Topic: Old Accounts That Have Likely Been Hacked/Traded - page 2. (Read 2412 times)

Perhaps this could be the first time, someone stands out and asking a justification for your trust feedback. Otherwise, when someone tries to keep their reputation up, that will not sound like suspicious overreaction to you.

Same efforts need to be shown when someone appeals. You cannot go on your own way. If you are not ready to explain your stand, then obviously you will find the situation as derailing.

This is out of coverage of this topic.

Yes, I have not earned lots of merits. Please note, this got nothing to do with account ownership

If my posts are bad, please remember there is a report option with every post. (Again nothing to do with ownership).

Yes, I am not into any campaign, again, it would be too good at least you explain what it got to do with my account ownership.

I am not answerable to guess work. (Still nothing to do with the context of this topic).

---

@nutildah tried this gimmicks way to make their post look like constructive but nothing to do with the context of the whole topic.

At least as per the criteria of this topic:

Simply, when we are into account trade related debate, there will be no need to talk about the quality level of my posts.

I asked about why focusing on off-topic things to @nutildah in multiple times within this topic here and here and here. But, they ignored and sidestepped.

---

Now, you also counting my post history's quality level against my account ownership. (Let me learn if I am missing anything here).

If this is the real sense you are using that word means, you do not need to count that particular post while leaving a comment in my trust page. You are contradicting yourself. Your claim of sense of using "purport" with that particular post is not matching.

There will be no need of continuing our discussion when you are ready to explain your stand. No topic is meant for only reporting but includes all related things as well.

This is probably the last post in this thread regarding your highly suspicious overreaction to a neutral feedback and derailing a thread that had a lot of effort put in by nutildah and others including lovesmayfamilis.

Having said that, I would like to mention this particular post because I agree with it:

You don't earn a lot of merits because your posts are bad, and that's probably the real reason why you're not in any campaign. I'm gonna guess your posts are bad because you operate several accounts simultaneously & you churn out the bare minimum to meet campaign requirements.


The word purporting has multiple meanings when used as verb vs noun: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/purporting

the meaning or sense of something, as of a piece of writing or of what one says: the general purport of the message.

I do not mind rewriting the neutral feedback if you insist but you should reopen the locked thread to discuss your feedback and not pollute this thread any further.

Yeah, because like the subject-line of this topic reminds, the evidence here being showed up are not final but only Likely. It means, if you have pints to defend, then you may go for debating.

Thank you for your opinion, moreover thank you very much for finding time to leave your opinion, this type of participation will help balancing a healthy environment across this community, otherwise we will have only biased verdicts.

This is now becoming a debating thread.
This thread supposed to be a similar thread like AI reporting thread if I am not wrong. All I wanted to see a signed message from an old address from that guy and he did it. Now, if you still have doubts, you may leave a neutral which JollyGood did. But you should have a point why you are leaving that.

OP, if you disagree with the feedback, create your own reputation thread and invite JollyGood to join if he wants (You seems created a thread, but it's locked). If other community members think he is not right and overreacting, he might get some DT exclusion. But if community thinks he is right, you are likely to get more feedbacks.

I did the maximum available method to prove my ownership. But in your comment, you sound like I have manipulated to pretend like.

Simply, why not your comment could be like "he signed a message to show ownership", instead of "he signed a message purporting to show ownership".

FYI:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/purport

Can you elaborate on what seems unconvincing to you?

Yeah, I can sign but what changes it will bring?

Also, I like to ask what makes you feel like purporting instead of actual?

Thank you for posting this because it is interesting indeed. Maybe he will address your post.


 

I am not convinced with your term purport in my reputation page. For revising this, what should I need to do.

By you not answering those questions it is your prerogative but your refusal is unrelated to the neutral feedback as it was placed beforehand. No part of the neutral feedback that I left you is factually incorrect. In fact that is exactly what happened:

After being questioned about whether the "TheGreatPython" account was being controlled/operated by the original creator, he signed a message purporting to show ownership

After your earlier comment in this thread (in your opinion) turning in to a PM between you and nutildah, I would like to not engage in an elongated process but if can you satisfactorily explain why the neutral tag is a problem for you or which part of it is incorrect, I will revisit it.

You are the one who frequents this topic but you are too busy on checking everyone's post history rather stating your opinion into an on-going conversation.

I meant this initiative of fighting against account trade should not be based on individual's decision rather it should be a community driven. It means everyone's opinion matters and should be counted.

In summary, when more people participate in an initiative, then the errors will be very little.

Well, now it's caught the attention of someone who needs time to remove their tags . And while TheGreatPython has already removed one neutral tag, ironically a new one has appeared. TheGreatPython, having someone's name in the reputation section very often results in people getting many more tags instead of just one.


edit:

TheGreatPython, this address is interesting. 1NGeVpgunUA1JuzNNddtceYHqYCfPaZBXT
It still has bitcoins.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1NGeVpgunUA1JuzNNddtceYHqYCfPaZBXT

Can you sign the address from it?

And isn't this what you meant when you suggested creating places in the signature of companies for those who haven't spent their bitcoins for a long time?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5510125

https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=1NGeVpgunUA1JuzNNddtceYHqYCfPaZBXT

What led you to ask these? I am sure that you need to clarify why you are asking these....

I mean, if you find anything for change of ownership, I am ready to answer for those.

In other words, @nutildah found that beer post and cooked their own story against my recent local board posting. That beer post was from 2021, so I needed to sign with any date before 2021. If you are concerned about before 2016, you need yours.

I received the PM and noted the post here. I saw the address from 2016 in that post and the message you signed therefore I will revise (not remove) the tag. I have a couple of questions I hope you do not mind answering even though they are direct and to the point and even though I think I know what you will answer, nevertheless:

Are you the person that created/registered the TheGreatPython account?
Did the account ever change hands either for money or any other purpose?

@JollyGood,

I signed a message here against OP's doubt..

Please remove your tag.... (Also send you PM).

---

@nutildah (OP),

I like to suggest you about keep updating open-post of this topic with the list of cases investigated here along with final conclusion.

I tagged the account with neutral feedback just as you did. They also have an account with another forum therefore it is safe to assume this is all about signature campaigns. When accounts are traded, what are the chances it will be limited to just a single account rather than it being one of many trades to add to the account farm portfolio? There could be much more.

Considerably the account selling business is one that has been viewed as legal on the forum and most of it is due to the fact that, there isn’t an actual proof that, the accounts did change hands except for cases where we have some obvious strains on how this is been done on wake up accounts which is;
Email and password resets,
Change in posting style,
Local board participation and
Boards in which such account is known to frequent.

How about, having to attack this form of behavior by seeking out the goals for which the accounts are meant to seek! I’ll explain;

Most of the bought accounts are known to always be geared towards signatures and loans. It’s the orientation that can ever exists for these bought accounts and there is a way to actually tackle that by attacking it’s goals. Perhaps an implementation into the rules of the forum by disorientating the goals. Maybe not the loans as it is in fact largely based on the persons offering these loans but by default as a means to tackle account sales;

Can’t we have a function that actually gives you a signature ban after haven’t been inactive on the forum for over a year, where the ban can apply for half-life of your absentee?
Where the ban serves as a time to learn what have changed in the days of your absence on the forum should you have claims to be the original owner.

It would be a half life system, Where;
X = Time out (months)
2 = Divisor to determine half life sig ban.
We could use 12months (1year) as the most basic.

Haven’t been out for a year,
You get a 12/2 = 6months sig ban.
Absent for 2years and you get a 24/2 = 12 months signature ban.
You were absent for a year, you get a 6months signature ban.

This would in turn have a direct effect on buying of old accounts and I doubt there are active users of the forum that would sell there accounts. The most I’ve seen care so much of there reputation and like to keep things that away, in the likes of Lauda and Leo, although the case of Leo was an ill fated situation but, it’s credible how Leo handled it and I get emotional just writing about Leo but, it’s the idea am hoping you all get.

If this half life sig ban becomes the case, activated by default, it would directly undermine buying of old accounts.

martinex

The account owner changed. Registered March 22, 2014, 05:39:34 PM
The original account owner wrote in the Chinese local section. Posts stopped in 2016. All posts in Chinese are deleted by the new owner who bought or hacked the account.

https://ninjastic.space/search?author=martinex&board=119
https://ninjastic.space/search?author=martinex&board=118

There are also some early posts from 2017 to 2021. There are not many of them. Probably the account was trading and was not active during this time.

After that, in 2023, posts start in the Indonesian local section and English.
https://bpip.org/Profile?p=martinex

Its just a neutral tag. You don't earn a lot of merits because your posts are bad, and that's probably the real reason why you're not in any campaign. I'm gonna guess your posts are bad because you operate several accounts simultaneously & you churn out the bare minimum to meet campaign requirements.

Having said that, I will delete the neutral tag on the basis that account trading wasn't really frowned upon at the time you acquired the account.

Because, when something is NOT TRUE, why should I bear that?


1. Yes, I signed up in 2013
2. I have been participating in gambling for a long time but not sure why you STATE "all of sudden" regarding this.
3. Yes, started posting in Pak local board recently; no rule or no DT practice prevents that AFAIK.
(Please note I am not switching from one local board to another but only from English boards to one local board)

Now, please tell me what are you proving by my last 120 days activity.

---

I feel like my case in this topic is going 1 to 1 for a long time. Usually I do see lots of people do state their opinion in all other topics but here I feel like I am talking with @nutildah in PM.