Topic: My account SebastianJu banned for 14 days now? - page 2. (Read 5876 times)

Report a couple of his posts to the staff .

So a high rep member gets banned for spamming without any warning because he was wearing a signature and this user (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/vika-nsfw-557193) is not even banned a day for trolling and using all sorts of referral advertisements.

Just look at his spams and note the time intervals between each posts > https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/vika-nsfw-557193;sa=showPosts;start=0

Hmm. Sounds great!

So...? Just heard from someone Sebastian_Alt is escrowing , aren't you supposed to not PM anyone while you're banned? Nevermind, seems he was escrowing via emails

I'm sorry if it really turns out for you this way. Well, I think 4 big escrows gave up, three totally, one is away and probably will stop escrowing, because of the latest developments with master-P and escrow.ms. I think at some point it will push all their escrow users to the remaining escrows.

Unfortunately it doesn't feel actually great to know that there were scammers that worked in the same service section. :/ I think that is one big reason they gave up.

I don't know how you deny escrows but I created some default text for denying trades. I only add some additional info if it sounds like I should. So denying is a fast thing then.

---

Actually all accounts I escrow seem to end up in a signature campaign even when the buyer is an account flipper first. His buyer will buy for signature campaign. It's he one big thing on the forum that seems to spread around as the best way to earn bitcoins for free.

And it would not really help to mark them. Like Quickseller mentions, if a scammer knows that this will happen then he will trade outside the forum again. So he receives a clean account while all normal users will have a mark that surely will mean a problem for them in one way or another.

I think it won't help against scammers.

---

I'm not sure if they would care. I think more important are posts that are written in a nearly unreadable english. So that it really sounds like the barely english speaking indian mother of a bitcoin user tries to earn an additional salary.

On the other hand, if it turns out bad accepting those users then an account manager might autoreject those users from then to prevent work.

Though the mark won't help against a clever scammer for sure. And most scammers are clever. Not like master-P with his stories everyone could find out. Even trolls on here are clever and know how to trick the tracking of the forum. I doubt any serious scam could be stopped by marked accounts or forbidden account trades.

The only thing that comes to mind, that is unavoidable for a scammer to do, is the password change. A scammer surely won't trust the seller enough to not change the password. So if there is a list of the last 12 months password changes of that account in the trust page then users might have a slight hint that the account might have changed hands. Surely that is no sure thing but it is the only thing that a scammer can't avoid when buying an account. He will change pass to protect his scamming scheme.

If, if, if.

And since when do campaign managers care about neutral trust or whether an account was bought?

If this were to become the norm then people will assume that accounts without this neutral trust have not been purchased and people that are able to buy an account without this trust will have an easier time scamming if/when they attempt to do so.

This neutral trust may also be off putting to signature campaign managers

Then, sold accounts should be left a neutral feedback stating account has been sold/changed ownership. This way, people would be aware of it. Many are buying accounts to scam. Gone were the days when they bought accounts to harvest signature campaigns.

Well, I will be happy when you return to handling escrows.  I feel like I'm the one being punished here.

This is my conclusion also, staff and moderators have the possibility to check the trades that went on on the forum. I think that was the conclusion the staff came to after the test of account trades being banned. They happened anyway, only without any way to find out what happened. Trades done over private messages are different at least.

Besides. An account trade involves alot of work for an escrow, which means alot of time goes into. For example only checking the safety of the account with this checklist: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13863985

Then those trades are mostly only $50 to $100, which means practically no tip for the escrow at the end. Mostly the traders are newbie accounts anyway and vanish without tipping or promise to tip but never anything happens.

Means escrowing account trades is more an idealistic thing for providing safety and making the life of scammers harder.

---

Though OgNasty, I wonder what you mean with the many requests. From November till february the 15th I escrowed 9 account trades and 1 of it ended refunded. So in 3,5 months only 8 bitcointalk account trades. Maybe you mean accounts priced lower than $50? I think I have around 1 each 1 to 3 days that I deny because it is a lot of work and the risk is not comparable to the work amount. That you receive so many requests for bitcointalk forum account escrows is probably not because of my ban.

I think you overestimate the amount of escrow trades I handle too. What you wrote me some weeks ago let it look like you escrow way more than I do and often enough escrow requests to me end with you because you are online more often.

The only difference in the kind of trades that I accept is that I often leave the buyer the choice to accept a trade at all. I explain the risks and that I only can provide protection up to the point where I released the coins to the seller. If the buyer denies then he is safe because of knowledge gained, if he still agrees then it is his choice then. At least the protection given is higher than without an escrow. It's similar to escrowing an ICO. One could claim that it is useless. Once the issuer receives the bitcoins from escrow address he can vanish after dropping his coins. But in reality handling escrows led to, I think 2 ICO's being stopped because I hold the coins three days longer after the altcoins were spread and wallets given out. It turned out that issuers might be found scammy in the meanwhile, not properly burned coins or connected to a scamcoin. So most investors prefer an escrowed ICO, except with trustworthy members as issuers. And it gives some more protection in normal cases too.

Well, I guess you know that already.

Not providing escrow for accounts will only assist scammers even more. Accounts will be sold regardless so it's better a third party can ensure a safe transaction.

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me.  

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers.  

I do believe there are situations where double and tripple posting is suitable, for example

• Multiple discussion threads where one of the replies is exceptionally large
• Multiple, multiple discussion threadswhere a single post would end up replying to 9 people
• Fewer discussion threads but with brand new members (who are most likely to quote the entire reply)

The aim with the above is to prevent a thread becoming entirely useless as everyone's reply is quoting everyone elses discusses, making each post 50 lines high.

I don't need to be convinced of anything. Don't you not know the story, the months of pointless arguing? Some people tend to act like this if they are unable to get their way.

I doubt that many users have actually read the rules at all.

I think there is only one rule you/we should be aware of in order to avoid anything you wish,which is No.23.



There is nothing theymos could do here,this act looks like a lower level get together or team up and TBH there could be no consensus as we all know that is just a MYTH or fantasy or whatever bullshit.

The blind,deaf,brainwashed people/community supporting it and daydreaming to get to that abusable position one day is the problem.This obviously gives wings to the person who is already on that position and he will dominate as many people as he can and as much as possible,maybe the meaning of evolution in some sense ?

The saddest part is that we humans are the pinnacle of evolution and we have a BRAIN which could actually think,Imagine and Create things ,worlds or even species and which also created Bitcoin but we don't intend to use it and just go by puny judgments and discriminate people by the race they belong to, language they speak or the place they were born at and make similar groups to compete and win,BUT WHY ? cause "we want to be better,we want to be Cool ,we want to show them less" and yes we are stuck there ..lols.Very low life though.
  
IMO if i am benefiting (let it be signature or trading or any other service of mine being run on here) from anything made or is being taken care by theymos then i don't think having negativity against him is a sign of good personality in general.

In simple words,"Dodge the Doge",cause it has nothing to do with BIT

are you seriously convinced with that ?  like serious seriously ?

Damn it botany I was trying to put it simply 

Editing a post makes it appear unread, but doesn't show up in the watchlist.
This is probably the post you were referring to

That's not how this work, at least not with me. I'm very strict and do not care about other factors involved (e.g. rank; "kissing the staffs ass"). In fact, it might even get you into more trouble with me.

Moderators "control" the community, theymos rarely ever intervenes (there isn't usually a reason for him to do so). So no, this is not "anarchy". You're just appealing to emotion because you've been burned here.

The unofficial list of official rules contains just that, official rules summarized in an unofficial list.

There are no official rules posted because that is the way they like it. If there were posted rules the staff might also have to obey them. Additionally if there were posted official rules then they wouldn't be able to keep everyone on the forum in a perpetual state of chill effect by forcing everyone using it to kiss the staffs ass in the hopes that they will not get extra creative with interpreting the rules in order to peruse a vendetta against you for being critical of them, and destroy all the work required to build up a reputation around here. Then anyone without a reputation is easily marginalized. In short this creates leverage over every user no matter how trusted they are or how much they contribute.

There will never be official rules or terms of service on this forum because Theymos fancies himself an "anarcho-capitalist", and like most "anarcho-capitalists" the rules are whatever he says they are according to how it serves his own interests at any given time. Funny he likes to call himself an "anarcho-capitalist", but the definition of anarchy is "without leaders" - (an - without, archy - leaders). Yet still he rules the forum from the top down with no meaningful control being allowed to anyone else within the community. Sounds like anarchy to me  

Rules are more than just a form of government, it is a system of informing everyone in a community what is expected of them. Without this, people are simply left to examine the behaviors of others to extrapolate what the real rules are, and everyone knows that the rules are uniformly enforced upon everyone here right? No that couldn't cause any confusion at all... not that they care if the community is in disarray. That makes it much easier to misdirect them while they are being robbed.

Hmmm, strange. I was pretty certain that worked as I saw it written down somewhere, guess not. My bad.