Is tagging these accounts for being sold the correct move? They have 0 positive trust and are not trying to insert themselves into any prestigious positions in the community. I think neutral would suffice. If they had some green trust I would want to be a little more aggressive on tagging.
This has been asked many times before and there is never 100% consensus because it depends on the situation and how the account has been used since it was purchased (as well as
when it changed hands). Many would want a tag because the account was traded/hacked and others might want to be lenient because apart from seeking to join campaigns maybe the accounts steered clear of nefarious conduct.
In my opinion, I believe identifying and tagging them whether on zero positive trust or not is still the best way forward because the new person behind the account isn't the original one. If the person who purchased the good account had any good intentions in the forum from the start, then they would just create a new account, beginning that long journey in the forum like most of us.
In short, tagging or discouraging account sales;
1. Reduces account theft and hacking.
2. Minimizes bounty and signature campaign cheating
3. Minimizes account farming
A good example of why account sales or change of ownerships should highly be discourage is this loan fraud case -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5521225These are valid points and make a good case for automatically tagging traded/hacked accounts. The case for leniency could be made on a case by case basis but if the account changed hands it cannot be proven if it was sold or hacked therefore that also raises a case about whether mandatory tagging is the way forward or not.
If the accounts are neutral tagged, managers will likely skip over them in the application process. Either way, we don't know who owns what or how many account overall, so I don't feel like anything would really be minimized. That goes for farms as well, wasn't there a thread of a guy who controlled or supposedly controlled over 100 accounts? I'm sure that person isn't the only 1.
Two campaign managers come to mind when they deliberately look past many members with tags and enrol them in to their campaigns. Apart from that, the Stake manager has a tendency to do that too therefore a different approach might be needed.
I saw that they have at least 5 campaign managers, certainly not everything depends on Carol.
Having five campaigns managers is something I was not aware but between them all they could not stop the low quality posts and kept enrolling many members with tags.
