Bitcoin Forum

Till yesterday I knew that buying & selling accounts on BitcoinTalk is allowed. But, I am stunned to see that DT member & Staff Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) has marked me -ve and stated...


The reference he has made is my sell thread in Auction - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1724202.0.

There are plenty of BitcoinTalk account sell is still present in Auction (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=73.0) & Digital Goods (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=93.0)...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1723941.0

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1722437.0

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1723774.0

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1706139.0

v. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1719976.0

vi. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1724903.0

vii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692480.0

None of these users are marked Red! I dont understand what to make out of this action by Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872).

Requesting DT members to take a clear stance. If account trading is allowed, it should be allowed for all. Else it should be allowed for none. Why this selective judgement?

In case, the DT members conclude that it is not allowed, I'm hereby requesting Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

It is possible that I'm not a robot and can't keep track of every single thread/sale being done on the forum. I'm not entirely sure whether this theory holds true.

DT members do not decide what is allow and what isn't. Account trading is not disallowed per forum rules (else you'd be banned), but is usually frowned upon. Some DT members may not leave ratings at all, some may leave neutral ratings and others will leave negative ratings depending on how much they trust you.

To be impartial, you could at least leave -ve on the 7 OP of the threads I listed above.

I have used DT escrow before in my trades (at that point U were probably not on DT). They never warned me regarding this either. So, may I formally request u to remove my -ve in the condition that I'll not be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk in future?

I need time to look through all of them. I don't leave ratings on a whim.

They don't have to warn you about anything. Being on DT is not some sort of job (one doesn't have to leave a single rating if they don't want to). Formally you can not request such a thing, but you can talk to me privately.

You mistake DT as unit that has to make unanimous decision everybody has to keep up to. It is not.
Members on DT can and will disagree with each other from time to time. Not everybody has the same approach/makes the same decisions.

DT is not a unified front. For example, I care very little about certain things that others have very strong feelings on the matter, such as account selling and ponzi schemes. I'm pretty much of the opinion that as long as you have transparency, no service is wrong, even if its essentially just a can looking or handouts because of  how bad the terms are. (Though begging is against forum rules)

If Lauda cares about buying/selling accounts and they leave you a negative for buying/selling accounts, only people who care about buying/selling accounts will value Lauda's opinion. I however, who typically wouldn't care would disregard the comment, unless there was additional substance that made me care.

If you aren't doing anything shady, don't worry about it. People deal with who they want to deal with. I might have an extreme prejudice against anyone who speaks gaelic, and refuse to trade with anyone who can speak it. My opinion would then only matter to those who share a similar belief. ( I don't by the way, though I suppose I might be a little jealous)

Why must they?



There is no any sort of obligation to leave feedbacks. You can leave feedbacks. You can bring it to their/others notice (which you did.). That is it.

That is why all those OPs are by throw away accounts..
I'm sure if you do some looking you will find threads with very trusted OPs selling accounts, and even DT members selling accounts themselves..

Tagging accounts red for participating in legit account sales is pretty much just making a whole economy riskier to scams and fraud because you can't deal with trusted people and at the same time hampering the legit lending economy forcing trusted lenders to go underground to complete their business..

This is a classic example of liberals enforcing regulation in the name of perceived public security that in all actuality provides none and does nothing but hamper economies through increased economic friction..

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

IMO it's too bad that DT is not democratically elected based on actual policy..

One of the ways we can form opinions about members is by looking at previous activity. Selling accounts negates this, and it diminishes confidence in the other members. I wish account selling was banned, alternatively the post count could be reset, as it is not relevant to the new "owner".

Indeed.

Exactly. It seems that there are quite a few misconceptions regarding the trust system. It is not really possible to effectively tag everyone doing X (even if one wanted to).

Step 1) Don't trade accounts. Step 2) Enjoy the reduced amount of spam and scams.

Unfortunately it isn't.

4 days have passed. None of the thread owners mentioned above have received -ve trust from U. U were pretty much active in between as well. Now it seems, I was the one selected to be butchered to clean path for someone else.

Really? I can not request to remove -ve trust? Could u please show me a rule for the same? I have always done account trading publicly on this forum with help of escrows on DT 1. I have no reason to discuss things with u privately.

I hope, u re-consider your action within December 31, 2016. Else, I'll be forced to escalate. Thank You.

What Lauda means is that there is no one that you can officially appeal to in order to get a feedback removed. If you want it to be removed, you must contact the person that included the user in their trust list (E.G Blazed included Lauda and can therefore exclude them) or contact the person that left you the feedback specifically (AKA contacting them privately).

While you are completely allowed to make threads such as this one, it probably wouldn't do much that contacting the user specifically wouldn't.

I wouldn't hold your breath. If I know Lauda I know how stubborn they are on their decisions. I can't imagine that your escalation would be anything other than a waste of time either.

As much as you want to incite malicious intent here, you can forget about it. I don't trust account traders, and thus mark them appropriately. I've reviewed the linked threads and tagged the users in question.


This.

There's nothing to re-consider. I don't trust you, nor anyone else who is promoting this shady part of the marketplace. I strongly stand by my opinions and have yet to see some good arguments as to why account sales are good/shouldn't be marked with negatives/etc. Threatening me via some sort of 'escalation' doesn't do you any favors.

I hope you see the irony in this considering its a thread about account sales.

---

There are next to no rules regaring DT ratings, hence you can request whatever you want. Lauda has the same right to not give a fuck about your request though.

---

As someone that has discussed this topic with Lauda I see their stance even though I have a different one. I agree that leaving negative ratings on all (or most) account traders will results in trades beeing done with throw away accounts or off-site. Both makes scams more likely. Traded accounts with substantial positive trust ratings should be marked as sold in order to make scams with them more difficulty. At the same time I dont see it as a big issue regardless, as Salty said (paraphrasing what I understood as the gist of it): you shouldnt trust any account unless you can verify its still under control by the same person. Expecting the account to be traded will improve your personal anti-scam radar way better than any negative rating can.

I agree to always being cautious, and I think you and me both are (aswell as a lot of other experienced users).
It's a little hard teaching that to newbies though, at least in my experience.

That blew any chances you might have had left.

Lauda You are abusing the trust system. I agree that most of the bought accounts are used for shady things. But take a look at you. You promots shady things. You abuse trust system and more. As a staff member you should know better! There are worse things than a scammer and that is a person who abuses their position. I dont trust you and I dont trust your negative ratings. I think other staff members needs to step up and stop it or other ppl think its okey to abuse systems. Its simple as that.
If we want to have a nice forum and clean from spam and scammers it have to start from the top!

How so? The trust system is used to show who you trust/distrust and give your reasons as to why. This is what Lauda is doing.

These shady things being?

Staff need to start limiting and censoring feedbacks that they deem as 'abuse'? What a flawless plan for an open, free forum.

Indeed. Let's start with getting rid of the spam and scams; the top.

You dont have to.

#1 You can try to solve the issue with Lauda directly.
#2 You can try to solve the issue with the person that put Lauda on DT. I assume after your "escalation" remark earlier you already know who that is.
#3 You can remove Lauda from your personal trust network (by adding ~Lauda to your list) and maybe convince others to do the same.



Staff does not get involved in trust ratings. Feel free to take a look at the untrusted section of my trust page for some examples that are perfecly fine with the current system. Granted, no one gives a damn about these ratings, but an admin would not remove them either. Not even if they were considered trusted.


You can never entirely remove these. Spam is what the moderation team is here to handle, avoiding scamers is your personal responsibility. No amount of ratings from DT can change that.

I have to say, it gladdens my heart to see this type of feedback being left for account sellers, buyers, account farmers, and shitposters.  Especially when it comes from people whose trust feedback actually carries weight.  These accounts are being used for nefarious purposes, and then we get people crying that they got scammed by a green-trusted legendary.  It shouldn't be any wonder why this happens.  Props to all of you who use the festive red paint.

Trust has nothing to do with what's allowed by the forum rules. Trust is strictly about trust. If one user thinks that a user participating in account trading is not trustworthy, then it is the former's prerogative to exercise his/her privilege of handing a Trust Rating reflecting his/her thoughts to the latter's account. Essentially, if another user deems you or your account suspicious, then he/she has a right to voice it out. In the end, that's all it is -- a user's voice. If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business. As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused, then no one has any say over having a rating removed other than the one who gave the rating (and Theymos, but that's not the point). As far as I can see, there is nothing unreasonable about negging someone for participating in account trading, as I am also of the opinion that there is no legitimate reason to buy accounts on a public discussion board. (And no, trying to earn BTC from posting is not a legitimate reason.)

Realistically, it does though.


What would be an abusive rating for you?


You can have that opinion, but it does not change the fact that is valid reason for many others that engage in account deals.

Very well explanation sir. But the point here is even though some people didn't care about content of red mark, and it is obviously not affecting on what business are we dealing, the main fact here is the red mark is just like a curse, once other user see the mark, they don't bother to communicate and read the trust feedback. In short explanation, once account has red mark. It is totally useless. Even joining the campaign and other bounty will be remove as privileged here in the forum for disobeying the rules that are not written on the by laws of the forum.


I think it is time now for the revision of the laws of forum so that everyone will be aware and there is no excuses anymore.

Hi shorena

You answered my msg to Lauda.
First I want to point out that I never have been banned from any forum ever and I have never have any issue here whatsover. I had a account here when "satoshi" were here but its lost.

Second: I dont like personal vendettas against anyone. I have a opinion that I dont think is so far away from Laudas. But its opinion. I would never let my opnions stear any trust rating. Some ppl dont like jews. Some ppl dont like germans. Some ppl dont like ppl selling accounts. But we cant let that decide the trustrating. It will open up a can of worms if ppl opinions would matter. I find ppl that do that to be dishonest. And when a staff member are abusing it then its much worse than if a member does it. The ppl that are selling accounts have a different opinion and thats why he put read trust on them. I have the opinion that Lauda is abusing the system so he maybe put red trust on me to.   ;D

I think you already know the point.  The point is if its legit then they should never get red trust ratings. If he have a opinion about it. He can give it without negative trust rating. If you cant relay on staff following rules then what hope can we have about members of this forum. They can point fingers and say - Hey they are abusing the system so why cant I do it!

I hope this forum would be a nicer forum in the futur and that respect ppl opinions even if they are not the same as yours.
There are many rules on a forum. Some are written some are not. Same in the real life.

Im waiting for my red trust rating   ;)

All trust ratings are opinions. However, valid trust ratings are usually a reflection of some sort of action. Trading accounts is an action. It's not much different from newbies getting tagged for asking loans without collateral, investor based games getting tagged on sight, and similar. In all of those cases, technically no scam (or similar) has yet occurred.

The trust ratings of a staff member (DT) are not any different from other people's (DT) ratings. This system is independent from moderation, thus no ratings can be considered 'staff ratings' or 'official ratings'. They are personal ratings.

This has nothing to do with opinions, but with actions and consequences. I do not leave trust ratings based on their opinions (unless the user has demonstrated shady activity, is involved in something that is frowned upon, et al.).

No.

I've bolded the two main sections of my response here, you can skip to the response, but the Defining some Terms sections will make my response make more sense if you aren't completely understanding of the difference between Feedback and Trust. There is a TLDR at the end.

Defining of some Terms

I think its easier to understand if we use a slightly different terminology, so I'll be doing so in my explanation here. I'll start off by defining a few things. The system as a whole I will continue to call the Trust System. I will refer to comments left by someone through the Trust System as Feedback. There are two parts to the Trust System. There is Feedback and Trust. Feedback as I just defined, is the comments you leave on someone else's trust page. Trust, is when you decide you value someone's opinion as an extension of your own, and add them to your trust list.

Feedback is what most people are talking about when talking about the Trust System. It is exactly as many people have said, it is your personal opinion. Default trust starts at branch 0, these are people who Theymos have personally added to start the branches of the trust system. They were picked based on years of showing good judgement on related matters. When one of those people sees another user who's opinion they trust; someone they believe will leave accurate feedback for others, they are added to that user's Trust List. That is the difference between Trust and Feedback. Trusting someone is in a sense giving another user an extension to speak for you when they give someone feedback.

Trust is more strictly watched over by members of the Default Trust group. If I Trust someone who is making bad calls when leaving feedback, that means I am giving them license to poorly represent me. On the other hand, the feedback they leave for others is representative of their own personal beliefs. If I don't agree with their personal beliefs, I wouldn't trust them.


Now that that wall of text explanation defining the difference between Trust and Feedback is done, I'll move onto responding to your post quoted above. I bolded the points that I'm addressing.

Response to quote

1) As I just mentioned, your "Trust Rating" - Feedback should always be your opinion. Whether or not people agree with your opinion decides whether or not people choose to take your rating seriously, or disregard it as worthless. If you gave someone negative feedback for being German, anyone who disagreed would disregard your feedback. If someone on Default Trust was leaving feedback because someone was German, they most likely wouldn't stay on the list long, because that is generally viewed as a poor indicator of trustworthiness. To expand, if I Trusted someone who left Feedback because someone was German, I would stop Trusting them, as that isn't my personal view.

2) Staff members have no real impact on trust. Trust isn't moderated, and staff member feedback isn't more heavily weighted than anyone else's.

The reason the Trust System is set up like it is, is because its far more flexible to have all of the rules set by the community. What is acceptable to leave positive/negative feedback for is constantly being discussed, and changed as situations change. For example, at the start of the trust system, it wasn't necessarily common that people involved in Ponzis would get negative trust. As the community opinion has changed, that has become a more prominent thing. Morals are constantly changing. What is acceptable and not in a community changes very quickly with an evolving technology at its center. In a week, there might be a new thing that no one had ever heard of that needs a judgement. A few years ago, if you said mining to someone, they wouldn't know what you are talking about. A few years later, cloud mining became an entirely different thing. Next we are going to have atmosphere mining, and a new trust ruling will need to be made for that.

The Trust System is without rules, so that eventually the system can branch out into something that approaches decentralization (for a lack of a better term, though decentralization isn't quite right). Right now Default Trust layer 0, 1, 2, and 3 are most prominent. In time, branches 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc will be far more widespread, and to the point where the people on layer 0, 1, 2 etc can relax and let branches 6, 7, and 8 regulate themselves. Lets say there are 5 people on layer 0. Each picks 5 people to represent them. 25 people on layer 1, they each pick 5 people to represent them, so on and so on. By layer 5, we have 15625 people enforcing the community set rules. If someone on layer 5 abuses the system, the person on layer 4 deals with it. So instead of having 5 people setting the rules, we have thousands who can represent Bitcointalk's community.


Sorry that was such a long read: TLDR;

1) Feedback is not the same as trust, feedback is one's own opinion, trust is an extension of one person trusting the feedback of another user and allowing them to speak for that person.

2) "Trust ratings" - Feedback is always opinions, if you don't like someone's opinions, disregard it.

3) Trust and Feedback aren't moderated by the Staff here, Staff opinion's are exactly the same weight as other users.

4) The "rules" of the Trust System are set by community opinion. There are no official rules set by Theymos so its easier to adapt to new things. Theymos' personal opinions also mean less this way.

5) The trust system branches out so those at the center at Default Trust depth 0,1,2, etc become less important. They just need to find people that they would like to represent their opinions. Then the thousands of members at branch 5, 6, 7, 8 will be more in charge of distributing feedback that people can use as a baseline of trustworthiness.

Some very good information here, I think this should be stickied.

Yes, I am aware of that. But so does any negative review on any business. We can go back and forth on that, or we can agree that it shouldn't, but it is what it is.





Hmm...
1) a rating based on unreasonable prejudice such as racism, sexism, homophobia, different political and socio-cultural views, etc.
2) outright lies, oftentimes slanderous
3) blatant attempts to drive away customers from a competing service
4) a revenge rating which holds no merit
5) spam

There's more I'm sure, but I can't be expected to know all of them offhand, especially if I've yet to encounter them.

In the case described on the OP, I can't say that it's abusive, since the same rating is applied to other members when the aforementioned rater encounters other members in the same circumstances. Whether you agree or not that participants of account trading are deserving of a negative rating, you can surely see that the rationale behind the neg is reasonable, and therefore justifiable from the perspective of the rater. As long as the rating is based on something reasonable and justifiable, then that can't be called abusive, now can it?





Some people would consider it a legitimate enough reason, yes. However, let's face it. Most people who buy accounts don't just earn from participating in a signature campaign on one account. The rest either start scamming or spamming with a single bought account, or they are one of those rarities who get by with earning without being noticed (let's call them "innocent" for argument's sake). Now, some people would prefer to give the account traders the benefit of the doubt, if just to save one "innocent". Others would prefer to err on the side of caution. Both sides have their own perspectives, and both sides have merits. And since both sides have merits, then it also holds true that they can give out whatever rating they want to give based on any actionable evidence. That's the point of the Trust rating, after all.





This is hilarious. You need to do stand-up, guy.





The whole point of the Trust Rating is to voice out one's opinion and/or personal experience with another member, and relay a visible marker based on that opinion and/or experience. The negged member's opinion is still respected even if they get negged. They just get marked down as not being trusted by a particular member. Would you prefer for the neg-rater to create a thread titled "I DON'T TRUST THIS MEMBER ***" and link everyone to that thread instead?

Account buyers and sellers are not trusted by a lot of people, and some of those people prefer to err on the side of caution and mark all of them negatively altogether. Their opinions have merit and are reasonable. If you really feel differently, then go ahead and mark all of them green instead -- let's see where that takes you. One scam from anyone you've marked green and you'll prolly be ignored even by your friends for supporting a scam.





^ THIS.

True, but I think the consequences should be considered when leaving a rating. More below.


Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good.



You know that, because...? I dont know what most people do with accounts once they are traded. I only have very limited experience in this market, mostly from failed loans. I am almost certain that none of them have been used for nefarious reasons.


Which is also the reason why there is a discussion here. If all agreed on one side, it would be simple. How do you come to this conclusion though? Do you have experience as account trader or with traded accounts?


Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here.

IIRC, theymos has stated a counter feedback is acceptable; to counter malicious/false feedback. The issue with this is ( just like original feedback) when it starts being used as a "like" button and an obvious side effect is it could diminish credibility.

It is very clear that Lauda is abusing his Default Trust power like a dislike button. What Lauda does is unethical and morally unacceptable. His is using is DT and Mod power for his own financial interest. He gave negative feedbacks to reduce his possible competitors for his ACE Campaign.

Bitcointalk Accounts has value. And Lauda remove the value of this accounts by giving them negative feedbacks. Lauda is basically scamming the account owners. If this accounts owners are spammers then banned them.

Lauda does not fit to be in Default Trust nor as Mod. He must be given negative trust or remove from DT. He is diluting the value of red trust.

Lauda is not ACE, All team members are equal in decisions and rule making.


 

I disagree with it doing more harm than good. Let's take a look at 2016 (or somewhat earlier, although the situation my be better the further you delve into the past) before I started tagging account sellers:
How many people had an established account for trading accounts? How many of those were established and selling good accounts (e.g. not farmed up by games & rounds, by standard spam, hacked, et al.)? I don't recall any (although I may have not been looking hard enough).
However, if we look at the opposite side, you can find a fair number of sold accounts that were used for spamming, scamming and whatnot. One recent example was Extrabyte (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=333223). That possibly could have been prevented with a tag.

I have said this plenty of times: ACE is not 'mine'. If you can convince 51% of the members that I should be kicked from it, then that would happen.

Yes, its acceptable, but I dont like it and I try my best to avoid leaving such ratings. I think it takes difficult discussions off the forum and onto the trust page.

---

How so? AFAICT there is no competitions for ACE. Its pitch is high quality, all in one ad service for the services willing to pay a little premium for that service.


That will convice people. Some random throw away account, telling them they must do something.

---

I admit I have no numbers to back my argument which makes it pretty weak.

The account has changed hands at least once, and we know who is likely going to be trolling me. Anyhow, #off-topic.

---

Neither do I. That's why I explicitly stated "I don't recall any (although I may have not been looking hard enough).", as I may be wrong. However, if we were to thoroughly examine the sold accounts that got marked over time (regardless of neutral or negative) you would be able to see that a very fair number of them were used to facilitate scams, spam and whatnot (not to mention *genuinely* looking manipulation, vote brigading, et al.). At least *some* of these could have been prevented/suppressed with negative ratings. Even if we were to play the devil's advocate, I'd still strongly advise neg. rating at least Hero and Legendary accounts that have been sold. Some people tend to trust them more based on their rank, even though this is wrong by all means.

Everyone that is trying to sell their signature space in any way is competing with ACE. Signature campaign managers also compete with ACE.

---

I followed up on the trust status of all the accounts I sold in July 2015, which was about 6 months since I sold the last of my accounts. As of then, 8 accounts had negative trust (one of which was for trying to sell his account, which is not something I agree with), and two had positive trust that they did not have when they purchased their account (all when using the default trust settings in effect at the time), out of about 135 accounts in total that I sold. maser-p was one of the accounts with positive trust at the time, and was potentially planning a long con scam.

So about 6 months after the last account I sold (and a mean time of probably about 10 months since I sold each account), about 5% of accounts had scammed (or attempted to scam), and another less than 1% was in the process of planning a long con, so maybe about 6% of my sold accounts turned out to be scammers.

I suspect that the above numbers will have since increased since then due to the fact that prices have fallen so much, although I suspect that real scam attempts by purchased accounts are still very low.

I would also point out the significant negatives to leaving negative trust for sold accounts (and alt accounts) for no reason other than the account was sold or a person has a lot of alts, as this is clearly an attempt to exclude these people from the community (not to mention the very low burden of proof that a lot of these ratings have used).

Meh, Ill accept managers. Individuals that can sell their sig via e.g. an auction would likely get better rates outside of ACE.


Thanks for the insights, do you have any data on spam or obvious signs of bans? I know its highly subjective, but it should be possible to determine a number for shitposters.

A few more examples of account sellers that Lauda/Lutpin has failed to leave negative trust for:

achow101 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1260639.0)
blazed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0)
mexxer-2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=933764.0)
KWH (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170361.0)
shorena (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0)
zazarb (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1194528.0;all)
redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183499.0)
yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1050272.0)
grtthegreat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1337285.0)

EAL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.msg10484714#msg10484714) (buyer, not a seller)

I would like to know why Lauda/Lutpin are not going to leave any kind of a negative trust rating on any of the above.

Duh, I'm not an account seller/buyer?  ::)

It is weird that someone hacked your account, created a thread entitled AUCTION - Member account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170361.0), attempted to sell an account in your possession, then lost your password.

Obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong point. Care to finish that short thread and report back?
Why not post with one of your many other accounts, maybe a higher ranked but slightly more red?

No way Lauda would leave negative feedback to this powerful guys. Lauda was a coward and corrupted woman. She will only leave negative feedbacks to accounts who can't hit him back.

An example of this her negative feedback to memorydealer. She was the one who first leave negative to memorydealer. But once memorydealer neg rep her back she remove her negative feedback in instant.


@KWH Don't worry about your thread about selling account. Lauda would never leave negative feedback to guys like you.

And no way Lauda would leave negative trust to BLAZED he is the reason why lauda is in the Default Trust in the first place.

If they want to leave feedback, they are free to. I see you don't live your convictions since you have abstained. If I had something to hide, I would have used a throw away account like you and others do.
Life must be pathetic for you, sitting on this and other forums, digging through years of posts only to try to cause trouble for an equally pathetic "agenda".  Sad existence, I truly feel sorry for you but it will be short lived.
You can don another toss away account and play house with your other accounts all you want as I laugh at the childishness of it all.

Leaving negative ratings for "spammers" helps ACE's narrative that "high quality" (or claimed high quality) posters are necessary for advertisers to use as opposed to "normal" signature campaigns.

Also if less people can participate in normal signature campaigns then rates for ACE would increase because there is less total supply of advertisers.
I don't, and that type of information would be very subjective. I did notice that a lot of them were inactive however some of those inactive accounts had recently been sold and were not banned, so I suspect that some may have simply abandoned their accounts and moved onto other interests other then earning BTC via signature campaigns.

I do think that I had one or two customers that purchased several accounts from me over time that actively participated in the community and would not be considered a signature spammer -  I don't think they are around any more; I think one of them told me they were about to have a baby and I didn't hear from them much after that.

hmmm, I am interested to see what Lauda has to say about this....or if he will even respond.....

DT members will never have a clear stance on buying and selling accounts.

I have no issue with it.  I know other DT members that do.   

I'd like for this thread to stay on topic - any off topic please start your own thread.   :)

@moonpie45 - Giving -ve trust to account sellers became a hype only within this past few months and that does not include those persons above. You can read also that ratings/trust are put on as a "personal" thing. It is Lauda's or other DT's choice to give +ve or -ve to users, it's personal.

Would time play a factor in this, given that most of these are over a year old? (apart from grtthegreat's thread)

Of course, this doesn't mean that the account sales had never happened, but what is true is that they are no longer actively involved in account sale activity. Even if DT members would hound after account sellers, who do you think should be targeted first? Individuals who were involved in it a year ago, or individuals who are currently selling/buying accounts?

---

Definitely!The time when account sales didn't provoke as much signature spam and potential scams as of now.

You never know  :P

No, why would time play a factor in this? If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied.

There is no statue of limitations for being called a scammer, nor for receiving negative trust.

Since both Lauda and Lutpin are now aware that the above people have at least attempted to sell accounts, they should leave a negative rating for them, just as they have for everyone else that have engaged in similar activity, right?

If anything it would be the opposite, when signature campaigns were paying higher rates, providing higher incentives for spammers, and a lower threshold for spammers to break even after buying an account.

I don't think it is right for personal feelings to be involved in trust ratings. That sounds unethical to me.


It looks like you posted that you cancelled the sale when you said that you received too many low-ball offers. If we were to operate under the assumption that you really did not follow through on the sale (I think some people say they did not sell an account when they really did to facilitate the privacy of the buyer), then you at the very least attempted to sell an account.

Society tends to view attempting to commit a crime almost as bad as actually committing a crime. If people were to view the sale of accounts as severe enough of a "crime" to warrant negative trust, then trying to sell an account should warrant negative trust, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is reasonable to hand out trust ratings to everyone using similar standards, regardless of who you are. Otherwise the trust system will only turn into a "boys club"

It has been several days, and neither Lauda nor Lutpin has responded to my concerns nor have they left any trust on any of the above people.

I am curious why they do not wish to address my concerns....

Most likely because the positive contributions to the forum outweigh the negatives.

Trading in accounts isn't bad enough that it rules out any contribution to the forum for those who are/were/tried to be a part of it. The reason the majority of the accounts dealing in accounts are being tagged as such, I expect, is due to them having little to no positive contribution to the forum.

You should learn to read before posting. I asked why Lauda and Lutpin have not responded to my concerns, I did not say anything about why Lauda and Lutpin are giving negative trust they way they are. Maybe you have just a little bit too much incentives to make posts  :o

To respond to your post in regards to what you (incorrectly) thought I was asking. You think that it would be okay for me to steal a little bit of money if I make some kind of contribution to the forum?

What you are saying is that you believe the trust system is a 'boys club' in which it's members can do as they wish, and everyone else is at the wrath of it's members.

I think the reason why Lauda and Lutpin have not left negative trust to the people mentioned above is something along the lines of :


Or maybe it is something closer to along the lines of this:

Personally i got benefits from those power-rangers (see my post history) and as i said before: DT is not a "power", it is a service those guys are giving (for free) to the community. Tagging, investigating, helping, escrowing: they make our life better here and like me, a lot of users had successful trades because their contribution.



The she/he matter has already been resolved, the other adjectives you used are free insults that dont fit in here.
~Gun

I think that you do not understand how the trust system works. I am not even sure where to point you to read up before participating in these types of discussions -- this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0) might be a good place to start, but is far from an inclusive list of what you should read.

You might want to backup your affirmation with good references or get the FUD off of me. If you ever need DT and Trust lessons let me know i'm available on scheduled tasks. But come here with your main not with your alt...
~Gun

Since Lauda and Lutpin haven't responded to the actual concern, I decided to answer for you.
I can't say why Lutpin or Lauda haven't responded to you, although I can guess that it's because you seem like nothing other than a whiny crybaby without common sense.

Then maybe you should ask ACE to not count that post towards my final count :o
I post here because I want to. I couldn't care if I got paid or not.

That's an invalid comparison; you're comparing two things that affect reputation differently. It wouldn't be alright to scam anyone regardless of reputation, as shown in many previous cases.

I don't believe that at all, I'm saying it is common sense to let someone off with a minor offense (if you can call it that, considering it depends on the person judging) if they have contributed a large amount to the forum.
There are many people with differing opinions on the DT network. If Lauda and Lutpin actually did something as bad as you (and the people that have strangely similar opinions and grammatical choices) like to make out, there would be nothing stopping others from either removing them from the network or countering their ratings.

And there is nothing stopping you from having those opinions, however there is a much simpler explanation that has already been said by myself and others.
That doesn't fit your agenda though, so I can see why you wouldn't accept it.

Actually mini, the comparison may be valid if we go along the lines of "if you are selling accounts, you are a scammer" since people are getting tagged and called a scammer for that. Like moonpie states, "If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied."

From what I understand this logic only works by calling everyone with a negative trust rating a scammer, which isn't how I think the trust system should be interprited.
A negative trust on the DT network is one person publicly distrusting someone else. That's it. It is a marker that someone on DT sees someone else as being untrustworthy, not that that person is a scammer.
Let's look over some examples:
Has Lauda scammed anyone? No. Has Lauda made some decisions that may be untrustworthy to others? Perhaps.
Did OgNasty scam anyone? No. Did he do things that could be seen as untrustworthy? Perhaps.
Same with Lutpin,
Same with TwitchySeal,
So on.
(I'm not endorsing any of the negative trusts against these people, but they are/were there and so used for examples).

Along with this, if no one on DT believes someone to be untrustworthy, they won't be tagged as such.
So in all of the examples shown above by moonpie and others, no one sees the users as untrustworthy. Due to this, they aren't tagged.
Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

This is the problem with default trust. I understand that it was made to show that someone distrusts someone else and if a user has a number of negative trust points they start showing him as (possible) scammer.
The problem starts, when a you are called a scammer, because you argued with someone and they decided to mark you. Even if they say it's because they don't trust you and they have the right, and so on, your account becomes worthless. Most people don't see the trust system as "a personal trust list," but as a warning, a blacklist. A marked person has to constantly explain why they are "red", that they haven't scammed anyone, and is a victim of abuse and trolling. For instance, when you are losing a debate, why not bring up that someone is a scammer and their words have no value.