Topic: Double Standards for Red Trust (Read 389 times)

That's what i meant to say that this system is not fair. Anyways i have no intentions of getting you a red tag. I am just trying to explain the situation.



No, i don't love trolling . I am locking this thread now 

LOL. Sage advice. Will do. Thanks.

Dude, trolls get bored when they aren’t fed.

This fool just fucking loves it man. Stick the idiot on ignore and have a power wank over the tears that OP is crying

Its clearly not the same. You were given red trust 3 years ago. I was not. You were trying to purchase an anonymous account (and it looks like you were successful), I was trying to sell my own account (and I didnt).

You ignored my asking you to provide evidence of another account that fit my circumstance and everything else about the situation in order to continue cramming a square peg in a round hole.

The account seller who sold the account for which you got red tagged currently has a neutral trust. There are many discrepancies in how tagging gets carried out. That's a much more clear instance of an account being sold and the seller not being tagged for it. No system is perfect.

Lol, You're not well known in 2016 so it was not a big deal  , I am still unknown here, so how come i am big threat and My Red trust should be enforced on just biding on account three years back  


Same is the case with me.

- Mine Red trust was given 3 years back
- I showed interest in buying the account but  never bought it
- I was tagged by The Pharmacist, when he was not in DT List


Its Not A Case by Case issue, its is purely a Double standard.

Name one.

Gleb Gamow is the only other instance of this I know of, and his was a big deal because it is one of the most well known accounts on the forum. Besides, he didn't get red paint on the spot, he got it afterward.

Back before then, in 2016, I was relatively unknown and it wasn't nearly as big a deal.

This is the 4th thread to bring up this issue. There isn't much new to say. Theymos discourages red tags for past events if the user seems unlikely to repeat the offense again. I already explained myself ad nauseam in that I now recognize the potential for damage to occur if my account was sold, and would now never sell my account.

I didn't then, I wouldn't now. Just about everybody on DT is aware of this issue and nobody feels it's tag worthy. Its not a double standard so much as a case-by-case issue, as are many situations.

Sorry if you think the outcome is unfair but there's no other instances of a situation like mine during which somebody was red tagged.

- 3 year old "problem"
- account sale by owner
- neutral tagged at time of sale

These conditions have never warranted a tag 3 years after the fact.

All the evidence in the world that this account never changed hands and that the positives I've contributed far outweigh the negatives won't stop future trolls from rehashing this issue time and again. Just as I'm certain my argument won't have any bearing on those set on stirring up non problems.

You are totally blind wearing the Bitblender signature and Shit posting to get Paid Only.
There are number of cases where an account owner says that he want to sell his account and he get reds paint on the spot.

Lets give it a try. You offer to sale your account and before even you get any offer you will be red tag. 

Open your eyes and stop being a Paid Spammer..

He hasn't been given a red-tag because he is none of those things.  His situation and yours are not the same.  He tried to sell an account out in the open.  The transparency of his initial offer left no doubt that the account could possibly have a new owner.  Had the sale gone through, anybody who was approached by nutildah for any kind of deal would have known they weren't dealing with the original nutildah.  The fact that he decided not to sell the account should also be recognized.  If it had sold, I'm certain would have been red-tagged.

Your situation, on the other hand was transparent in a different way.  You were buying an account with the intent of easily increasing your rank, maybe not to scam, but almost certainly to spam.  Furthermore, the account being sold was anonymous, and with it's respectable rank it can be used to exploit other members.  If the account was trusted that would pose an even bigger risk to the community.  And for all we know you did buy that account.  It sure looks like you had the high bid.

See the difference?

That happened 3 years ago.
Why do you dig it up now ? 

In past it was nothing wrong to sell Bitcointalk accounts. I don't know when exactly account sales become shady activity, but there is unwritten agreement between DT members not to tag old time account sellers. @nutildah isn't the only one, you can find much more users who are reputed now, even DT members who have tried to sell accounts in past. But probably you can call it as double standards because I know some users who got tagged for attempt to buy/sell account in 2016.

AFAIK, general accounts sales were not heavily frowned up on by the community back then like they are now, given that his account was not involved in any sort of trade back then, and he also decided not to sell the account afterwards.

I guess that could be the reason why he didn't get any tag back then even if there was a possibility of getting him tag. If he had completely sold of the account. Then that would be an issue now, but he didn't.

I think nutildah described perfectly well why ANYONE  (not him though) should have red trust for selling or buying their accounts

Start reading here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9060640

I mean someone who says it is EVIL to sell their account would not try and sell their account (or sell it we don't know) would they??

I mean surely 0.3BTC for turning EVIL is not worth it?

I mean surely someone who assumes that sold accounts are only going to be used for evil and scamming should be on DT1 with no red trust after they sell or tried to sell their own account?? lol

Double Standards are the best bit about DT. Let's called it DS1 ?  

Lauda said  "there is nothing we can say that would persuade him to give nutildah red trust" ??  sounds legit haha  sums up DT perfectly. You can show them evidence of their DT pals lying, scamming, trying to extort people, escrow shady behavior?  they simply will not give each other red trust.

It is brilliant you get on DT you can scam and lie and extort then you just get all your other DT pals to look the other way. If people speak out about it you red trust them and get your pals to add more red trust because that way people will assume they are scammers and not listen to their warnings.

It's really fun. You just have to be DIRTY enough to get on DT1 because honest people are not allowed onto DT1. Those giving out all the merits need to be sure they are giving them to people that will be complicit and let them keep abusing the trust system.  

I hope this explained clearly why you  have red trust and nutildah will NEVER get any red trust.  Thanks for reading.

I have been given Red Trust because i try to bought the account but i did not bought any account because the deal was not finalized. Anyways leave it.

These days the DT members Give Red trust to all those accounts who are involved in sale purchase of Accounts. So Can anyone tell me why this person is not given Red Trust even though he tried to sell his own account.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16312368





So why he is not been Given Red Trust as he is spammer, scammer and account farmer.