Topic: hero status account sold, PSA to any old trade partners - page 2. (Read 2868 times)

So, did the account sell for above market price? If it did, that account deserves negative trust as I'm almost certain it was bought for the positive trust.

BTW, maybe someone should ask for haploid23 to be removed from DT until he comes back as it's been almost a year since he's last logged in.

Nah I have not sold the account at a higher price based on the green 'comments', If you don't know what is happened it is better to not spread BS. I've liquidated the collateral to recover the amount plus a little % and of course I will not tell you the exact amount.


If the buyer is feeling comfortable to reveal all the information of the privacy negotiation, he is free (but I don't think he will do it).

Really ugly to sell a account at a higher price based on the green comments and then turn around and stab the buyer in the back in this manner. If anything the seller has manipulated the buyer into thinking they where paying more because of the comments. Extra dubious acting innocent and then pointing out this aspect after the sale.
Think if the seller did not state that he planned to do this before transaction it should be reversed. Otherwise its a scam.

yes i'm unhappy , if the original owner wants his account back please contact me asap.

if you are unhappy, how about selling it to the previous owner?

The system is designed to work like this:

Anyone can leave any feed back (positive, negative, or neutral) for anyone they want, for any reason they want.

If you feel that someone uses good judgement when leaving feedback, then you add them to your trust network and their feedback will effect the rating you see next to the "trust" link on their profile.

If you feel that someone uses bad judgement when leaving feedback, then you remove them from your trust network and their feedback won't effect the rating you see next to the "trust" on their profile.

By adjusting the "trust depth", you can also choose to include in your trust network the users that are trusted by the people that you trust, if you feel they all use good judgement about who they add to their trust network.  And if you feel that all of those users also use good judgement about who they add to their trust network, you can choose to include them as well.

There is a "default trust" list that is assigned to new users when they first create an account, since it would be difficult from someone brand new to know who to trust. The intention is for them to update their trust lists as they figure out who they feel is trustworthy, and who isn't.  Unfortuantely, very few users ever bother changing their trust list from the default.

If you feel that an individual on the default trust list has been using poor judgement in choosing who they trust, and/or using poor judgement in the feedback that they leave, then you can request that the forum operator removes that individual from the default trust list.  The forum operator can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.

You can also contact users that have left trust or modified their trust lists and ask them to make changes that you think would be appropriate.  They can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.

Personally, I feel that purchasing a forum account and representing yourself as having received feedback that was not created for you is an "untrustworthy" behavior. I am entitled to this belief, and I have chosen to act on this by leaving negative feedback for this particular user.  

I have explained this reasoning in the feedback that I left.  If the user stops representing themselves as having received that positive feedback, then I will no longer consider their actions to be untrustworthy, and I'll remove the feedback.

Anyone else can read the feedback that I've left and decide for themselves if they consider that feedback valid or not.  They can then make their own decision about how much to trust the user when engaging in transactions with him.


Yes, it can.  So it is important not to engage in untrustworthy behavior.  Just like in the real world, a reputation is a slow and fragile thing to build, and a single untrustworthy action can be very difficult to recover from.


The acquiring of a longstanding account IS a long con.  The account has been represented for a long time by an individual with a particular set of morals and ethics.  Then suddenly, unexpectedly, and without any indication the account is represented by an individual with a different set of morals and ethics.  Isn't that what happens in a long con?


Then I suppose it's a good idea to avoid behaviors that would cause someone not to trust you.


No.

A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy, and a negative rating signifies that you think someone is not trustworthy.


No, but it does mean that they shouldn't be trusted.

It was done fairly recently (4-6 months?) and even Theymos (IIR) stated it was allowable. I believe it was a Positive to null a Negative.
I can't remember the thread or I would link it.
I have no issues with a rating being given for this reason.

Well a negative rating can wipe out someone's entire trust score, and the ?'?? signifies that they might have been a long con. A single negative rating will wipe out someone's entire positive trust score, while it takes two people to counter one negative trust rating.

A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy and a negative rating signifies that someone is a scammer. Just because someone is not actively trustworthy does not mean they are a scammer. 

potayto, potahto; ratings are used as counter. Does it matter which way around? The intention is the same, nullify the existing rating or at the very least make others aware of a trust dispute.

I am drawing a blank as to when a negative rating was used to counter a positive rating....I know that positive ratings have been used to counter an unjustified negative, and the trust system was setup in a way to support this, but not the other way around.

Ratings are used as counter since the last change to the system. They have been used in that fashion several times now. Danny also clearly states that the negative rating is just a counter and will be removed as soon as the positive ratings are gone. The account has no overal negative rating either.

I don't think negatives are suppose to be used to counter positive feedbacks.

A negative feedback means that you believe someone is a scammer, and I have not seen any evidence of this.

edit: haploid has not been online for nearly a year now, and I would doubt that he will log back into his account to remove a positive trust rating on a sold account. TC has not been very active for several months now, and he may or may not remove the rating.

The appropriate response to someone having a positive feedback that you do not believe is appropriate is to let the person who left the feedback know your feelings regarding the rating, and if nothing is done to exclude the person who left such rating from your trust network (if the erroneous rating outweighs reasons for him to otherwise be in your trust network)

You neither deserve any positive feedback (at least not yet).
And the negative from Danny Hamilton is only to counter the current 2 positive feedbacks from DT your account has.
You also don't deserve the position on DT3 your account currently still has.

Yes of course, I don't deserve any feedback 'cause it's a fault of the original owner.



He hasn't paid back the loan before the deadline.

The account doesnt deserve any feedback at all. You didnt do any of the trades.

Certainly.

No problem at all.

I will absolutely remove the negative feedback that I left just as soon as haploid23 and Tomatocage remove the positive feedback from 2014-10-16 and 2014-09-23.

Neutral trust to warn users about this account was sold is enough he not deserve red feedback!

what the fuck ? remove -ve feedback, NOW ! i'm not a scammer  .

I dont watch all sales of accounts. But the next i am bored i will sit down and have a look. Until then i will change my words to:

Scamers try to buy trusted accounts to scam others.

I might be back to proof it happens more than people think.


Yupp, thats me. I talked to staff and solved the problem.

I think I gave a number of reasons why this doesn't happen, and if it did happen on a regular basis then no digging would be necessary.

PS- aren't you the person who was permabanned recently? What exactly are you doing posting outside of meta?