Topic: How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale? (Read 748 times)

Probably in such case the style and quality of comments will change and it may be a sign that the profile has a new user.

Asking someone to pay a valid debt owed and saying nonpayment will result in a lawsuit for the debt is not extortion.

I'm not an expert on blackmail, but I'm pretty sure the above in certain contexts could be considered a warning instead of blackmail.  If a police officer tells you to stop speeding, or else you're going to suffer the consequences, that's a warning.  He isn't looking to get something out of the transaction personally--and I think that's a key component of blackmail/extortion.

If someone sends a PM to a member on bitcointalk stating that if they don't stop spamming in a thread that they're going to get reported/negged, I would see that more as a chance to correct behavior before the offending party suffers some consequences.  It isn't threatening to expose someone in exchange for money/favors/whatever, which is usually what blackmail is.

I'm not an expert on blackmail, but I'm pretty sure the above in certain contexts could be considered a warning instead of blackmail.  If a police officer tells you to stop speeding, or else you're going to suffer the consequences, that's a warning.  He isn't looking to get something out of the transaction personally--and I think that's a key component of blackmail/extortion.

If someone sends a PM to a member on bitcointalk stating that if they don't stop spamming in a thread that they're going to get reported/negged, I would see that more as a chance to correct behavior before the offending party suffers some consequences.  It isn't threatening to expose someone in exchange for money/favors/whatever, which is usually what blackmail is.

What you describe is indeed blackmail.
"If you do/don't do , I will " is the blackmail formula.

Most DT tag the user who is selling the account.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

I am the police now ?

Please let me remind you the topic of this thread then :

"How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale?"

What does it have to do with blackmailing ? You even sidetracked your own thread and now blaming others for your mistakes ?

---

Wait, what ? I am the police now ?
I don't remember signing up for something like this.

Well, if this is a policeman mistake, take him to court and have a trial.

This is called sidetracking and avoiding the central point.

you are the police

Please keep going. This is entertaining.
Looking at this is like watching a Rembrandt to my eyes.
Coming from you, swears sound like compliments and admiration.

If you don't shut up

Shut up

Shut up you moron.

what an imbecile you are.

you drooling feltching scum bag.

dumber than yourself like fox poop would merit this kind of stupid reply.

You are too dumb

you poor deranged ass muncher.

What you describe is indeed blackmail.
"If you do/don't do , I will " is the blackmail formula.

The proper way to handle the bus issue in your example you gave, would be to ask for the phone back, and if not returned, go to the police with the facts, without making the situation worse.

Quote from: cryptohunter on March 22, 2019, 10:03:31 AM

"that the thief can go to the cops first and report you for blackmail and you will be locked up for it

Hah, so this is the kind of country you live in ? Rewarding thiefs by throwing victims in jail ?
Keep blackmailing.  
My personal opinion is that you could use some "how to behave in society for dummies" book.

In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future.

I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer.

"give me back my phone or else I will tell the police about this"...

Of course telling the truth can be blackmail. You obviously can't blackmail people with information that is provably false - but you're welcome to try.

I basically OWN DT now.  Every DT here has some greedy financially motivated dirt on them, condone, supports and sanction those that do, too scared to speak up against observable wrongdoing, or employ observable double standards. Crushing them all is like a turkey shoot. I mean I can crush you openly based on observable events and you can just double down on your red paint claiming telling the truth is blackmailing them haha

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.