Topic: Requesting DT members to have a clear stance on buying & selling accounts (Read 4214 times)

This is the problem with default trust. I understand that it was made to show that someone distrusts someone else and if a user has a number of negative trust points they start showing him as (possible) scammer.
The problem starts, when a you are called a scammer, because you argued with someone and they decided to mark you. Even if they say it's because they don't trust you and they have the right, and so on, your account becomes worthless. Most people don't see the trust system as "a personal trust list," but as a warning, a blacklist. A marked person has to constantly explain why they are "red", that they haven't scammed anyone, and is a victim of abuse and trolling. For instance, when you are losing a debate, why not bring up that someone is a scammer and their words have no value.

From what I understand this logic only works by calling everyone with a negative trust rating a scammer, which isn't how I think the trust system should be interprited.
A negative trust on the DT network is one person publicly distrusting someone else. That's it. It is a marker that someone on DT sees someone else as being untrustworthy, not that that person is a scammer.
Let's look over some examples:
Has Lauda scammed anyone? No. Has Lauda made some decisions that may be untrustworthy to others? Perhaps.
Did OgNasty scam anyone? No. Did he do things that could be seen as untrustworthy? Perhaps.
Same with Lutpin,
Same with TwitchySeal,
So on.
(I'm not endorsing any of the negative trusts against these people, but they are/were there and so used for examples).

Along with this, if no one on DT believes someone to be untrustworthy, they won't be tagged as such.
So in all of the examples shown above by moonpie and others, no one sees the users as untrustworthy. Due to this, they aren't tagged.
Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

Actually mini, the comparison may be valid if we go along the lines of "if you are selling accounts, you are a scammer" since people are getting tagged and called a scammer for that. Like moonpie states, "If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied."

Since Lauda and Lutpin haven't responded to the actual concern, I decided to answer for you.
I can't say why Lutpin or Lauda haven't responded to you, although I can guess that it's because you seem like nothing other than a whiny crybaby without common sense.

Then maybe you should ask ACE to not count that post towards my final count
I post here because I want to. I couldn't care if I got paid or not.

That's an invalid comparison; you're comparing two things that affect reputation differently. It wouldn't be alright to scam anyone regardless of reputation, as shown in many previous cases.

I don't believe that at all, I'm saying it is common sense to let someone off with a minor offense (if you can call it that, considering it depends on the person judging) if they have contributed a large amount to the forum.
There are many people with differing opinions on the DT network. If Lauda and Lutpin actually did something as bad as you (and the people that have strangely similar opinions and grammatical choices) like to make out, there would be nothing stopping others from either removing them from the network or countering their ratings.

And there is nothing stopping you from having those opinions, however there is a much simpler explanation that has already been said by myself and others.
That doesn't fit your agenda though, so I can see why you wouldn't accept it.

You might want to backup your affirmation with good references or get the FUD off of me. If you ever need DT and Trust lessons let me know i'm available on scheduled tasks. But come here with your main not with your alt...
~Gun

I think that you do not understand how the trust system works. I am not even sure where to point you to read up before participating in these types of discussions -- this might be a good place to start, but is far from an inclusive list of what you should read.

Personally i got benefits from those power-rangers (see my post history) and as i said before: DT is not a "power", it is a service those guys are giving (for free) to the community. Tagging, investigating, helping, escrowing: they make our life better here and like me, a lot of users had successful trades because their contribution.



The she/he matter has already been resolved, the other adjectives you used are free insults that dont fit in here.
~Gun

You should learn to read before posting. I asked why Lauda and Lutpin have not responded to my concerns, I did not say anything about why Lauda and Lutpin are giving negative trust they way they are. Maybe you have just a little bit too much incentives to make posts 

To respond to your post in regards to what you (incorrectly) thought I was asking. You think that it would be okay for me to steal a little bit of money if I make some kind of contribution to the forum?

What you are saying is that you believe the trust system is a 'boys club' in which it's members can do as they wish, and everyone else is at the wrath of it's members.

I think the reason why Lauda and Lutpin have not left negative trust to the people mentioned above is something along the lines of :


Or maybe it is something closer to along the lines of this:

Most likely because the positive contributions to the forum outweigh the negatives.

Trading in accounts isn't bad enough that it rules out any contribution to the forum for those who are/were/tried to be a part of it. The reason the majority of the accounts dealing in accounts are being tagged as such, I expect, is due to them having little to no positive contribution to the forum.

It has been several days, and neither Lauda nor Lutpin has responded to my concerns nor have they left any trust on any of the above people.

I am curious why they do not wish to address my concerns....

No, why would time play a factor in this? If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied.

There is no statue of limitations for being called a scammer, nor for receiving negative trust.

Since both Lauda and Lutpin are now aware that the above people have at least attempted to sell accounts, they should leave a negative rating for them, just as they have for everyone else that have engaged in similar activity, right?

If anything it would be the opposite, when signature campaigns were paying higher rates, providing higher incentives for spammers, and a lower threshold for spammers to break even after buying an account.

I don't think it is right for personal feelings to be involved in trust ratings. That sounds unethical to me.


It looks like you posted that you cancelled the sale when you said that you received too many low-ball offers. If we were to operate under the assumption that you really did not follow through on the sale (I think some people say they did not sell an account when they really did to facilitate the privacy of the buyer), then you at the very least attempted to sell an account.

Society tends to view attempting to commit a crime almost as bad as actually committing a crime. If people were to view the sale of accounts as severe enough of a "crime" to warrant negative trust, then trying to sell an account should warrant negative trust, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is reasonable to hand out trust ratings to everyone using similar standards, regardless of who you are. Otherwise the trust system will only turn into a "boys club"

Definitely!The time when account sales didn't provoke as much signature spam and potential scams as of now.

You never know 

Would time play a factor in this, given that most of these are over a year old? (apart from grtthegreat's thread)

Of course, this doesn't mean that the account sales had never happened, but what is true is that they are no longer actively involved in account sale activity. Even if DT members would hound after account sellers, who do you think should be targeted first? Individuals who were involved in it a year ago, or individuals who are currently selling/buying accounts?

---

@moonpie45 - Giving -ve trust to account sellers became a hype only within this past few months and that does not include those persons above. You can read also that ratings/trust are put on as a "personal" thing. It is Lauda's or other DT's choice to give +ve or -ve to users, it's personal.

DT members will never have a clear stance on buying and selling accounts.

I have no issue with it.  I know other DT members that do.   

I'd like for this thread to stay on topic - any off topic please start your own thread.   

hmmm, I am interested to see what Lauda has to say about this....or if he will even respond.....

Leaving negative ratings for "spammers" helps ACE's narrative that "high quality" (or claimed high quality) posters are necessary for advertisers to use as opposed to "normal" signature campaigns.

Also if less people can participate in normal signature campaigns then rates for ACE would increase because there is less total supply of advertisers.

Thanks for the insights, do you have any data on spam or obvious signs of bans? I know its highly subjective, but it should be possible to determine a number for shitposters.