Topic: Requesting DT members to have a clear stance on buying & selling accounts - page 2. (Read 4206 times)

It is weird that someone hacked your account, created a thread entitled AUCTION - Member account, attempted to sell an account in your possession, then lost your password.

Duh, I'm not an account seller/buyer? 

A few more examples of account sellers that Lauda/Lutpin has failed to leave negative trust for:

achow101
blazed
mexxer-2
KWH
shorena
zazarb
redsn0w
yahoo62278
grtthegreat

EAL (buyer, not a seller)

I would like to know why Lauda/Lutpin are not going to leave any kind of a negative trust rating on any of the above.

Meh, Ill accept managers. Individuals that can sell their sig via e.g. an auction would likely get better rates outside of ACE.


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.

Everyone that is trying to sell their signature space in any way is competing with ACE. Signature campaign managers also compete with ACE.

---

I followed up on the trust status of all the accounts I sold in July 2015, which was about 6 months since I sold the last of my accounts. As of then, 8 accounts had negative trust (one of which was for trying to sell his account, which is not something I agree with), and two had positive trust that they did not have when they purchased their account (all when using the default trust settings in effect at the time), out of about 135 accounts in total that I sold. maser-p was one of the accounts with positive trust at the time, and was potentially planning a long con scam.

So about 6 months after the last account I sold (and a mean time of probably about 10 months since I sold each account), about 5% of accounts had scammed (or attempted to scam), and another less than 1% was in the process of planning a long con, so maybe about 6% of my sold accounts turned out to be scammers.

I suspect that the above numbers will have since increased since then due to the fact that prices have fallen so much, although I suspect that real scam attempts by purchased accounts are still very low.

I would also point out the significant negatives to leaving negative trust for sold accounts (and alt accounts) for no reason other than the account was sold or a person has a lot of alts, as this is clearly an attempt to exclude these people from the community (not to mention the very low burden of proof that a lot of these ratings have used).

The account has changed hands at least once, and we know who is likely going to be trolling me. Anyhow, #off-topic.

---

Neither do I. That's why I explicitly stated "I don't recall any (although I may have not been looking hard enough).", as I may be wrong. However, if we were to thoroughly examine the sold accounts that got marked over time (regardless of neutral or negative) you would be able to see that a very fair number of them were used to facilitate scams, spam and whatnot (not to mention *genuinely* looking manipulation, vote brigading, et al.). At least *some* of these could have been prevented/suppressed with negative ratings. Even if we were to play the devil's advocate, I'd still strongly advise neg. rating at least Hero and Legendary accounts that have been sold. Some people tend to trust them more based on their rank, even though this is wrong by all means.

Yes, its acceptable, but I dont like it and I try my best to avoid leaving such ratings. I think it takes difficult discussions off the forum and onto the trust page.

---

How so? AFAICT there is no competitions for ACE. Its pitch is high quality, all in one ad service for the services willing to pay a little premium for that service.


That will convice people. Some random throw away account, telling them they must do something.

---

I admit I have no numbers to back my argument which makes it pretty weak.

I disagree with it doing more harm than good. Let's take a look at 2016 (or somewhat earlier, although the situation my be better the further you delve into the past) before I started tagging account sellers:
How many people had an established account for trading accounts? How many of those were established and selling good accounts (e.g. not farmed up by games & rounds, by standard spam, hacked, et al.)? I don't recall any (although I may have not been looking hard enough).
However, if we look at the opposite side, you can find a fair number of sold accounts that were used for spamming, scamming and whatnot. One recent example was Extrabyte. That possibly could have been prevented with a tag.

I have said this plenty of times: ACE is not 'mine'. If you can convince 51% of the members that I should be kicked from it, then that would happen.

Lauda is not ACE, All team members are equal in decisions and rule making.


 

It is very clear that Lauda is abusing his Default Trust power like a dislike button. What Lauda does is unethical and morally unacceptable. His is using is DT and Mod power for his own financial interest. He gave negative feedbacks to reduce his possible competitors for his ACE Campaign.

Bitcointalk Accounts has value. And Lauda remove the value of this accounts by giving them negative feedbacks. Lauda is basically scamming the account owners. If this accounts owners are spammers then banned them.

Lauda does not fit to be in Default Trust nor as Mod. He must be given negative trust or remove from DT. He is diluting the value of red trust.

IIRC, theymos has stated a counter feedback is acceptable; to counter malicious/false feedback. The issue with this is ( just like original feedback) when it starts being used as a "like" button and an obvious side effect is it could diminish credibility.

True, but I think the consequences should be considered when leaving a rating. More below.


Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good.



You know that, because...? I dont know what most people do with accounts once they are traded. I only have very limited experience in this market, mostly from failed loans. I am almost certain that none of them have been used for nefarious reasons.


Which is also the reason why there is a discussion here. If all agreed on one side, it would be simple. How do you come to this conclusion though? Do you have experience as account trader or with traded accounts?


Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here.

Yes, I am aware of that. But so does any negative review on any business. We can go back and forth on that, or we can agree that it shouldn't, but it is what it is.





Hmm...
1) a rating based on unreasonable prejudice such as racism, sexism, homophobia, different political and socio-cultural views, etc.
2) outright lies, oftentimes slanderous
3) blatant attempts to drive away customers from a competing service
4) a revenge rating which holds no merit
5) spam

There's more I'm sure, but I can't be expected to know all of them offhand, especially if I've yet to encounter them.

In the case described on the OP, I can't say that it's abusive, since the same rating is applied to other members when the aforementioned rater encounters other members in the same circumstances. Whether you agree or not that participants of account trading are deserving of a negative rating, you can surely see that the rationale behind the neg is reasonable, and therefore justifiable from the perspective of the rater. As long as the rating is based on something reasonable and justifiable, then that can't be called abusive, now can it?





Some people would consider it a legitimate enough reason, yes. However, let's face it. Most people who buy accounts don't just earn from participating in a signature campaign on one account. The rest either start scamming or spamming with a single bought account, or they are one of those rarities who get by with earning without being noticed (let's call them "innocent" for argument's sake). Now, some people would prefer to give the account traders the benefit of the doubt, if just to save one "innocent". Others would prefer to err on the side of caution. Both sides have their own perspectives, and both sides have merits. And since both sides have merits, then it also holds true that they can give out whatever rating they want to give based on any actionable evidence. That's the point of the Trust rating, after all.





This is hilarious. You need to do stand-up, guy.





The whole point of the Trust Rating is to voice out one's opinion and/or personal experience with another member, and relay a visible marker based on that opinion and/or experience. The negged member's opinion is still respected even if they get negged. They just get marked down as not being trusted by a particular member. Would you prefer for the neg-rater to create a thread titled "I DON'T TRUST THIS MEMBER ***" and link everyone to that thread instead?

Account buyers and sellers are not trusted by a lot of people, and some of those people prefer to err on the side of caution and mark all of them negatively altogether. Their opinions have merit and are reasonable. If you really feel differently, then go ahead and mark all of them green instead -- let's see where that takes you. One scam from anyone you've marked green and you'll prolly be ignored even by your friends for supporting a scam.





^ THIS.

Some very good information here, I think this should be stickied.

I've bolded the two main sections of my response here, you can skip to the response, but the Defining some Terms sections will make my response make more sense if you aren't completely understanding of the difference between Feedback and Trust. There is a TLDR at the end.

Defining of some Terms

I think its easier to understand if we use a slightly different terminology, so I'll be doing so in my explanation here. I'll start off by defining a few things. The system as a whole I will continue to call the Trust System. I will refer to comments left by someone through the Trust System as Feedback. There are two parts to the Trust System. There is Feedback and Trust. Feedback as I just defined, is the comments you leave on someone else's trust page. Trust, is when you decide you value someone's opinion as an extension of your own, and add them to your trust list.

Feedback is what most people are talking about when talking about the Trust System. It is exactly as many people have said, it is your personal opinion. Default trust starts at branch 0, these are people who Theymos have personally added to start the branches of the trust system. They were picked based on years of showing good judgement on related matters. When one of those people sees another user who's opinion they trust; someone they believe will leave accurate feedback for others, they are added to that user's Trust List. That is the difference between Trust and Feedback. Trusting someone is in a sense giving another user an extension to speak for you when they give someone feedback.

Trust is more strictly watched over by members of the Default Trust group. If I Trust someone who is making bad calls when leaving feedback, that means I am giving them license to poorly represent me. On the other hand, the feedback they leave for others is representative of their own personal beliefs. If I don't agree with their personal beliefs, I wouldn't trust them.


Now that that wall of text explanation defining the difference between Trust and Feedback is done, I'll move onto responding to your post quoted above. I bolded the points that I'm addressing.

Response to quote

1) As I just mentioned, your "Trust Rating" - Feedback should always be your opinion. Whether or not people agree with your opinion decides whether or not people choose to take your rating seriously, or disregard it as worthless. If you gave someone negative feedback for being German, anyone who disagreed would disregard your feedback. If someone on Default Trust was leaving feedback because someone was German, they most likely wouldn't stay on the list long, because that is generally viewed as a poor indicator of trustworthiness. To expand, if I Trusted someone who left Feedback because someone was German, I would stop Trusting them, as that isn't my personal view.

2) Staff members have no real impact on trust. Trust isn't moderated, and staff member feedback isn't more heavily weighted than anyone else's.

The reason the Trust System is set up like it is, is because its far more flexible to have all of the rules set by the community. What is acceptable to leave positive/negative feedback for is constantly being discussed, and changed as situations change. For example, at the start of the trust system, it wasn't necessarily common that people involved in Ponzis would get negative trust. As the community opinion has changed, that has become a more prominent thing. Morals are constantly changing. What is acceptable and not in a community changes very quickly with an evolving technology at its center. In a week, there might be a new thing that no one had ever heard of that needs a judgement. A few years ago, if you said mining to someone, they wouldn't know what you are talking about. A few years later, cloud mining became an entirely different thing. Next we are going to have atmosphere mining, and a new trust ruling will need to be made for that.

The Trust System is without rules, so that eventually the system can branch out into something that approaches decentralization (for a lack of a better term, though decentralization isn't quite right). Right now Default Trust layer 0, 1, 2, and 3 are most prominent. In time, branches 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc will be far more widespread, and to the point where the people on layer 0, 1, 2 etc can relax and let branches 6, 7, and 8 regulate themselves. Lets say there are 5 people on layer 0. Each picks 5 people to represent them. 25 people on layer 1, they each pick 5 people to represent them, so on and so on. By layer 5, we have 15625 people enforcing the community set rules. If someone on layer 5 abuses the system, the person on layer 4 deals with it. So instead of having 5 people setting the rules, we have thousands who can represent Bitcointalk's community.


Sorry that was such a long read: TLDR;

1) Feedback is not the same as trust, feedback is one's own opinion, trust is an extension of one person trusting the feedback of another user and allowing them to speak for that person.

2) "Trust ratings" - Feedback is always opinions, if you don't like someone's opinions, disregard it.

3) Trust and Feedback aren't moderated by the Staff here, Staff opinion's are exactly the same weight as other users.

4) The "rules" of the Trust System are set by community opinion. There are no official rules set by Theymos so its easier to adapt to new things. Theymos' personal opinions also mean less this way.

5) The trust system branches out so those at the center at Default Trust depth 0,1,2, etc become less important. They just need to find people that they would like to represent their opinions. Then the thousands of members at branch 5, 6, 7, 8 will be more in charge of distributing feedback that people can use as a baseline of trustworthiness.

All trust ratings are opinions. However, valid trust ratings are usually a reflection of some sort of action. Trading accounts is an action. It's not much different from newbies getting tagged for asking loans without collateral, investor based games getting tagged on sight, and similar. In all of those cases, technically no scam (or similar) has yet occurred.

The trust ratings of a staff member (DT) are not any different from other people's (DT) ratings. This system is independent from moderation, thus no ratings can be considered 'staff ratings' or 'official ratings'. They are personal ratings.

This has nothing to do with opinions, but with actions and consequences. I do not leave trust ratings based on their opinions (unless the user has demonstrated shady activity, is involved in something that is frowned upon, et al.).

No.

Hi shorena

You answered my msg to Lauda.
First I want to point out that I never have been banned from any forum ever and I have never have any issue here whatsover. I had a account here when "satoshi" were here but its lost.

Second: I dont like personal vendettas against anyone. I have a opinion that I dont think is so far away from Laudas. But its opinion. I would never let my opnions stear any trust rating. Some ppl dont like jews. Some ppl dont like germans. Some ppl dont like ppl selling accounts. But we cant let that decide the trustrating. It will open up a can of worms if ppl opinions would matter. I find ppl that do that to be dishonest. And when a staff member are abusing it then its much worse than if a member does it. The ppl that are selling accounts have a different opinion and thats why he put read trust on them. I have the opinion that Lauda is abusing the system so he maybe put red trust on me to.   

I think you already know the point.  The point is if its legit then they should never get red trust ratings. If he have a opinion about it. He can give it without negative trust rating. If you cant relay on staff following rules then what hope can we have about members of this forum. They can point fingers and say - Hey they are abusing the system so why cant I do it!

I hope this forum would be a nicer forum in the futur and that respect ppl opinions even if they are not the same as yours.
There are many rules on a forum. Some are written some are not. Same in the real life.

Im waiting for my red trust rating   

Very well explanation sir. But the point here is even though some people didn't care about content of red mark, and it is obviously not affecting on what business are we dealing, the main fact here is the red mark is just like a curse, once other user see the mark, they don't bother to communicate and read the trust feedback. In short explanation, once account has red mark. It is totally useless. Even joining the campaign and other bounty will be remove as privileged here in the forum for disobeying the rules that are not written on the by laws of the forum.


I think it is time now for the revision of the laws of forum so that everyone will be aware and there is no excuses anymore.

Realistically, it does though.


What would be an abusive rating for you?


You can have that opinion, but it does not change the fact that is valid reason for many others that engage in account deals.

Trust has nothing to do with what's allowed by the forum rules. Trust is strictly about trust. If one user thinks that a user participating in account trading is not trustworthy, then it is the former's prerogative to exercise his/her privilege of handing a Trust Rating reflecting his/her thoughts to the latter's account. Essentially, if another user deems you or your account suspicious, then he/she has a right to voice it out. In the end, that's all it is -- a user's voice. If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business. As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused, then no one has any say over having a rating removed other than the one who gave the rating (and Theymos, but that's not the point). As far as I can see, there is nothing unreasonable about negging someone for participating in account trading, as I am also of the opinion that there is no legitimate reason to buy accounts on a public discussion board. (And no, trying to earn BTC from posting is not a legitimate reason.)