberish.
Personally, I don't find people that default on loans deserving of red trust if they stay in communication with the person that lent them the money, and proactively make an attempt to rectify the situation. How many people do you think would be thrilled if I managed to make it a forum rule that you can't leave people negative feedback for defaulting on a loan if they stay active after doing it?
May 01, 2019, 07:36:44 PM
If the new owner proves trustworthy too, nothing goes against removing the red tag IMHO.
Do other DTs who leave red trust for account sales agree to this? I've seen accounts with several years old red tags saying they're bought. How long should an account be active to deserve a review?Further, you are asking for people to prove their innocence.
The majority of people involved in this kind of business know the rules that a red trust is the logical consequence for account sales.
That is nonsense. This person made an offer to buy an account 3 weeks after creating his account, and continued using that same account for almost two years when he received negative trust. If he knew he would get negative trust, he would have abandoned his account 3 weeks, 1 day in. I had a look at the post history of this user and I think he plays very innocent whenever it's possible. Why didn't he stop posting when he noticed that account sales will result in red trust, the (untrusted) feedback by The Pharmacist was left on June 07, 2016 (just 2 months after the deal) and it's only a matter of time if someone else will detect it or The Pharmacist gets DT (what happened finally). No need for him to keep posting and play innocent when The Pharmacist got DT.
I would also correct you. Not all account sales result in negative trust. I would encourage you to review the case of aTriz — his account was sold and not long after, he went into business with someone who is one of the most active in tagging sold accounts. There are no special circumstances in that case that might warrant a negative rating to be withheld.
They will continue it whatever we will write in the rules. The only question would be if they are all reading the rules and if there are some users who we want to be protected from red tags
I don't know the basis for you thinking this. I have seen countless threads of people complaining about receiving negative trust for this reason, making the argument that the rules allow for account trading. Also, others have pointed out that many people are writing in their marketplace threads that they "only have negative trust for account selling" which negates the value of a negative rating. It is only a matter of time before scammers start to open up account sales threads with the intention of racking up a bunch of negative trust, then start running around scamming people -- they will continue to say they "only have negative trust for account selling" even after people start complaining they were scammed.
Their goal is to have negative trust for reasons that many don’t agree with before their first scam attempt. Negative trust will severely handicap your ability to conduct business but when you have negative trust for questionable reasons, the impact decreases.
I don’t think there is a big difference for each additional negative rating received.
@Quickseller: If you have a suggestion to legalize account sales while it's ensured to exclude the types of shady activities I've listed in my post I'm sure the community is open to discuss it. But I don't see how this can be ensured.
I don't know if you know this about me, but circa 2014/15/16, I traded forum accounts, and in my experience, the overwhelming majority of them do not (try to) scam (as in steal from others). Most would participate in signature campaigns for a couple of months and abandon their account, presumably because they lost interest in the forum. Most do not post crap throughout the forum. But my assumption for now is that things have changed drastically around 2016 / 2017. The big hype brought many new people, some of them were interested in forum contribution, most of them not. Especially from poor countries where the income from Bitcointalk is very useful and much more that the average there. And honestly, I can understand these people completely. They have sometimes no perspective and see here the holy grail to shitpost and earn as much as possible. There is absolutely nothing wrong as long as they are following the rules and make useful posts. I appreciate it if people register here and post good content, no matter if they are wearing a paid signature to earn.
The problem is if they are starting to found "shitposting agencies", purchase accounts and post useless comments 24/7. It's just an appropriate measure to stop this by discouraging account sales.
The ICO hype has changed much in my opinion and that's why the attitude changed towards account sales. People made a business by farming accounts to sell them for signature participants or use them for themselves.
Finally, rules are rules and when the number of spam posts is increasing all the time it's no surprise that the community is not amused.
The ICO hype may very well have resulted in more people farming/buying accounts. I don’t think that the person posts shit, or probably will post shut is a good reason to leave a tag. This actually harms the forum because it makes it more difficult for the administration to detect a certain person is posting garbage. If someone is posting garbage and receives a tag, they will just abandon their account and create/buy a new one because their old one can no longer effectively earn advertising revenue. This will make it less likely they will show up on the radar of the administration.
My argument as to why buying accounts is helpful to the forum has always been along the lines that if someone pays $100 to buy an account, they are effectively paying a $100 bond in which they promise to not try to scam and to not post so much garbage they end up getting banned -- if they do either of these things, the value of their account goes to nearly zero, and they lose the $100 they paid for their account. If they try to scam someone, they must scam for at least the value of their account, and if their attempt is called out before it is successful, they will lose the $100 they paid.
Posting garbage is no reason for a red tag, at least in most cases. And if they buy an account for 100$ they'll just scam a bigger amount. Maybe do a few successful trades before to gain trust and finally increase the amount of money and scam. I remember the account JusticeForYou where the suspicion was exactly the same: gain trust (comments in Meta + VIP account) to pull a scam. Btw, the user stopped posting after he got his red tags...[/quote] I don’t think you need to buy an account to do what you describe. If they try to scam for a large amount, the chances are less that the attempt will succeed. If the attempt is unsuccessful, they will probably get tagged and lose out on the $100.
I don’t think there is any evidence that JusticeForYou was planning on scamming. I am not aware of him engaging in any sales threads. Anyone who leaves ratings because they post a certain option has no business in DT. He was also making the opposite kind of statement that would be expected from someone trying to get positive trust in those types of threads.
On the other side, I have previously argued a person should be able to sell their account because it allows them to obtain money for their account if in need. This gives someone an incentive against scamming someone if they are desperate for money -- they can sell their account instead.
That's an argument I can agree to. But there is still the possibility that the new owner (account buyer) is a scammer and will use this new account for scamming => sounds good - doesn't work. My take on the matter is that account sales shouldn't be allowed. But, its impossible to stop account sales, so the current policy of allowing it to happen in the open is better than pretending it doesn't exist and banning the handful of account buyers that are stupid enough to get caught
There is no reason for the forum to pretend that it will catch all sale. However banning the practice will stop the majority of them. The underlying reason why someone would pay money to buy an account is because they believe doing so will generate money in the future. If there is a real risk of having your purchased account locked, it will make less sense to buy an account. IIRC, there was at least one instance in which someone who was banned created a new account for the purpose of buying an account. BadBear waited until he purchased the account and banned it for ban evasion, causing the person to literally waste their money and probably not try to evade their ban again.
Quote from: SaltySpitoon
Here is the point that I cannot seem to understand about people and their perception of negative feedback. Why is a red mark because you bought an account that big of a deal? The rating, regardless of the comment, affects your trust score, which is how most people are judged. Further, it will often generate a warning to trade with extreme caution, which will cause most people to be hesitant to trade with you. The value of your reputation will decline.
Quote from: SaltySpitoon
The only negative feedback that is outright problematic is false claims. I don't mean people with a difference of opinion when I say false claims, I mean, people that claim someone did business with them them when they didn't.
The thing is that leaving a negative rating means you strongly believe the person is a scammer. The comments are only for a justification, but most people don’t even look at that. 
May 01, 2019, 05:44:08 PM
It won't take long anymore till the first DT member gets sued for that
Want to make a bet?
I bet OG will be charged with tax evasion before anyone on this forum is sued for a forum mechanic. You can't just use the word "donation" to describe an investment on a scheme that returns money to you.
May 01, 2019, 04:44:52 PM
Nice to see my favorite DT members changing the forum into something better.....
Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
It won't take long anymore till the first DT member gets sued for that
It clearly says scammer.Theymos just destroyed DT's argument that they can give negative trust based on some random opinions or even for account selling as they are now fully aware that giving a negative trust makes that any user will instantly get a warning displayed that the tagged member is accused to be a scammer.
Once somebody gets pissed i'm pretty sure he will open a lawsuite as this would be now clear defamtion.There is no more argument you didn't tagged him as scammer or possible scammer but just left your own opinion.
Have a nice day
Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
It won't take long anymore till the first DT member gets sued for that
It clearly says scammer.Theymos just destroyed DT's argument that they can give negative trust based on some random opinions or even for account selling as they are now fully aware that giving a negative trust makes that any user will instantly get a warning displayed that the tagged member is accused to be a scammer.
Once somebody gets pissed i'm pretty sure he will open a lawsuite as this would be now clear defamtion.There is no more argument you didn't tagged him as scammer or possible scammer but just left your own opinion.
Have a nice day
May 01, 2019, 12:53:08 PM
If the new owner proves trustworthy too, nothing goes against removing the red tag IMHO.
Do other DTs who leave red trust for account sales agree to this? I've seen accounts with several years old red tags saying they're bought. How long should an account be active to deserve a review?I have no clue, and to be honest it is more of a theoretical problem since most bought accounts are only used to shitpost.
My point is, if I know of an account that changed hands, that has positive or neutral trust, it seems the right thing to do to put a red on it.
Next step would be to get all positive/neg/neutral trust originating from the original owner removed.
If necessary remove inactive DT members that have left said trust.
And then after a while if the new user was to prove himself trustworthy, it should be taken into consideration to remove/change the feedback to a neutral one.
Statistically we might see cases in which the new owner could be more virtuous than the previous owner. Then again it is all hypothetical.
May 01, 2019, 12:25:52 PM
I do not trust somebody having positive trust unless I have not dealt with that seller. Positive trust just give an assurance but it should not be the reason for anybody to lower his/her guard.
Do not compare with "ebay" type sites because they are virtually acting as "escrow" between you and seller and this is not true in this forum if you are not explicitly taking the escrow services.
Do not compare with "ebay" type sites because they are virtually acting as "escrow" between you and seller and this is not true in this forum if you are not explicitly taking the escrow services.
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem. In order to deal with someone you have to trust them, at least a little bit. I would probably trust most non-batshit users of this forum with $10 but even at that level I'd still do some basic due diligence to ensure that the user I'm dealing with is who they appear to be.
I would trust TMAN with $100k because he sounds like a nice guy and it'd be impossible for someone to impersonate him
May 01, 2019, 12:20:36 PM
If the new owner proves trustworthy too, nothing goes against removing the red tag IMHO.
Do other DTs who leave red trust for account sales agree to this? I've seen accounts with several years old red tags saying they're bought. How long should an account be active to deserve a review?How much safer do you feel now, before and after, all known account sales have been red tagged? How much more do you trust random accounts now then you did before?
I don't think I feel any more or less safe. What positive has really been accomplished by it?
I don't think it matters much. The main thing a red tag accomplishes, is to prevent the buyer from joining a signature campaign and getting paid to spam..I don't think I feel any more or less safe. What positive has really been accomplished by it?
you obviously don't trade here, plenty of physical traders here spend 10's of K with each other regularly. shit I've done deals worth $100K plus multiple times without escrow - you trust who you know, hence why buying a rep is such a bad thing
This. I've known many of the physical bitcoin collectors for years. I even trust some of them with my priv keys.
May 01, 2019, 12:12:57 PM
Actually , no one should trust any online identity. so it will not matter if that identity "X" changes to "Y".
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
you obviously don't trade here, plenty of physical traders here spend 10's of K with each other regularly. shit I've done deals worth $100K plus multiple times without escrow - you trust who you know, hence why buying a rep is such a bad thing
This. I've known many of the physical bitcoin collectors for years. I even trust some of them with my priv keys.
May 01, 2019, 11:16:37 AM
Actually , no one should trust any online identity. so it will not matter if that identity "X" changes to "Y".
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
you obviously don't trade here, plenty of physical traders here spend 10's of K with each other regularly. shit I've done deals worth $100K plus multiple times without escrow - you trust who you know, hence why buying a rep is such a bad thing
May 01, 2019, 11:06:40 AM
Will you trust a guy the same if he has positive feedbacks or not on ebay/carpooling/uber etc.?
I do not trust somebody having positive trust unless I have not dealt with that seller. Positive trust just give an assurance but it should not be the reason for anybody to lower his/her guard.
Do not compare with "ebay" type sites because they are virtually acting as "escrow" between you and seller and this is not true in this forum if you are not explicitly taking the escrow services.
May 01, 2019, 10:56:51 AM
Actually , no one should trust any online identity. so it will not matter if that identity "X" changes to "Y".
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
This is completely stupid imho.
Will you trust a guy the same if he has positive feedbacks or not on ebay/carpooling/uber etc.?
Of course it does matter.
May 01, 2019, 10:34:29 AM
Would you trust an account that has a proven and long trading history?
I guess primary purpose of giving negative for account sales is to make negative that previous + overall stay. Otherwise , how it make sense to red trust the account that is not engaging in any kind of trade activity.
Would you trust the same account with a notice "ownership changed"?
Actually , no one should trust any online identity. so it will not matter if that identity "X" changes to "Y".
(By not trusting , I mean you should be neutral, it does not mean distrust. )
April 30, 2019, 05:54:30 PM
Would you trust an account that has a proven and long trading history?
Would you trust the same account with a notice "ownership changed"?
Would you trust the same account with a notice "ownership changed"?
Yes, up to some of the value of the account even if I knew it was sold, depending on other research such as for hacks or other questionable activity..
If I was to place trust beyond the typical value of the account, such as to a "long trading history", then I would be trusting the person's identity and would be looking for a common business address of that identity, a signature of the identity, recent use of the actual identity, etc..
On the other hand I would also trust a good identity posting from a newb account, or an account with no value.
April 30, 2019, 05:17:19 PM
How much safer do you feel now, before and after, all known account sales have been red tagged? How much more do you trust random accounts now then you did before?
I don't think I feel any more or less safe.
I don't think I feel any more or less safe.
Would you trust an account that has a proven and long trading history?
Would you trust the same account with a notice "ownership changed"?
April 30, 2019, 05:12:07 PM
How much safer do you feel now, before and after, all known account sales have been red tagged? How much more do you trust random accounts now then you did before?
I don't think I feel any more or less safe. What positive has really been accomplished by it?
You really should consider that any account you deal with may be sold and get a signed address or key from them that has been staked just as before, and should inform newbs of possible scams just the same.
The spammers just use lower ranked accounts now. ANNs are posted by newbs. Red trust means less on the surface. Account values are probably still pretty close to the same.
I think I would still trust another user just about up to the value of their account just as I did before.
I think it is still this way IMO, it's just less common knowledge.
I think another reason account sales were good for the forum was the economy that grew around it. It was a very interesting economy and I'm sure attracted many people. It was cool to be able to create actual value by growing your account. The market cap and volume of accounts was high. Account sales were great for the lending economy which created jobs for lenders. It was more ways for people to make BTC and more general cashflow around the forum.
Almost all of that economy cashflow, transacting in cryptocurrency, on this forum, is now completely gone which I think hurt the economy of the forum and the economy of Crypto. Their are still account sales but I think the marketcap of available accounts and volume of cashflow is now very small.
I liked the wild-west style of the forum back then, closer to anarchy, you had to learn to watch out for yourself and be responsible for your own well being.
The forum was a lot more exciting and interesting back then IMO.
For the poll, I don't think anything is going to change and don't think that undoing all of the redtrust is a realistic option nor is banning all sold accounts.
It just is what it is now and the forum is ever slowly moving from being the new frontier to the USSR, as is the usual cycle of civilization.
More and more rules and regulations come all the time like the account sales, merit system, new trust system, always just more and more bureaucratic crap.
I don't think I feel any more or less safe. What positive has really been accomplished by it?
You really should consider that any account you deal with may be sold and get a signed address or key from them that has been staked just as before, and should inform newbs of possible scams just the same.
The spammers just use lower ranked accounts now. ANNs are posted by newbs. Red trust means less on the surface. Account values are probably still pretty close to the same.
I think I would still trust another user just about up to the value of their account just as I did before.
My argument as to why buying accounts is helpful to the forum has always been along the lines that if someone pays $100 to buy an account, they are effectively paying a $100 bond in which they promise to not try to scam and to not post so much garbage they end up getting banned -- if they do either of these things, the value of their account goes to nearly zero, and they lose the $100 they paid for their account. If they try to scam someone, they must scam for at least the value of their account, and if their attempt is called out before it is successful, they will lose the $100 they paid.
On the other side, I have previously argued a person should be able to sell their account because it allows them to obtain money for their account if in need. This gives someone an incentive against scamming someone if they are desperate for money -- they can sell their account instead.
On the other side, I have previously argued a person should be able to sell their account because it allows them to obtain money for their account if in need. This gives someone an incentive against scamming someone if they are desperate for money -- they can sell their account instead.
I think it is still this way IMO, it's just less common knowledge.
I think another reason account sales were good for the forum was the economy that grew around it. It was a very interesting economy and I'm sure attracted many people. It was cool to be able to create actual value by growing your account. The market cap and volume of accounts was high. Account sales were great for the lending economy which created jobs for lenders. It was more ways for people to make BTC and more general cashflow around the forum.
Almost all of that economy cashflow, transacting in cryptocurrency, on this forum, is now completely gone which I think hurt the economy of the forum and the economy of Crypto. Their are still account sales but I think the marketcap of available accounts and volume of cashflow is now very small.
I liked the wild-west style of the forum back then, closer to anarchy, you had to learn to watch out for yourself and be responsible for your own well being.
The forum was a lot more exciting and interesting back then IMO.
For the poll, I don't think anything is going to change and don't think that undoing all of the redtrust is a realistic option nor is banning all sold accounts.
It just is what it is now and the forum is ever slowly moving from being the new frontier to the USSR, as is the usual cycle of civilization.
More and more rules and regulations come all the time like the account sales, merit system, new trust system, always just more and more bureaucratic crap.
Leaving negative feedback on an account that has been bought does not inhibit that person.
Have you considered that posting the negative feedback is just destroying like $100 of that person's assets and $100 of value in the cryptocurrency ecosystem?I know it's going to be a disaster to enforce and will never be implemented, but bear with me: what if accounts sales would only be allowed if they happen out in the open, with a clear public record of when an account changed hands? Green trust should be reset, a neutral tag added to show the account changed hands, and red trust stays (to prevent scammers from abusing this to clear their trust).
If an account was sold in private but gets caught, it broke the "public record" rule and will get banned. The risk of a ban might motivate account buyers to publish the trade.
Of course, this would only work in an ideal world, so hilarious' idea to just sell perks to accounts is probably a better solution
No matter how transparent it is they will just tag it anyway and it only takes 1.. If an account was sold in private but gets caught, it broke the "public record" rule and will get banned. The risk of a ban might motivate account buyers to publish the trade.
Of course, this would only work in an ideal world, so hilarious' idea to just sell perks to accounts is probably a better solution
April 30, 2019, 04:50:11 PM
I don't understand all the fuss about this.
IMO the status quo, the actual situation makes perfectly sense.
If someone wants to give up on his account it is somehow his right.
The red trust serves it's purpose as well, i.e warning other users that the account switched owners.
If the new owner proves trustworthy too, nothing goes against removing the red tag IMHO.
At least this is how I handle and see it.
My red tags for ownership change are really just meant as "do not trust this users history since it is not the same person anymore".
One could do the same about any service shop IRL
IMO the status quo, the actual situation makes perfectly sense.
If someone wants to give up on his account it is somehow his right.
The red trust serves it's purpose as well, i.e warning other users that the account switched owners.
If the new owner proves trustworthy too, nothing goes against removing the red tag IMHO.
At least this is how I handle and see it.
My red tags for ownership change are really just meant as "do not trust this users history since it is not the same person anymore".
One could do the same about any service shop IRL
April 30, 2019, 03:42:01 PM
I know it's going to be a disaster to enforce and will never be implemented, but bear with me: what if accounts sales would only be allowed if they happen out in the open, with a clear public record of when an account changed hands? Green trust should be reset, a neutral tag added to show the account changed hands, and red trust stays (to prevent scammers from abusing this to clear their trust).
If an account was sold in private but gets caught, it broke the "public record" rule and will get banned. The risk of a ban might motivate account buyers to publish the trade.
Of course, this would only work in an ideal world, so hilarious' idea to just sell perks to accounts is probably a better solution
If an account was sold in private but gets caught, it broke the "public record" rule and will get banned. The risk of a ban might motivate account buyers to publish the trade.
Of course, this would only work in an ideal world, so hilarious' idea to just sell perks to accounts is probably a better solution