Topic: Discussion of trading negative trusted accounts - page 2. (Read 2115 times)

The only proof I have is a few messages from my e-mail that were sent on that account.  I know it had something to do with 999dice.  I think it's odd they changed my signature to primedice.  I'm not sure what happened, but I know it was somebody from 999dice, most likely Justin.  Who is just another alias for Jake, who is a known scammer and owner of 999dice.



I don't really care it's just a forum account, I don't ever expect to get it back.  This honestly just came to my attention I don't use it so much.  I'm more pissed at the fact that they would go thru such extensive measures to ruin my account/name.  I must have pissed somebody off hahaha.....

He might just as well doing this because he wants his account back, after the buyer has paid. It's also dodgy that he's posting on 999dice threads all the time, as opposed to trying to prove he's the legitimate user(Which is hard now because someone already has bought the accounts from him).

"Negative trusts" aren't responsible (the contrary). Now you should give a full and real explanation to theymos (through PM) and why not also to open a thread here in the meta (with all the information). You should build your "security" it is easy to say " Damn, my forum account was hacked".

That's interesting. Did you try contacting theymos? Also are you able to sign a message with a previously used address?

And when was it hacked? Was the negative trusts left after your account was hacked?

I am the original owner I got hacked or some shit I can't access my account anymore.  I don't even trade or care but I am being trolled for calling out 999dice as a scam.  This is how scummy they are....



My account was never bought or sold whoever is making up these lies and fake feedback reviews is responsible.

Fair enough, like you said we'll see in the future.

Changed the title to "Discussion of trading negative trusted accounts"

I agree with you, indeed I have also left him a neutral feedback "The account was bought from najzenmajsen." with the reference and I think this is necessary for the other users (if they trade with him).

The sooner people realize that, the sooner 90% of the issues with the trust system are immediately fixed. My favorite person to trade with was Dank, because the goofy bastard always included some sort of interesting surprise that left me on the ground clutching my sides in an attept to cling to any air that my laughing gasps would allow into my lungs. He was a confirmed scammer, so I just made sure I took appropriate measures in trading with him, ie the use of escrow when necessary, etc. But the feedback left against him allowed me to judge potential threats. Someone who bought an account from someone exhibiting scammy behavior in my opinion would not warrant the same level of paranoia as trading with someone who ran off with 1,000 Bitcoins from an exchange or something like that. But, If I was trading with nyktalgia, the fact that they bought the account from someone who was a potential scammer is definitely information that I'd like to know. People leaving negative feedback, keep up the good work. People who disagree with the negative feedback, I agree with you.  

I wouldnt call that contributing. A few bullshit posts aint gonna cut it. I cant tell you what will, but I guess we will see in the future


Anyone that just goes by the red/green number is a fool. Even the feedback without a proper ref link is next to worthless unless its by someone I deem trustworthy and understand how they leave feedback.



/signed

Yes, no problem.

Both your cases are correct, a negative trust should not stop someone to buy/sell here in the forum. Everyone should trade with his own diligence and the use/not-use of escrow.

Trust is all subjective anyway so it doesn't matter. There is a basic divide in this discussion, those that believe an account sold gets a fresh slate, and those that don't. If all of the people who don't believe they get a fresh slate leave negative feedback, only those that believe that will care about their feedback.


redsn0w, if I may use your comment to elaborate. Lets say that redsn0w believes what they do, they bought what they bought, no clean slate for them. I on the other hand, believe that after the account was sold, the new owner no longer deserves the negative feedback. If I was to buy a pizza from nyktalgia, I'd look at their feedback to determine the best course of action. I see redsn0w's feedback, but I disagree. We don't need to hold a petition to set trust rules or get redsn0w to change their feedback, I will just personally ignore redsn0w's note, because I don't agree with them on the matter. And we proceed with the deal.

We change the senario, and I'm hilariousandco (no I'm not really, because someone will misquote this if I dont mention that we are not the same person (or are we?)) I agree with redsn0w that the negative trust is deserved. I value their opinion, and before I buy that pizza from them, I take what I consider appropriate measures. My point being, feedback is relative, as long as people explain why they are leaving the feedback they are, others can judge it's validity based on their own concerns. Thats the reason the feedback system doesn't need rules, because each person will use it differently based on the situation and what they personally believe. Numbers and red letters don't mean anything, what matters is the content of the feedback itself. The source it comes from, the reason, and the backing.

It's debatable for some, but it isn't for me. And yes, I was bitcoininformation. I changed my display name a while back.

Yeah, well IMO it's pretty simple.

If a guy can just post a post or two to show someone that he's still online and active etc., then it would be very profitable when they can buy accounts in bulk and when the negative trusts are gone, resale it for a much higher price, thus reaping a large profit.

If the account is a hero or legendary(I doubt though), then the owner probably want his personal account back, and probably would consider this method of removing his negative trust. But I think if we still can leave a record that the account has previously received a negative feedback by giving a neutral feedback, that would be better. Although that some people don't really check the feedbacks but only the trust score, if doing a large deal I'm sure that the dealer will be careful enough to check it.

Anyone is entitled to their opinion though, and in this case I respect Quickseller's personal opinion.

Exactly, I am agree with you. Maybe after some months and trades he can gain a couple of positive trusts.

We can't even be sure that it is a legit sale in this case.


I agree, but this is a certainly debatable topic.

Wait, were you bitcoininformation or just has the same avatar?

I dont think contributing in a positive way for 3-6 months would be considered simple by most, especially if they try this as a business model to redeem accounts. Its also only possible for those that got negative feedback as a warning, not for actual scammers.


But the account in question did not scam to the best of everyons knowledge they just tried to or arguably have bad trading practices.

I will not remove the negative trust, the new owner knew what he bought. As a lot of you said : it can be impossible to determine if the new owner is not associated with the old, in this case we cannot remove the negative trusts.

If you buy an account, you buy everything. This includes debts and trust ratings. These shouldn't be removed just because it's now someone else's property. You wouldn't ask the person who broke a toy you bought from someone else to repair it.

All different I think. Depends on several factors including number of negatives and their values, when they were left, then on the opposite all those factors but with positives. You'll notice over time that some accounts are marked as scammers but that will go away after a while and they get an orange number in the middle value. Sometimes even a couple of trusted negatives wont show up if you've got enough green (see marco's account).


Yep. It may be a legit sale in this case but people will quickly learn to exploit it. Not hard to use a buddy to fake a sale as opposed to using an alt account. Allowing this just sets a really bad precedent and smart scammers will be able to get their account neutralised ready to scam or use again very easily.

That's actually contradicting with one of his points. If you guys do this, then that will bring the trades for negative trusted accounts more and more popular(Thus bringing the prices for negative accounts up), because there's a pretty simple way of getting rid of the negative trust.