Topic: red trust being posted to a supposed alt that is supposedly ban avoiding (Read 371 times)

he also has most likely used another alt to shill bid his own auction - the account had only ever been used to take slots in free raffles (9 or so different ones) this account was created about the time his primary account alamjob was temporarily banned. after a few weeks the account went dormant (alamjob temp ban was over) and the account only resurfaces once, to bid on Rainbowsky's auction and has not posted since.

the other suspect alt account - at least in my gut it feels like him - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/sjjm83a123-2555803

Since I'm the one who had the raffle and then ultimately locked the thread here is the archive of it:

https://archive.is/NM8Fl

This is not the 1st time my sales / auction / raffle thread have had a lot of discussion that was not just bids.
Probably going to make them all moderated from now on.

-Dave

It seems the alamjob239 account received a temporary ban and is no longer banned.  I adjusted my red trust on Rainbowsky to reflect that the user is using an alt account to escape the shite reputation of their previous account.

well rainbowsky has dropped off the deep end now - slamming me, even red trust flagging me, for buying all slots in a raffle ( the OP stated there was no slot limit) simply because he wanted a slot but had not gotten around to buying a slot.

he even referenced "headaches" he got over raffles he won last year (his account was registered June 2020) so he could only be referencing one of the two above alts - he also posts quite often the same items/pictures/lists and comments that were posted by the others - so it is either him, or he is plagiarizing the other accounts...

so if both are linked to acemax - which is banned - then it would be ban evasion.

Thank you for the research.

What is the proof the two accounts you link to were banned?  BPIP sheds no light on that subject.  Neither has given the other merits, nore has either DT trusted the other.

This link by @anonymousminer is inconclusive in connecting Bla2kja2k to alamjob239 as "proof" (especially as the original post was deleted Nuked and there isn't any archives of the quote)

---

---

However,

The closest to linking two of the three accounts is via their alts active via BPIP:  (see below for acemax https://bpip.org/Profile?id=2760726 inclusion)

Registration Date:10/1/2019 3:44:12 AM (Active 233 days ago)  - alamjob239
Registration Date:2/2/2020 10:15:23 PM (Active 237 days ago)  - Bla2kja2k

then again:

2/2/2020 10:00:10 PM    password reset via email  - alamjob239
2/4/2020 8:59:06 PM    Changed to Archived status    Nuke user  - Bla2kja2k

2/12/2020 12:37:20 PM    password reset via email  - alamjob239
2/12/2020 1:03:20 PM    password reset via email  - Bla2kja2k
Registration Date:2/13/2020 9:26:27 PM (Active 221 days ago)   - acemax

2/19/2020 7:10:31 PM    password reset via email  - Bla2kja2k
2/19/2020 7:14:34 PM    password reset via email  - alamjob239
2/20/2020 8:56:55 PM    Changed to Archived status    Autoban user  - acemax

---

---

The carpet photos link alamjob239 to Rainbowsky whilst the activity times and dates link alamjob239 to the nuked user Bla2kja2k.  

So... maybe these three are alts after-all.  If that's true, then it is ban evasion (if a mod wasn't just out on a Nuke Spree ^TM that happens from time to time)  

---

---

*edit*

There is also a suggestion that the banned user acemax u=2760726 is also an alt of alamjob239 (with no real proof offered on their trust feedback page) however, their registration date / last active date also fits the above pattern:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/acemax-2760726

Date Registered:    14 February 2020, 07:26:27
Last Active:    21 February 2020, 07:40:46

What ??

There are no repercussions for red tagging anyone for anything at an admin level.

Honest whistleblowers who are also the biggest scam hunters of all time here are red tagged by the proven scammers they busted and their proven scammer pals on DT1.

There will be no repercussions for the case you mention. Unless it was a DT1 or alt of DT1 getting tagged.

There is now zero requirement at all to give some one a red tag. Give it to them based on a provable lie. Nothing will happen.
If they are being tagged on the basis of their speculated alt having been banned.
Then even if it were a provable lie and that alt was not banned it makes no difference.
If it was not even true and there was no corroborating evidence it was even an alt that would not matter either.

There are no rules for red tags, what rules people pretend there are also change according to who you are.

I hope this post was helpful.

I think it is well proven - unless just by chance there are two members selling very similar items while also having the exact same pattern on their couch/chair or whatever that piece of furniture is.

If the user can be proven to have been cheating the rules previously, that could be a valid reason for a tag at a later period. But it would have to be proven that they are alts and that they were temporarily banned at a point and evaded that ban.

when the red trust were left on the alt - the original was not banned at that time as far as I could tell. I checked the same way I detailed above then, and again today.

Considering the most recent feedback in the main, inactive account, the suggestion by other members that the account was banned temporarily and the user was evading the ban at the time is likely accurate.

I agree that trust feedback should not be used for moderated rules and such cases, like ban evasion should be reported to moderators, but, in this situation there may be some merit to it. The user is currently unbanned and the mods can not ban the alt accounts for evasion, but if the user was actively evading a ban at the time with no regard for the rules of the forum, such behavior could be considered untrustworthy and deserving of a tag (neutral or negative).
'Ban evasion' may not be the accurate comment for the tag, as you wrote. The user is currently unbanned, so, something in the lines of, 'flouting the forum rules' may be more appropriate.

Ok, I was also concerned if I was in fact missing a place where it states that the original account was banned but no one has shown that so I can only assume that the primary account is no longer banned but that they may be using the alt due to the bad reputation the primary account earned - in which case the alt will follow suite and soon be red trusted much in the same way.

I just don't think it right to red trust it with a simple "ban evasion" reason.

Maybe it was temporary Ban that was time limited, and after that it was released but member never used it again and account remained inactive.
I saw this few times and I was confused at first, and there is no harm in writing feedback on their profiles if they are cheating.

I've red-tagged ban evaders before, though it's overkill IMO.  If there's enough evidence that account A is an alt of account B and account A is banned, account B should also be banned.  I guess sometimes moderators aren't as efficient as some of us would like, and an alt of a banned member can go on posting for quite a while.

Yeah, that's been going on for years and I can't say it helps anything, especially if the tag is neutral (like the ones Timelord2067 leaves).

Whether the primary account in this case is banned or not, it certainly seems like the member has earned a bad reputation in the Collectibles section, and those feedbacks look pretty valid to me.

From what I can see the account alamjob239 is not (or no longer) banned.
Even if the accusations of ban evading are not accurate, it may be useful to note that his old account has a questionable reputation..

I don't think ban evasion is the main issue here, but rather the reputation of the original account. Considering that the account had been red-tagged previously it stands to reason that the sockpuppet should be tagged too, otherwise they'd be evading red trust. Ban evasion - if it can be proven - should be reported to moderators.

BPIP does not show temporary bans so that's what may have happened here.

yes - but from what I can tell, the primary account is not actually banned - or is it? and I am missing where it states that it is?

People like flagging alts here anyway.

Aside from that, trust is speculative and community moderated. If they marked the account badly they could be expected to remove the red or they might get negged themselves although I don't know how often stuff like this happens.

Afaik ban evasion is punishable by a permaban of both accounts, but they'd need solid evidence the accounts were linked and it was ban evasion and potentially that the user knew it was against the rules).

I want to ask - what is the repercussions for red flagging a supposed alt for "ban evasion" if the supposed primary account is not actually banned?

There is a fellow in collectibles that is being red trust flagged by several as being the alt of a "banned" account.

The supposed "banned" account is https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/alamjob239-2688560 and on bpip https://bpip.org/Profile?id=2688560

the supposed alt account that is currently being red trust flagged is https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/rainbowsky-2823295 and on bpib https://bpip.org/Profile?id=2823295


Now, I also think the two individuals also the one and same account - evidence of such can be seen in this thread where the furniture is the same on both accounts (they posted images of "for sale" items laying on the same couch)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/auction-1-nasty-pool-1-gram-1-nasty-fan-1-gram-1-bitstashers-card-5276321

I just do not see how he can be red trust flagged for "ban evasion" if the user's primary account is not actually banned.

So, am I missing something? Was the original account banned and then un-banned and maybe the guys red trust flagging the alt are not aware? Or is the original account actually banned and I simply cannot see it as such and this guy is actually guilty of ban evasion?