Topic: Is giving negative trust to further an agenda abuse of the trust system? (Read 835 times)

I think the days of buying accounts for scamming purposes are (mostly) over. Now people seem to be buying them only to make some money off of signature campaigns. I don't really have a problem with that, as long as the campaigns are able to keep spammy users out (some campaigns are really good at this, and others.... couldn't care less). If people are able to keep up good posting quality on multiple accounts that's great, because they're positively contributing to discussions. I also don't fully agree with the "selfish sig campaign" bit either, because it seems like many aspects of the bitcoin world involve at least some degree of selfishness. An example would be bitcoin mining, if you find a great way to make more BTC than usual, I doubt you're going to share it with everyone you can.

Sure it will but you would have to get the community to agree to make this practice a negative offense and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
But as of now, IMO, leaving a negative for this action isn't warranted as the practice is allowed.

mostly agree but since I don't have time to find and mark them all, why not do the obvious ones I come across.   am giving spidy the benefit of the doubt here and buying into his claim that 'he didn't know there was anything wrong with it' and has no intentions of scamming.  still, at the least, I think it is selfish profiteering that doesn't help the community.  I unfortunately expect a similar controversy may arise in the future when someone else complains for a similar reason. 

What is done with these accounts? To further the illusion people are who they claim. Linked to LBC and such to help in their validation? Why are they validating their LBC and other accounts? Possibly to prove their ID? Bought accounts to verify an ID that is false so when someone defaults or scams there is nothing to lead to their real ID. There are those that buy accounts to deceive others into believing they are someone else, all for personal gain.
Buying/selling these accounts is generally bad and leads to more paranoia on a forum that is paranoid to begin with. But if you are going to mark one you gotta mark em all.

I don't know if I agree. buying a Twitter account seems more legit.  PayPal?  shady.  likely stolen.  and bct?  that directly impacts THIS forum , is higher probability it will used to scam HERE, and again, if not used for scamming, probably will be used for selfish sig campagin (same person getting paid multiple times)... to me I still think it's generally bad.

While I am not for the buying/selling of accounts, it is allowed. If you want to leave a negative for this practice you also need to leave negatives for the buying/selling of LBC, Paypal, Ebay, Facebook, Twitter and other accounts bought/sold for various reasons. A huge task indeed.
IMO, a negative is not warranted here.

i granted the loan. from my point of view a lot (not all) of people complaining about several things here in the forum are highly double moraled and push it on other users whenever it fits their needs.

i checked the accounts and all were fine. for me, as the one loaning out money, everything is okay thats why i decided to do it.

buying and selling accounts happens all day long and i think its the smallest problem this community has.

just my 2 cents

OK. Thank you for that. I appreciate it! 

I'll remove the neg for the time being but I urge you not to advertise the fact that you own several other accounts
and don't offer them as collateral for all the reasons i've previously stated.

Thank you for returning the favor . If you disagree with selling accounts, I think you should leave a neutral comment on the accounts you disapprove of, maybe copy-pasting the reasons why you think it's bad. It would take you just as much time as placing that negative trust, you'd get your point across in a way less likely to make you out to be the "bad guy" and it would be the proper use of the forum features.

acctseller might be more sympathetic to my ordeal and biased based on his past, but I believe my logic is sound and that a neutral comment on the account is a much more proper way to go about voicing your concerns with account farming, as the trust system is there to help traders decide who is trustworthy. I believe you misused the system with no bad intentions .

Make things right again, please.

Noted.

I was in the business of selling accounts, although I exited the business once I sold all of my inventory, which luckily was right before/around when the market became very saturated (see my personal text that has been up for several months).

Granted, I may be biased because I have made a great deal of BTC from trading accounts in the past, however I have no current financial stake in this matter.

Spidy, you are being cordial and logical and I respect that.

KWH, This is the point: discourage account selling.  There seems to be no good
way to do that other than leave negative trust.  Am I missing something?
Do YOU think I should remove the negative? 

(ACCTSeller, no offense but you have a clear bias on this topic as you seem to
be in the business of selling accounts.)

Yeah, I'll delete it. It was selfish and opportunistic.

Farming accounts is not against any kind of rule and is far from scamming other users. I would even argue that farming accounts is going to make the overall community more aware that account sales take place and as a result will proceed with additional caution when trading with others.

Sure some people tend to shitpost when they farm accounts, although I think to say that all farmers do this is somewhat stereotypical and if a farmer is shitposting BadBear will likely ban them for as much.  

If a farmer is enrolled in the same signature campaign with multiple alts then the company is still getting the same amount of advertising, and if you have a strong posting history then they would be getting more then what they would otherwise get. Also one campaign manager that manages several campaigns (carra23) even offered to allow for my non-public alts to be able to enroll in his campaigns despite public rules against this.

Edit: you should remove the request for btc because that is not going to happen and is significantly weakening your case. You should get the negative removed though.

You may as well forget this "request", it won't happen.
EDIT: If you are this easily offended, the internet and specifically this forum may not be for you.

Check out my trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=446446), all I said is true. All I ask for is one cent for being kicked when I was down. One cent. That is not unreasonable. Plus, I'm not demanding money from him. It is a request. ^{and the request for one cent can be dropped if he refuses to remove the negative trust and apologize! That's how negotiations work!... right?}

Edit: OK, I'll leave all and any money out of it. I want my account back the way it was. Also, I believe he abused the trust system, I want to encourage discussion about that.

Also, for the record, that first sentence in your quote ("a cruel joke indeed") is a remnant from a response I wrote when I misinterpreted what you said.

Is giving negative trust to further an agenda (noble as it may seem) mostly unrelated to preventing scams an abuse of the trust system?

Before we get started, I want to say that agenda is not a bad word. It has no negative conotation in this context.
TL;DR: jonald_fyookball unfairly gave me negative trust for "account farming".

The Intro

That is what I want to discuss today. Hello, I am BlackSpidy. Some of you might recongnize me from the Wall Observer thread as the guy that makes some remarks on the price and throws a joke and/or prediction in once in a while. I will provide a signed message (with a shitty format, sorry, I will change to the more largely used P[something] message next time I need to sign a message) at the end of this post.

The Background

Anyways, I got a bit of drama to share with anyone willing to sit and read through the backstory of this dispute. I lost my charger, my laptop had run out of charge and I needed the bitcoins held within. I decided to get a loan for a charger, 0.1 BTC, overshooting the price a bit in case the shipping was too high. Then jonald_fyookball simply responds "account farming" and gives me negative trust for that same reason. Someone responded that its sad to see assholes use their accounts as collateral and never pay their loans back (I'm paraphrasing, I'll be doing that a bit). Thinking that is what "account farming" was, I PM'ed jonald_fyookball, asking if he would remove the negative trust once I successfully completed my loan. He simply replied "I dont aprove of account farming". I solved the money issue my own way, getting a BTC0.01 loan for another reason.

The Argument

Another trusted member came in to say that there is nothing wrong with selling accounts, as he did it himself. jonald_fyookball responded "what you did is totally different!" (I call bullshit). He then provided his reasons:

-Scammers might buy accounts. (I should not be held responsable if other people use something I sold in an unethical or illegal manner. Knife salepeople are not held accountable for killings via stabbing and I should not be held accountable for hypothetical future scammers)
-It's unfair for signature participants that someone is getting paid more than once. (none of my accounts are participants in signature campaigns I can prove that for my main, Blackspidy account and another account, if the lender I got some BTC from decides to back me up on that)
-It's unfair for companies that run signature campaigns. (same as previous point, he has no proof whatsoever I am on any signature campaigns. He has no proof that I participate in any signature campaign, making this point meaningless speculation!)
-It encourages others to farm accounts. (so!? Why am I being called untrustworthy because of what other people might do [which I think is an honest and non-scammy thing] when I'm doing something completely honest and non-scammy!?)
-It makes the ranking sistem meaningless. (isnt it already kind of meaningless? You registered your account in 2013 and posted at least one comment a day since... does the fact I make it a bit more meaningless make me not trustworthy!?)
-It encourages spammy low value posts. (I'm being held accountable because of what other people might do, got it, what I dont get is: How does that make me not trustworthy!?)
-It doesnt add value to the community. (that is completely subjective, and ^{say it with me:} How does that make me not trustworthy!?)

So far, he has provided absolutely no reason (other than his sorry excuses trying to make account farming into a form of scam) to give me negative trust. I have not scammed anyone, I have not tried to scam anyone, I have not aided in a scam, I will complete my loan without delay on September 1st.

Hence, he abused the trust system, giving me bad rep to further his agenda. Speaking of agenda...

The Agenda

I undestand where he's coming from. He wants scammers to not be able to get their hands on accounts with trust. I agree, and I am not acting against that goal. None of my accounts (other than my main, apparently) will ever be used for cryptocurrency-related business or signature campaings. He wants Bitcointalk to be home to quality discussion. So do I, I do my best to inject some intelligent discussion into the opinions I express in this forum. We all should.

But that is not what the trust feature is for. The trust feature is there to help see who is trustworthy or not, and none of what I've done makes me untrustworthy.

The Solution

I now formally request that jonald_fyookball remove the negative reputation on my account.

The Relevant Threads
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-too-need-an-urgent-loan-quickly1-1145172, original my loan request.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/offering-shortmidlong-term-loans-escrow-40-loans-and-counting-1144224, my successful loan request.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/buying-trust-from-me-1144347, slightly highjacked thread where I and jonald_fyookball discussed his possible abuse of the trust system.

The Signed Mesage


The Discussion

I leave that to you.

PS: I apologize for the length of the text and any spelling errors (my spellscheck isnt working).