IMO, if you vouch for someone you are basically co signing for them and should be held responsible for their actions of anything vouched for. If the voucher is not also held responsible what is the value of the vouch?
vouch (vouch)
v. vouched, vouch·ing, vouch·es
v.intr.
1. To give personal assurances; give a guarantee: vouch for an old friend's trustworthiness.
2. To constitute supporting evidence; give substantiation: a candidate whose strong record vouches for her ability.
Topic: 'Vouch' accounts from digital goods sellers (Read 773 times)
The real issue here is that people go from "this guy gave a trusted member a working account/code" to "this guy must be legit"
The practice of forums members accepting free vouch accounts from digital goods sellers should be frowned-upon and dissuaded somehow. The sheer number of people flooding the forum with netflix, hulu, hbo go, spotify etc accounts which get revoked within a few weeks looks bad to the casual observer. Quite often these have earlier posts from full/sr/hero members who've received free accounts in order to 'verify' and 'vouch' for the seller, to give the seller more credibility. The end of these threads are then littered with complaints when people find out the accounts have been purchased with stolen CC info and get revoked. The member who vouched for these are as complicit in the fraud as the sellers. It doesn’t take much to understand that when someone offers to lend you their perceived credibility in exchange for a ‘free’ account, the seller is more likely to send them a legitimate (as opposed to one of the exploited/illegitimate accounts they’ll be sending everyone else) account as a loss leader on the scam. The verifying member gains in exchange for their support.
Any vouching should be done via the Trust system, for risked-and-completed transactions. If the verifying members are willing to risk their own BTC, then they shouldn’t be vouching for them.
Obviously it's a trustless system and people are always open to be scammed, but I do not think it's accepted for otherwise trusted members to play a part for their own gain of a legitimate account. I'm not suggesting heavy handed regulations which obviously don't go down well; I am suggesting we call out those members participating in these 'vouches' and keep recommending the Trust system is used properly.
Any thoughts or opinions?
Any vouching should be done via the Trust system, for risked-and-completed transactions. If the verifying members are willing to risk their own BTC, then they shouldn’t be vouching for them.
Obviously it's a trustless system and people are always open to be scammed, but I do not think it's accepted for otherwise trusted members to play a part for their own gain of a legitimate account. I'm not suggesting heavy handed regulations which obviously don't go down well; I am suggesting we call out those members participating in these 'vouches' and keep recommending the Trust system is used properly.
Any thoughts or opinions?
Jump to: