Topic: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts (Read 1686 times)

The argument about this topic is too hot, the heat alone from the start would have gotten us a positive results about buying and selling of account even the crazy one we have about scammers doing there thing without being spotted.
What's the way to tackle such a thing because you guys might argue all you want but I don't think this is going anywhere. They say you can't say a lion is gentle that it can't cause any harm just because he's seated quiet not until you get close and touch the tail then you'd know how dangerous it is.
What I'm trying to say is that, you can identify the problem but it seems we just have to wait till it causes several damages before we act (no doubt you guys are doing a great job in identifying the bad guys of the Forum).
If anyone is seen going off the line, you stop that move before it becomes bad in the future.

Honestly I already like my avatar, but I'm trying to join the campaign. If someone complained about this, and wanted me to stop my campaign, I would probably be prepared to do so.

It seems like we've gone too far off topic. If anyone wants to continue, please open a new thread and I'll be there

This is not something we see for the first time as there is a certain member who applied for CM weeks before he could even joined the campaign (he was a Full Member while mininum was Sr Member) and no one really saw anything strange with it. In the end he was even accepted into the campaign despite that as he was/is a top quality poster so manager made an exception.


What is your motive? I see that you were already an expert on signature campaigns 2 weeks after joining bitcointalk.

Don't get me wrong, huge percentage of new accounts are probably alts but it makes no sense tagging people over something like this.

Seriously, you're trying to get someone tagged because they have preemptively applied for a campaign?

Despite your valid concerns about the new member who knows about the forum (BabyBandit is another good/similar example), which I think are valid, I think making a post purely for the reason that you did was not necessary.

Maybe next time, just keep an eye on them and build a case before posting? At the moment you lack evidence and look a bit petty in my opinion.

Is there something wrong? Am I not allowed to take part in the campaign? try to show me the rules that prevent me from joining the campaign...

I deliberately applied early... and I know when my schedule will be promoted... I read a lot here. if you want to argue. Let's go

---

The activity change schedule is here : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12saLhlUoqIdairxzuSPu6EYGrt7FN2lOstO1yDjCEbA

---

I don't mind not joining the campaign. Let's do it healthily and drop your signature. let's discuss in the forum without any money reward.

---

Sorry, OP. this is off topic. but someone brought this topic up and it looks like they didn't know the no-going-off-topic rule

Hopefully no one will interfere and let the two of us argue logically

Bump

I see him applied in two campaigns where the minimum rank to participate is full member while he's still in member rank. But he's not patient to wait until he reach full member and he's really know when his activity will increase.

I think we're already know what his motive joining this forum and possibly an alt account that's already very well know about everything.

I understood that part because you were talking in a generic sense.

If it took that incident of the 0.3 BTC to re-evaluate forum trust then it seems you learned the hard way and I am sorry for your loss. Having said that your tag should have been sufficient enough to ensure he was unable to scam anyone again therefore through you loss if you managed to protect others at least something positive came from the event.

Whether it was peer pressure or something else, I think things have changed since those days. People seem to be far more vocal about tagging accounts and it could be because of the amount of money involved with signature campaigns at the current BTC/USD rate.

Nowadays not only are the tagged accounts creating threads to draw attention to themselves, there are forum members with grudges getting involved in the hope of aggravating the situation (as a result of their vindictive nature) and most of this over neutral not negative tags.

In many cases the green trusted accounts are the most dangerous because if they are traded there is a possibility they will ask for a loan with the intention of defaulting. To make matter worse, maybe they will take a series of small to medium sized loans and replay them only to then take multiple loans from multiple sources only to default.

Yes I do. I doubt an account seller would make a post in the Reputation board announcing the sale because if that were the case it would leave the account almost useless.

Keeping all this in mind it is somewhat sad that the community has been unable to find a solution that is widely acceptable. Some are genuinely searching for a solution seeking consensus therefore I hope we find it.

Just to clarify:  after reading what I wrote about old tags and what you responded with about rby, I wasn't talking about the rby account or the negative trust you gave to it; I was just thinking in more general terms, e.g., seeking out people who might have been in the account trading game years ago.  IMO that's unnecessary.  But obviously you're distrusting rby for other reasons, which I don't have a problem with.

And when I was reading about the coin you were referring to I couldn't help but wonder if it was the one with the ticker RBIES (which apparently it isn't).  I recall reading a big brouhaha about that one and its guaranteed buyback price a few years ago, and there was some member who was constantly complaining (rightly) about it.  If this forum's search function wasn't so slow and messed up I'd provide a link, but it's off-topic anyway and I'm also lazy.  Lol.  But coins that have anything to do with rubies in their name don't seem to fare well, do they?

Yep, that was a nightmare--and bitcoin wasn't worth nearly as much as it is today.  I'd love to have 0.3BTC saved somewhere, anywhere, and though I probably still wouldn't even if TimSweat hadn't screwed me I like to torture myself with that fantasy from time to time.  That incident taught me a whole lot about lending and forum trust, I'll say that much.

I think they should be tagged when they're found to be up for sale or have just been sold.  Aside from that, I wouldn't be in favor of any hard-and-fast rules--not that they could be enforced anyway, and tagging account sellers and/or sold accounts has always been a controversial subject anyhow.  I understand that and don't expect everyone to agree with me.  I never did.  When I began my red-trust blitzkrieg offensive, I really thought I'd get a lot of blow-back from DT members or at least from a wide variety of members from the community--but I didn't.  That's surely not because everyone agreed with what I was doing; I suspect that some feared any opposition would mean facing the wrath of The Cult of Lauda, which I was associated with:

A lot of members of Lauda's gang supported tagging account dealers, and many of them had/have strong personalities that would make a less-hardened member not want to fuck with one.  Peer pressure, man.  It's a real thing, even on an internet forum where you can't get your ass kicked all black and blue.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if you want to hand out red trust to accounts you discover to have been sold, go for it.  I still do it myself when I find them and if it's not a throwaway account.  IMO, it's especially important to let the community know if a green-trusted member earned that trust themselves or if the account was sold to the current owner along with said trust, because that could be a scam in the making.  That all goes back to the weight some people put on green-trusted accounts (like myself and TimSweat back in 2016).  They can be dangerous when they're in the wrong hands because some people see that green and assume the member can be trusted with, say, a no-collateral loan or a trade with no escrow.

And yes, I've done trades like that based on my reputation where other members have sent funds first.  I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that, but just imagine if I secretly sold my account yesterday and then it showed up in the Exchange section today looking to buy some BTC.  You get the picture.

Finally I found your comment that I agree with. That's right, you don't need to invite inappropriate people because in this forum what is appropriate is only for yourself. No other. In addition, the assessment is easy, there is no need to present evidence, real witnesses and the perpetrator's defense. Just tag it, it's easy and hassle-free. I want to learn the way of judgment like you, looks so easy and hassle free

It is a mess that is for sure and maybe that was why it was never sorted out in the past. With there being that number of members who have their own views the chances are it will be difficult to agree to anything but at least an effort is being made to reach some consensus in order to move forward.

I am not sure a case by case basis is a good idea simply because it invites those that do not deserve it another opportunity to waste time in the hope members here will be engaged in in-fighting. That is just my opinion and it is one of many therefore I invite more participation in this discussion.

Banning of Bitcointalk account sales may never happen. If this was to happen, it should have been at the time the forum was hacked and several accounts stolen
The reason they won't ban the sales is here

You can't prevent them or prove them all the time. As long as the signature campaign is here on the forum, account trading will be there. How will you ensure an account isn't traded or traded? theymos doesn't want to give a false impression since it's impossible to track. So, it's better to be with the current rule. The feedback system can fight with account traders nicely.

You are always wise and have broad views. I absolutely agree with this, everything should be based on a specific case. Maybe it would be better if we could propose to the forum to ban trading accounts so that if someone buys an account then it is clear that it is a violation. Until now buying and selling accounts is still legal in the rules of this forum.

You are right, I think mostly each case has its own circumstances and we should deal each one separately. Everything should be proved, different things should be discussed. I myself leave not so many tags because I think I should understand by my own why do I leave a tag and did I understand enough to do that. I never do so just because someone reputable did so. When I vote for and against flags I read each case and make my own conclusions. If I'm not sure I just don't vote at all. The same I expect from responsible DT members.

There can be some obvious cases like negative tagging cheaters opening threads for selling unnamed accounts (probably hacked) or merits. But other cases should be proved and probably discussed. If account is hacked and/or sold after that I tend to think that a negative tag is justified if there are no argues for opposite. If there are reasonable argues it can get a neutral tag, but every account which changed hands should be tagged one way or another.

See, you prove the case by case argument. Legit sellers, hackers, scammers it's all different. There's not any way to really give blanket forgiveness as I mentioned a few days ago. You have to look at the facts of each case and go from there.

Imagine someone hacked account of satoshi (if it wasn't blocked) and sold it to someone for signature posting. The buyer will fairly post some low quality things for getting paid and will never scam anyone. And what about a reputation of original owner of satoshi's account? If he's not among us at the moment, has it no value anymore?

If someone pretends to be someone else it is shady by itself. It's not just about that I don't like sellers. If someone will decide to sell his own account, well, I think at least neutral tag is needed, but, well, it's not such a big deal for me (for some others it is a problem). What I don't like is that account trading motivates hackers to hack old accounts. And buyers pretend to get background of the original owner for their own and ruin his reputation.

Account sellers may have purchased the account for resale and are not tied to the scam, but if an account scammed they fall into the collateral damage category as well. It's the account that gets ruined, the seller themselves may have nothing to do with the scam.

Again, it should be looked at as case by case, if the seller was not in control and didn't do the scam, why tag them? Aside from the fact that people dislike sellers. The account that the scam was done on is what should be tagged.

Its a whole mess of a topic for sure. My mind could be swayed and its a subject that we will never get 50%+ of the masses to agree on.

Are you still of the thought that there should be blanket amnesty for account traders before say 1st July 2023 and that all traded accounts discovered after this date can be tagged: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62478118

Various views have been put forward, I would like to compile and present them as comparators to take the discussion forward.

That was precisely why I decided to tag the rby account. I should have tagged it in 2019 when created the scam thread but the account and not necessarily the new owner was the receiving the tag and in those circumstances they have to accept the collateral damage (as you put it) and move on.

If an account has been associated with a scam, it should be tagged for that specific scam regardless of whether the new owner/operator is posting excellent quality content or low quality trash.

There are many cases as you aptly pointed out where those with multiple accounts or purchased accounts are quietly receiving this signature campaign payouts by posting in threads where they can keep a low profile yet for inexplicable reasons they decide to get involved in threads where they get noticed and for that reason some members start looking to those accounts only to discover the accounts were either hacked/brought/sold or there are a series of connected alt-accounts.

They do not learn from others mistakes and like others they get themselves noticed and only have themselves to blame.

Aren't most people who are in sig campaigns worried about post quota and getting paid? We may not be buying accounts in order to circumvent the process of ranking up and enrolling, but we still have the same worries, or we wouldn't be in the campaigns.

Sorry wasn't trying to derail, i just feel like bought account or not we still have some of the same issues. Some just did it the right way vs the other way.

Whether a new owner or not, if the account was involved in a scam, they should probably be tagged and the new owner just has to deal with the collateral damage. If they were that worried about future consequences, then they should have done some research before purchasing the account. That is, assuming the seller released the name before purchase. If not, buyers should stay out of forum drama and just worry about their post quota to stay under the radar. How many times has a person tried to get involved and been outted? This guy would not be the 1st. Learn your lesson here folks!!!

These are moments of a historical period being posted and shared therefore it is interesting to read about what was going on back there. I had no idea you were scammed back then but I do have recollections of reading some of your feedbacks for account buyers. Now I understand why you did it.

One of the problems with that rby account at the moment is that I created a scam accusation for Rubycoin years ago, for one reason or another I did not tag it probably because I forgot or was busy looking around for other scams. Several years later the buyer purchased it because it did not any have any red tags from DT members and it could used for signature campaigns therefore had I tagged it back in 2019 it most probably would never have been put up for sale and there would never have been a buyer or a seller.

Whether the current owner/operator of the rby account is disruptive (or not) did not form my basis of the negative feedback. The rby account was behind the Rubycoin scam and for that reason the account should have been tagged when I created the scam accusation in 2019. When I noticed my error I decided to tag for that scam.

I have no interest if the current owner/operator of the rby account is contributing positively or not, all that matters to me is that the rby account was used for the Rubycoin scam and deserves a tag. What does not help the current owner/operator is that he is lying when he claims he miraculously remembered post-Covid19 that he had a forum account and because of nostalgia decided to reactivate it. Instead of owning up to having multiple accounts he has gone down the opposite route.

You are posting to an account buyer/seller who is probably using multiple accounts enrolled on signature campaigns. Apart from maybe a thread or post here and there where he demonstrates he is not exactly a low quality poster (and that is subjective), it is all a smokescreen designed for misdirection just in the event any of his accounts gets caught out.

It happens with other account buyers too because all they are interested in is meeting their posting quota for their signature campaigns. He really does not have any interest in Satoshi or anything else beyond signature campaigns enrolment.  

==================================

Where do you think we should draw the line with tagging accounts that have been purchased as far as amnesty is concerned? Some have cited the date of the introduction of the feedback system others have said other things. I would like to read your views.