Topic: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts (Read 1753 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.

You got that mostly right.  

If you can find someone (like maybe Lauda) who was tagging account buyers/sellers before me, please let me know because I think I was the first to start doing so in 2016.  That's because I got scammed for 0.3BTC by TimSweat; he had green trust and I stupidly thought that meant something more than it did.  After that, I realized how dangerous it could be if an account with green trust got into a scammer's hands--and back then, there were all sorts of threads in which accounts like that were being sold.

I didn't discriminate when handing out the red trust back then, but as I said there should be room for second chances.  Every case is different, but in general account trading is a net negative for the forum.  Not everyone thinks traded accounts ought to be tagged, and that's fine.  It's good for us to have a wide range of opinions on things, but I'm always going to side with someone who tags an account buyer or seller.

But if it happened years ago?  Eh.  At this point if the account in question hasn't done any damage and doesn't necessarily have the potential to for the reason I mentioned or because they've turned into a seriously disruptive shitposter/troll, I'd leave it alone.

Lol.  Your point that people and their lives change over time is well-taken.  Whether Satoshi is doing what he was doing back in 2009 and prior is unknown, I could look at my own life and tell you that so much has changed in the past four years that many of the posts I wrote before 2019 I wouldn't have written today (though my writing style hasn't changed that much to my knowledge).

edited: the original first part of this post will be posted next

Yes going all the way back to January 2019 I created a scam accusation about the rby scammer. I cannot recall why I did not tag the account, I simply cannot work out why I did not tag.

Well, though it would be good for the current rby account operator to explain their actions (in the buying/selling process when they purchased the rby account), I expect to hear very little from them now that the account has been tagged by multiple members.

For the current rby account, there is a sense of irony that the account is enrolled in the Sinbad.io signature campaign

The laughable part in that post is that somehow the Bitcoin creator (Satoshi) and the Rubycoin creator (rby) have been mentioned in the same sentence


So it is confirmed, the current owner/operator of the rby account claims to be the original creator of the account.

The current owner/operator of the rby account has already claimed in a post I quoted above that they are the original creator of the account, therefore we have that statement now. They have made it clear they claim are the original owner/creator of the rby account. I think we all agree that claim is absolute nonsense.

From this point forward, all posts related to the "rby" account or the Rubycoin scam in this thread will be deleted as we have already gone off-topic for too long. Feel free to continue the discussion regarding all matters related to the rby account in the newly created uncensored thread: The curious case of forum member: rby (of the Rubycoin scam)

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?


Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board?

I am not moved by the shitposting talks. Just like people wearing signatures and completing weekly post quota, accusing others of posting to complete post quota. LOL
What signifant difference? Someone announcing a project and bumbing a thread and later joining conversation. Nothing to show.


You understand that you do not have any case here not even an iota. If there be, you should have uncovered it. Atleast, I have known you for sometime here and how you work.

Poker player, follow the standard and don't just speculate. Everyone knows how to go into one another's profile to write whatever feedbacks. But we do it only when there are glaring evidences which are purely indisputable.

I think it's a good idea. Accounts that have changed hands as from February 2018 should be red tagged, while in the previous ones it should not be an amnesty in my opinion, but see each case.

Account trading was not closely monitored prior to the implementation of the merit system. It seems that only account sellers were tagged by the Pharmicst. However, after the introduction of the merit system, account trading became widely tagged. This is because it has become increasingly difficult to build an account through merits alone, leading people to choose the option of purchasing accounts instead.

In my opinion, if those involved in account trading had proven themselves to be trustworthy before the merit system was implemented, it might have been considered to remove their tags. However, tagging them instead would have disrupted the balance of the forum and could have reignited conflicts.

Account trading should not be tolerated after the introduction of the merit system. A trustworthy individual would not engage in buying accounts and would instead focus on being a valuable contributor. Good contributors do not need to purchase accounts; they can easily build their own.

Well, I don't know, I was sure there was nothing, but now I see the untrusted feedback, I guess it was a mistake of mine.

So, we have several untrusted feedback and the only one that has a reference dates back 9 years, accusation of which rby has defended himself although I don't know how well. I would tag him for the account having changed hands but not for that past event that I do not have the information to evaluate but since we are debating it, I will wait to decide whether to tag him or not.


I don't know where you got that nonsense from. My friend has nothing to do with what nutildah and I are discussing here.

Does this have something to do with Royse? I saw a poker player thread with royse getting heated. Looks like you took it that way back

This one is a bit more subjective but I disagree entirely. Aside from the posts made by the previous owner (who was a native English speaker) and the new owner's recent foray into Reputational matters, most of his posts are low-effort nothingness that exist simply to fill a post quota. But I suppose its not fair to single him out from the other accounts that post in the Gambling section which also excel in writing nothingness.


You didn't look hard enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In this case and in the context of the reply, I agree the expectations he has are over reaching.

Thank you for highlighting this lovesmayfamilis.

Well, I have no idea if nutildah was talking specifically about the rby account but you are right about this thread. It was long overdue but after reading nonsense from rby in the thread you referenced, I decided to create the thread in order to have a generalised discussion about account trading.

Anybody can correct me if I am wrong but it seems he is saying with great conviction (and for reasons not yet fully known) words to the effect of: Someone who owns multiple accounts should not be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they control the accounts until/unless they have scammed.

And if it were a simple case of the rby account simply keeping a low profile and making enough posts to reach signature campaign payment quote then you would not have even looked at their profile. The rby account is yet another that has unilaterally by their own volition brought an unwanted and unnecessary spotlight to themselves.

Having said that do we know for sure who nutildah was referring to?

Ok... This is quite long and I will try to answer it with my limited English skills

I think I have caught the attention of a god class member. Maybe it's good for me or bad for me, I don't know, let time will tell my progress in this forum

I just joined this forum about 24 days ago. When I first joined everyone was explaining about forum rules, I read them, then there was a case about using AI, I read about it, then there was a second use case for AI, I read about it, then the case of naim and abraham, I read about it, then the case of royse with poker players , I read it, then I read the timelord thread, Saw many members tagged by actmyname, then I read the meta thread and beniner & help.

Isn't that enough to tell me about this forum?

Before you, there were many people who thought I caught  to know this forum too quickly. Including how I get merit here. I think it's easy, there are lots of threads that help members get merit, they're all here and can be read by anyone

I even sometimes read threads in Russian and I translate them. Maybe my language skills are limited but there is technology that can help me, google translate is enough to help me read many threads here.

My next question is, how long does it take for a new member to understand the forum? As for what needs to be explained here, anyone who wants to read it can understand it quickly.

Sometimes I'm smart enough or sometimes I'm like an idiot, that's a must, because I also need merit, new members like me won't be considered if I answer, so I think it's better to be stupid and ask a lot of questions.

I found a violation but no one answered it, that's because I'm an ordinary member, if you find it, many member will reply and many will give merit. I already understand that most merits are given to famous people, new members are very difficult to get because we are not considered.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62477458

Like I said, I have a friend who has joined this forum. When I was told that I often comment on reputation threads, my friend forbade it. He told me not to relate with DT, because I could get marked. But I ignore it

I think this thread is interesting to discuss. The other threads are just small talk for signature campaigns. I'm not on a campaign so I'm more interested in discussing. Even though I know that what I say won't be taken into account because I'm still a junior member

It might annoy you when a junior member joins in commenting here. Indeed I am a nobody, and you are a DT and a member of the god class. If you tell me to stop commenting here. I will do it. I want to be here safely, I also want to join the campaign one day.

But I didn't find any interesting thread other than here. Maybe it's better for me to become an ordinary member with lots of posts to get merit. And one day you will judge me as a trash poster who is only concerned with merit and sigcamp.

You are free to judge me, because you are the judge. I won't be able to do anything. I'm also not a Timelord2067 who has a high level but doesn't follow the campaign. I'm just an ordinary member. And if you tell me to be an idiot and not to be smart here. I will do it with pleasure.

---

I hope my writing can be read because my language skills are limited. Maybe I'll edit/fix it for readability

---

I think this has gone off topic. I'll do what you say in next reply, and after that you can continue the discussion on this topic

I will continue replying and addressing the key posts in the this thread but as they get too long, I post using small numbers. Having said that I decided to make this post before continuing with matters related specifically to this thread because I cannot be the only one reading these replies from PytagoraZ and wondering why he is very strong in advocating alt-accounts (which may or may not be cheating in signature campaigns and bounties) should not be tagged on the basis they have not scammed.

PytagoraZ has been clear (apart from once in what appears to be a typing error) that there is a distinction between scammers and alt-accounts. I am not disputing that not all alt-accounts are scammers but a member such as PytagoraZ who has been registered in the forum for around 24 days is bringing attention to himself as his motives could be questioned. After all, he seems to know a lot about this forum in a space of the days he has been registered.

Furthermore, he has clearly stated his friends do not have alt-accounts and has already laid down what can be seen by some as the information as protection in case an error of judgement happened on his part (such using a known address or merit abuse or email share etc) because he already covered most of that in his first post in this thread by alluding to account connections and if any such account was connected in future he has a case to cite this thread a reference in that he already stated shared address and said there is an element of fear his friends have when using this forum to the extent they dare not enter yet somehow share posted addresses.

Add to that everything else you can deduce by reading between the lines it makes it clear PytagoraZ is not the newbie he claims to be who somehow frequently switches from the highly knowledgable to the innocent buffoon within the space of a few posts.

For those reasons, if PytagoraZ has nothing constructive to add to this thread I advise him to stop posting here and will also state that if their main motive was to create an account in order to seek further rank for using in future signature campaigns (possibly alongside other accounts), then this PytagoraZ account has already been brought to the attention of some for users who just may keep an eye on it for future reference.

As said earlier, I have been asked some questions by respected members and I intend to answer them as best I can but that will happen in the next post.

I spent some time looking at @rby's post history yesterday, and I can safely say that he is not the original owner of the account.
The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week.


https://ninjastic.space/post/7626147


https://ninjastic.space/post/7363114


https://ninjastic.space/post/7638304

And that's why I asked the opinion of @JollyGood himself about what he thinks about this account.
It was he, who was the creator of the topic, who accused this project of being a scam.
There are many allegations about this project on the Internet.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-rby-rubycoin-5102088



But if we talk about the fact that the current owner is not the person who was behind the account at the very beginning, then you can simply trace his posts. He does not write like a miner or a coder who understands this. There is not a single answer to the topics of mining or technical discussion. This is the most common account that came to the forum for subscription companies. I don’t call it a shitposter, but the first posts hint at this very much.
There is a significant difference in what he writes about.


https://ninjastic.space/post/8011158


I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner, and in this case, explain why there are so many complaints about this project. I don't expect much, though.

I might be wrong, but I think nutildah is talking about rby (the user you just replied to). Apparently, the account changed hands, and the previous owner was a scammer from way back (although there aren't any negatives from the DT). I didn't investigate further to determine if the new owner is a spammer or not. 

If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling.

That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process.

If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying.

And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it.

I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust.

And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.

Focus on the living rather than the dead because they are more likely to commit fraud. Going about tagging the participants of the forum old tradition is meaningless.

What happens when the rest of the DT members sees you as a threat to the system ?

If you live in a glass house do not throw stone

Poker player, you are a very intelligent and a wise man. The reason I said this is because, even before lovesmayfamilis mentioned my name you already gave a response to the alleged hypothetical statement

After reading the above, I had to accolade your sense of judgement.

Thanks for this. But I do not think that this should bother anyone because shitposting is highly subjective. Once I am posting something you do not like, you are free to tag it shitposting even if it does benefit the rest of the community.

@JollyGood, you remind me of one of the cases I investigated in 2019.

* Topic: account seller, the biggest on the bitcointalk forums from Newbie to Lagendary.

I spent hours disclosing accounts being sold and bought, at that time I realized and on the other hand it can be proven that accounts are sold and bought, really can't be trusted and can harm other people, I really annihilate such account behavior.

I once got a PM from a member here, about two years ago, he bought an account with one of the members in a certain area, he paid $400 for an SR account, after paying the first member who sells accuses the buyer of the account being hacked, even though the buyer has paid the account $400, whether that is good or bad behavior, for both parties, of course not.
On the other hand, I painted the account red and again the account was sold to another member for $50, another buyer PM me to remove the tag I gave, of course I don't care, instead, I doubled the paint twice red, to make it spicier.

---

I also think that sellers and buyers of accounts should be beaten, so that there are no victims of greed, of course I will publish here at a later date, if I find a trading account, in a new case, to follow up.

I am getting lost here, if you are referring to rby.


On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it, and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter.

The only thing that by reading again the insinuation that he could be another of the alts managed by naim027, in this case with a purchased account, is raising my tagging agressivity by the minute.


I don't see anything in that link, in his trust profile I don't even see untrusted feedback.

I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread.

It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree.

I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what properly constitutes a crime. According to you, how many different types of crime are there and at what levels should they be deemed worthy of a tag? The different crime you mentioned was related to scam attempts but could there be cases where account buyers are spamming not scamming and deserve a tag?

Please elaborate further.

The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability.

Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address.

This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address.

Now we have two dates from members as far as possible amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any potential amnesty should be conditional or not.

OMG...how is this actually? You are someone who I think really likes alt tagging, but you have alt? Honestly I'm confused by the rules of this forum. My understanding of this forum seems to collapse in an instant.

I'm so confused, actually alt is prohibited or not? Please answer me... I am confused to understand this forum

It seems some FUD and generalisations are creeping into this discussion. Hopefully this side issue will be pushed to one side.

---

---

PytagoraZ - not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying someone who owns multiple accounts shouldn't be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they controll the UID's it may not have been proven those accounts were bought?

From the very beginning, I thought that the first reason for creating this topic would be to talk about this account.
But for some reason, she left the discussion. And the owner quite flexibly evaded the answer. But if you look closely, then indeed, as you say, "the previous owner was a scammer, and the new owner is just a shitposter."

JollyGood what do you think about it?
But maybe you should take a closer look at these posts.

For scammers I think it is not unforgivable. Only people with alt accounts. And that mistake is only in the past. At least 1 or 2 years ago

That is definitely wrong. What if someone pulled off a massive scam and the character behind that account is not trustworthy whatsoever? Just go silent for a year or two and come back with neutral trust on that account? What if somebody with +20 trust goes silent for two years, comes back and is obviously the same person? Start from neutral trust? No, that can't be right. It is even asymmetric in the effects it creates for the forum and will to some degree lead to adverse selection. The incentive to work for positive trust decreases while the incentive to profit from negative trust increases.

I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned.

If a person who is inactive for say more than three months, then their trust feedback should "decay" back to neutral over a predetermined time frame. Regardless of whether or not they then come back online in which case the trust feedback paused decaying, but doesn't revert to either positive or negative as the case may be.

Noted and thanks

---

I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven, it might be better if there is a dedicated thread to open acknowledgment of past mistakes, and it's worth noting that forgiven mistakes are about past alt /sale of accounts (according to the agreement). Let the members admit it and maybe it will be better

Past mistakes due to scam or fraud, in my opinion is unforgivable

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

How are you going to know that? The only two pieces of information you give are negative, the second less negative than the first, but I don't know if he a scammer or not. Besides, I don't think we're going to see the case you raise because the person who had the account before will have enough red tags and people will have no reason to remove them if they left them in his profile in the first place. If the new owner is "only" a shitposter, do we have to remove the red tags? I don't see it. Besides, if he gets to join a signature campaign it will be 1xbit's. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.


The problem with the thread you link to, as with account sale cases in general, is that when you start to dig in you find that it was just the tip of the iceberg and there was a lot more shit going on underneath.

yahoo62278 opened that thread because he and others felt some empathy towards martyns and his sobbing story, so common in these cases, but in the end it turned out that it was not only a bought account but that behind it there was ban evading and participation in the 1xBit campaign that we know of, and there are many things that we did not discover in this and other cases.

naim027 at the time also generated a lot of empathy, and many of us fell into the trap, I was one of them, and look how the story ended.

I really don't know but I don't think just any shitposter could pretend to be me and get away with it for more than 2 or 3 posts, tops. And although I did run a bounty campaign for a token called SHITCOIN once, if my account suddenly started advertising a new coin or ICO or something, it would probably raise some eyebrows. So in that way its probably not worth very much.

Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter?

It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate.


I can confirm very firmly that yahoo62278 is consistent in his judgement. I took my time to go through this thread created by you months ago - Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc. Your submissions in that thread is very consistent with what you are saying here and I strongly align with it.

To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam.

With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with.  You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts.

Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig.

Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading.

But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Achow (I think that was their name) had a website where you could enter any users UID number and it would tell you what the market value of that account was (there were even modifiers such as green trust feedback Vs Default Trust which would increase the asking price)...

It was a double edge sword as those selling accounts would say it's value and trust feedback scores and we could pretty well work out which account was about to be sold with confirmation coming in the form of a change of password and email.

Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message.

It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless.

I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back.

As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

That is where I invite debate and conversation in order to find general consensus because if previously sold yet currently inactive accounts are tagged what would be the pros and cons as far sending out a message as a deterrent is concerned?

You certainly have your hands full with this one  

You make a great case against blanket tagging with the possibilities you cited, especially the demonstrating leniency part. I invite more views and opinions from members because widening the debate will bring benefits to the discussion.

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?  

This is a welcomed timely reminder that account trading is (as you put it) discouraged but not against the rules of the forum however much it is frowned upon by the members of the community. Still, there is no harm in having this debate in order to read and to understand a multitude of views and opinions on this matter.

I am sure someone who got scammed by a trusted member only to later discover the account was sold by the original owner would have a different opinion to say someone who is maybe have purchased an account some years ago but has constantly and consistently received excellent advice provided by an account buyer say in the technical boards (Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support etc), then in my opinion it would be a pointless exercise tagging the account and that is why this debate with these points of views are great to read.

You mention several more very important angles about account trading in that trusted green member accounts can plan scams and that we should watch out for those and you would not be wrong for saying it. At some point, at some stage there has to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the buying and selling of forum accounts.

If there is blanket tagging on account buyers and sellers, would it be appropriate to do it on the basis you pointed out that it is not illegal for buyers and sellers to do it according to the rules? On that basis there should probably not be any blanket tagging for that specific reason alone.

If there is no blanket tagging for account buyers and sellers then can a different approach be taken which would still be acceptable as general consensus?

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.

The trust system on the forum is unmoderated. There aren't any rules in place to stop a member from tagging a seller's or buyer's account.


I call this bullshit. I haven't come across a single instance where accounts are tagged by DT members as alts solely based on token transfers between them. There is always other (circumstantial) evidence that connects them.

I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think  tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime.  From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you

Did you understand what you wrote? How can you blame the account that was bought if you have no evidence? Are you meeting your weekly quota?

As for the purchase and sale of accounts, if you go beyond the forum, then there is an active sales business going on right now. But now the scammers are doing everything very carefully. We will not see any password or language changes; all of this is discussed before the sale. And if you mark old accounts, then there will be a lot of them, especially if you check the accounts that participate in subscriptions for altcoins.
But Yahoo62278 is right. If they don't do much damage, and they don't have other accusations, it's just a waste of time to pay attention to them. Even if they have bought accounts, most of them cannot get into subscriptions with payments in BTC, and participation in a bounty punishes them with regular non-payments.

I have read these rules. But there are also those who really like to mark alt accounts. Who actually makes the rules? Didn't they break the rules by making up their own?

Edit: Btw...The person who ordered and taught me to register in this forum now doesn't dare to login to bitcointalk anymore. The reason is because his wallet and friends are connected. Yes, I know my friends don't have alt, but they do have a community that used to be active on the bounty. And often they ask their friends for a little eth/btc. Yes I am willing to bear witness that they are not spammers, just a bunch of young people playing the forums well. But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked

I got this story when I wanted to buy BTC from my own friend and he didn't want to sell it to me because later my account would be considered connected to my friend's account.

Edit: Sorry, maybe this is not a thread for me to join the discussion. Maybe DT can communicate with each other to decide whether tagging alt that doesn't cheat is allowed or not? because forum rules allow alt.

I know about the DT system after installing BPIP extension a week ago

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.