Topic: When leaving trust for known Alt's of other users - page 2. (Read 1609 times)
Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.
I voted for "Neutral - to warn others" in general, before any shady activity done by the owner of both main account + Alt account since I believe that's the appropriate action on this matter. But if any of the associated accounts that are in control by the same owner, happen to scam anyone and proven a scammer then those involved accounts plus the main account of the owner, deserves a negative rating in order to help prevent further scams. Any other rating being left from any users regardless of mentioned two cases above is most likely not necessary and more likely annoying to most.
Negative - providing they are proven scammers is my vote but I have to agree that alts should be left with a neutral as a notice that those accounts are held by a single user. There are instances like defaulting a loan should be in their feedback be it if they have a collateral, I think it's best to know that the alt account is more likely to do the same because of the previous action of the owner from another account.
I think the "Known Alts of Members" thread just serves the purpose .You don' have to waste your time additionally giving a feedback to the alt account unless the owner has been doing something shady.Moreover ,having alt accounts is not against any forum rules,if member is dealing with another member in any sort of trades,its his job to check the respective threads for the alts and that include the campaign managers.Leaving a feedback,even if neutral ,would be as useful as its absence there.
Negative - providing they are proven scammers only. if not then use neutral.
TBH there's no need to leave any feedback unless they scammed. we've got a whole sticky thread for that. but if you want to leave feedback anyway then no one is stopping you.
TBH there's no need to leave any feedback unless they scammed. we've got a whole sticky thread for that. but if you want to leave feedback anyway then no one is stopping you.
I have been quizzed a couple of times recently as to why I have left negative trust for someone who is a known Alt of another user.
I have in most cases given negative trust, however, there have been occasions where I have left neutral trust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131361 (more than likely I suspect someone is engaging in a scam, but nothing is proven).
So, my question is How should known Alt's be given trust feedback to warn others?
I will leave this open indefinitely.
You can only vote once and can't change your vote.
Reference https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-anyone-user-generated-1206112 and the various Scammer Family Tree posts I have made in the scam accusations https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 section.
I have in most cases given negative trust, however, there have been occasions where I have left neutral trust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131361 (more than likely I suspect someone is engaging in a scam, but nothing is proven).
So, my question is How should known Alt's be given trust feedback to warn others?
I will leave this open indefinitely.
You can only vote once and can't change your vote.
Reference https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-anyone-user-generated-1206112 and the various Scammer Family Tree posts I have made in the scam accusations https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 section.
Jump to: