Topic: When leaving trust for known Alt's of other users (Read 1609 times)
Occasional bump.
Literally you won't get tagged until you are cheating same campaigns with multiple accounts.
What's the source of this information before you mislead someone into doing this and end up getting all account red tagged. From what I read theymos only meant for opinions that users don't want associated with their main account. Participating in different campaign with alt account isn't that abuse of the system since you're taking advantage of alt account and can possible lead to spamming the forum just to meet up posts counts?
One of the global moderator hilariousandco wearing signature for stake.com and his alt account hilariousetc is in the Chimixer campaign,so he is participating in two different campaigns because it is allowed.
Theymos never mentioned about multiple accounts in signature campaigns but if you go through rules of every campaign you can find that
Quote
No alt accounts allowed. If you've been found out of enrolling with an alt you'll be removed without payment.
which is untrustworthy behaviour and DT members will tag you for that.So it means you can participate on different campaigns with your two different accounts.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
Literally you won't get tagged until you are cheating same campaigns with multiple accounts.
What's the source of this information before you mislead someone into doing this and end up getting all account red tagged. From what I read theymos only meant for opinions that users don't want associated with their main account. Participating in different campaign with alt account isn't that abuse of the system since you're taking advantage of alt account and can possible lead to spamming the forum just to meet up posts counts?
One of the legitimate reason users create Alt account is because they can't afford 50+ BTC to have the privilege to change username. I would love to change my username to something more unique and shorter but the best option now is to create an alt account but I'm scare not to get red tagged for owning one that's why I'm still using this account.
You are allowed to create a new account if you want and stake it as your alt account from your main account.You won't get red tag for doing this until you are doing shady things which are not trusted by DT members.Literally you won't get tagged until you are cheating same campaigns with multiple accounts. legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
No feedback at all: if I see a known Alt account I won't tagged that user until the users does something fishy. I remember reading somewhere theymos said a user is free to create an alt account to drop a reply he/she doesn't want to be associated with his main account e.g political opinions. so giving that Alt account a neutral tag letting everyone know it's an alt account would had unmask that user and maybe put his life in danger.
I see no crime in having alt account until it's used for something evil/fishy then I will red tag.
One of the legitimate reason users create Alt account is because they can't afford 50+ BTC to have the privilege to change username. I would love to change my username to something more unique and shorter but the best option now is to create an alt account but I'm scare not to get red tagged for owning one that's why I'm still using this account.
I see no crime in having alt account until it's used for something evil/fishy then I will red tag.
One of the legitimate reason users create Alt account is because they can't afford 50+ BTC to have the privilege to change username. I would love to change my username to something more unique and shorter but the best option now is to create an alt account but I'm scare not to get red tagged for owning one that's why I'm still using this account.
363 days since last post, I guess I'm entitled to bump the thread....
364 days since the last post so... (bump)
Seems appropriate to again ask this question bearing in mind that there are a few person's who've said they do not like my trust posts yet haven't had the courage to articulate those thoughts in a PM or in a post... anywhere on BCT.
363 days since last post, I guess I'm entitled to bump the thread....
Time for a bump. There's new investigators who may not have seen this thread when it was first posted.
Basically, the question is what trust to leave when uncovering alts?
Basically, the question is what trust to leave when uncovering alts?
I think shorena's post is the best thing to do unless there is some different situation in a case.
Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.
You connect alts by there bitcoin address posted or on their profile? Have taken into account that accounts changing hands because selling/trading are permitted on this forum? Do you know it is very easy to framed someone based on bitcoin address posted?
In such conditions one may post some proofs to unlink himself from the accounts connected and get ratings removed if any.
You connect alts by there bitcoin address posted or on their profile? Have taken into account that accounts changing hands because selling/trading are permitted on this forum? Do you know it is very easy to framed someone based on bitcoin address posted?
Basically, the question is what trust to leave when uncovering alts?
1.Make sure the proofs of the found alts are concrete and considered valid by everyone.2.If the accounts connected are debatable and the given proofs just not satisfy the connections,no feedback should be left.
3.Under satisfactory conditions with cross verifying if the account connected has been sold or not :-
Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.
I'd say only if the primary account is deserving of a neg. We know people have alts, but not all of them are for nefarious purposes. I think the "known alts" thread is good enough. People are going to gripe if they get any sort of thing on their trust pages, and any good it does is minimal compared to that--unless of course either the alt or the primary account deserve a neg or neutral on their own merit.
Time for a bump. There's new investigators who may not have seen this thread when it was first posted.
Basically, the question is what trust to leave when uncovering alts?
Basically, the question is what trust to leave when uncovering alts?
My opinion is negative. What's the legitimate reason for having alt accounts? If you are a legitimate individual, you can post from one account. Other than that, I really don't see the purpose to have more than one account more than account farming. I'd like to be cross-examined if you disagree.
P.S I probably shouldn't say cross-examined in a legal sense because it is not but you can counter my argument.
P.S I probably shouldn't say cross-examined in a legal sense because it is not but you can counter my argument.
I voted Negative - providing they are proven scammers only,their are reason why they have alt account one of them is their account got hacked or they are on signature campaign,unless you can prove that the reason why they have alt accounts is just to scam people
I would have to say "Negative for scammers, neutral for all others". If there seems like there's little to no intention of scamming then there's no reason not to trust the person. At the same I would always want to know who owns which alt just in case anything shady happens with them in the future. That way all of their accounts can be given negative trust easily and quickly.
I've added Negative for scammers, neutral for all others. to the poll. I can't seem to change to "allow voters to change their vote" for anyone who might want to select this option.
There is a reset to zero option - but that'd mean holding a quick poll-within-a-poll to see if I should reset it.
There is a reset to zero option - but that'd mean holding a quick poll-within-a-poll to see if I should reset it.
reset it!
Negative for scammers, neutral for all others because people deserve to know about potential scams.
I've added Negative for scammers, neutral for all others. to the poll. I can't seem to change to "allow voters to change their vote" for anyone who might want to select this option.
There is a reset to zero option - but that'd mean holding a quick poll-within-a-poll to see if I should reset it.
There is a reset to zero option - but that'd mean holding a quick poll-within-a-poll to see if I should reset it.
Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.
This is what I generally do.
I voted for "Neutral - to warn others", but only for people who arent a scammer.
If they are a scammer, the negative.
Edit: Realized I voted for the wrong thing
If they are a scammer, the negative.
Edit: Realized I voted for the wrong thing
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: