Topic: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts - page 4. (Read 1753 times)

I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict?

I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.

RULE 18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened.

People are allowed to have their feelings and not everyone is going to agree. Some of you believe account sales is the end of the world, others believe it's a right, blah blah blah basically. There was a time when you could get a loan using your account as collateral. Many of the old lenders probably had control of 20+ accounts at any given time. How many of those lenders do you think became permanent owners of accounts due to defaulted loans? How many of these lenders sold those accounts under a new account so as to not be detected? Not to mention those listed that didn't make a new account to sell and avoid detection.

I personally have bought an account back in the day and sold it for a profit. You wanna tag me, go for it. You're opening a can of worms here and I don't think you come out on top.

I have posted my opinion many times on the subject and feel that if the account is a nobody, then it's no big deal. If they haven't built a rep and don't have any + trusts, they have hurt noone. An account and name is what the person who controls makes it. The accounts sold with a bunch of positive trust and big reputations are the only accounts we should worry about as they have the best odds at scamming the community. The only reason someone would pay a premium price for a trusted account is so they can get away with a scam they have planned. We as a community should evolve and grow, but what you suggest is regress.

You guys do what ya want, tag me and multiple others. I disagree 100% , but that's my opinion.

If you want to slap account sellers, can I suggest you do a search of users with either "account" or "seller" in their profile name?  (Can't hurt to look)

I agree that anyone advertising accounts for sale should be summarily tagged as they are most likely scams to begin with.  What are they going to sell?  Newbie accounts created in mass back in 2019?  The days of account farming Hero accounts just by posting 500 times in 6 months are long gone.  When I got here (right after the implementation of the merit system) account sales were certainly going on regularly, but I think that was the beginning of the end.  There are likely a couple of people who've adapted, but it's not as endemic as it once was.

---

If I didn't know better, this comment would make me suspect you actually did sell the account...  

To cryptohunter.  

I'm strongly against retroactive punishment when it applies to offenses committed several years ago and involves inactive accounts or accounts that have since proven themselves as trustworthy and/or valuable members of the community. This is for a few reasons:

- the "offense" may not have been deemed as such back then,
- the person may have genuinely changed for the better, and
- we should be able to demonstrate some leniency toward long-time members in the spirit of forgiveness.

If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016.

I'll be prepared to do that, yes.  Inactive isn't the same as banned.


Thanks for your good wishes.  Unfortunately, in deleting 2,650 trust feedbacks, I wasn't able to archive all of them, so I'm starting with those I have notes for:

A while ago (before you registered on the Forum) a profile "Operator" started a thread to explain they were buying up profiles with negative trust feedback so they could advertise in those bought profiles signature spaces.

Operatr's : SCAMMERS Relinquish & Exit Survey : Full, Senior, Heroe Get .002 BTC

Operator tried to sell their account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1058457.0;dt

I'm just looking back for my original post in one of the locked Known Alts threads, however, this is a thread I started more recently identifying some of the UID's Operator had bought.

---

---

I might end up putting this in my first post.

Thank you for your efforts. The numbers involved are colossus therefore let us wait to see what you bring on your next post, who knows you even bring up some surprises.

Dave it does not make you lazy and it cannot be denied what you are saying is true because taking a look at (and then tagging) accounts is a time consuming exercise. You have to prioritise where you want to spend your time and only you can decide where it is better spent. As you suggested, if there was a template for copying to the feedback it would help those that wanted to utilise it.

You have first hand experience in this matter which will be helpful. Keeping in mind the two conditions you wrote above, in your opinion what is the furthest back (in years) is an appropriate number to go before the account is deemed to be not appropriate to tag?

That is one of the dangers of the forum being flooded with spam and low quality posts when accounts are traded. It would not be a surprise if the buyer wants to get to work posting immediately. If the new/recent account sellers and accounts buyers manage to face problems some may decide to give and even if it is a small number it would mean our persistence is tagging accounts would have had some impact.

Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice.

But from my opinion, I won't go back to tag old accounts because of old account trades from way back in 2013 or 2016. How sure are you about the situation back then compared to the situation right now?
Were DT members back then incompetent to an extent that they ignored tagging account sales?

Just a mere look at the forum rules suggests that there was a soft stance on account sales back then, as people even used accounts as collateral for loans. This is not possible today.

This is similar to you suggesting that all DT members stop being "selective" and start tagging all accounts involved in merit abuse, spamming just because some accounts got red tagged back then for such acts, and now it's not a thing as it looks stupid leaving red trust on someone's account because they sent 5 merits to their alt account.

I feel like making suggestions in this thread base on the issue of tagging accounts sellers and bought accounts. I can't go back or remember a particular thread were I read that buying of accounts is allowed in the forum but the process of the negotiations of account buying and selling should not be negotiated in the forum, I think theirs a place in this forum such was discussed if I'm not mistaken.

my second point is that tagging all the accounts bought or trade can bring up issues because bringing all the sold accounts out it will raise many dust, because some of the bought accounts is not traceable and again they have not used any wallet in the forum before and theirs some of the bought accounts that contributed very meaningful in forum and their no evidence that shown that account bought has committed any crimes before except it was built and bought by another person ,  from the look at these, figuring out account sold might raise different alarm if is not properly handled, from my personal suggestion, I suggest that we show let this go and focus on the future and development of forum and bitcoin.

Oh buddy, you got that right!  In fact, though it wasn't exactly a full-time job for me, I did make it a personal project to start tagging anyone who so much as made an offer to buy an account back in 2016, and I kept up that battle for years--until I just got worn out.  Plus the merit system pretty much killed off account farmers, so there weren't as many accounts being dumped onto the market.

JollyGood, I agree with you about not discriminating but I've also given second chances to members to whom I've given negative trust years ago if, and only if, they've shown evidence of 1) not engaging in the buying/selling of accounts, and 2) not getting any more negative trust OR receiving legit positive trust since I gave them the negative.  

I still think these new idiots buying or selling accounts ought to be negged all to hell, and if they come to my attention I'll do so.  Anyone who's been here for a while should know that trading accounts is dangerous if the account(s) in question carry a positive reputation, as they can be used to scam, and they can also become a nuisance if they're used by sig spammers or bounty hunters who just want to write crapola nonstop.  

But none of that is new info to most of us.  Hopefully others will read what I just wrote and understand why account sales are severely frowned upon--even if they technically don't break forum rules.

As far as "discrimination" goes, I agree with you 100%.  I wouldn't start going back in history looking for account sales at this point.  Shoot, I did that myself when I started my aforementioned crusade against account dealers.  As an aside, I wasn't on DT at the time; when I eventually made it onto DT2, you wouldn't believe how much my inbox blew up.  It looked like a mushroom cloud all day, every day, for at least two months with messages from members who suddenly had their trust turn red overnight.  It's funny to think back on it now, but at the time it was annoying as hell.

This is so wrong on so many levels.  You can't go around treating everyone who fits a certain criteria the same way.  We're all individuals, and we all deserve the respect of being treated according to our actions.  Some people who purchased accounts long before you registered yours have contributed to this forum in more ways that you could ever hope to.  I'm not completely innocent in this regard, look at my recent interactions with newbies in the lending board as prime examples of my own bigotry.  But this is bigotry, unequivocally.  It's no different than walking down the street and treating everyone of a certain skin color the same way.

Now don't get me wrong, JollyGood; I don't believe you should be on DT and this black and white attitude of yours is a prime example of why I have those beliefs.  Life is full of grey areas.  If things go the way I expect, the minute you tag a long-standing contributing member for having bought his account years ago, with no DT feedback before the purchase, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people to follow your lead.  I also expect that it would lead to tons of drama, and likely cost you some DT1 inclusions.

While I do agree, it really can become a full time job to deal with.

Case in point the entire Dank14 issue. I saw the topic this AM, replied to it @ 6:45 AM give or take and had the idea of looking through the other accounts and adding them to my ~ list and tagging them.

The time it can take is not insignificant

For these scammers / spammers it is their job, so that is what we are fighting against. People like me have to take the time to do it when we could be doing other things.

Yeah, it makes me look lazy but I'm being honest here. If it's a choice between tagging someone and creating a post about how to pull your coins from a non-standard collectable private key or helping someone setup their node when it's giving them trouble. Those will win every time over tagging someone.

What would be nice, but even MORE work for the people doing hard work of tagging these people would be a standard format that others could glance at, verify that they agree with what has been said.
And then copy / cut / paste.

And here is where the work comes in, have a nice section where you can just copy and paste into their feedback and be done.

Using Dank14


Is somewhat quick.

But now you have to go get to EVERY profile:


Getting those links took a while. And, since they all are old and tagged and inactive or banned I didn't bother doing anything. Since it would not matter.
But for fresh ones, it would be nice to have to have a quick link kind of thing.

But, either way. Keep up the good work.

-Dave

I've got about 350 trust feedback remaining (some of which that have account sellers mentioned). I'll have a look through my notes and see if there are others.

---

---

Some old and inactive account sellers mexxer-2, tomatocage, quickseller and shorena all sold accounts while EFS (Formerly known as "EAL" ) Once bid 0.055 on a Full Member account back in 2015 being offered by shorena before such actions were deemed Tut-Tut...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190707083942/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0 (see also https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/investigation-dabs-tranthidung-efs-staff-member-formerly-eal-5410618 )


More to come.

reserved

This is self-moderated in order to stay on-topic and to keep clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers

Account sellers are not accepted within the community, their accounts are tagged with negative trust as soon as they are noticed by several members and I welcome that course of action as we try to minimise the impact they have on the wider forum with spamming and nefarious activity.

Going further, as a community we should not be selective about which accounts we tag for being previously sold on the basis of some traded accounts might be deemed as positively contributing to the forum. As a community we should be able to achieve some form of consensus about effectively what is the correct course of action in these types of circumstances.

If we as a collective pick and choose which sold/bought/traded accounts we tag and the ones we opt to not tag, then in my opinion we are setting a dangerous precedent because if we allow traded accounts to operate freely with impunity on the basis 'x' amount of time has passed (therefore they should not be tagged) it will send a signal to other would-be account buyers and account farmers. They too can use that as an argument and it should never be allowed.

If accounts are continuously traded on the understanding that if they are exposed at a later date they can try to defend their position by saying they purchased the account a long time ago and deserve to be given a chance just as other traded accounts were given a reprieve, it is unacceptable. This should not cloud any judgement and this practice should stop.

Once again to be clear, in my opinion if account traders make what are deemed to be any positive/good contributions towards the benefit of the forum, that cannot be superseded by the fact the account was traded. On that basis I will ~exclude accounts from my trust list and tag them.

If you know or suspect any members operating traded accounts feel free to post their name in this thread and state why you think they are using a traded/sold/bought account in order for it to be discussed as a prelude to it being possibly tagged by myself and/or others.

Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag. After all, if you feel strongly enough about it to mention the account here maybe you should consider placing your own tag beforehand.