I think you can call bingo on that one.  It would be one hell of a coincidence if we had trolls like Thule, cryptohunter, aplesaples, itomarketing, Chosen Username....and probably one or two others that I'm not thinking of, all at the same time, all writing pretty much the same stuff over and over again.  I'm not confident all of them are one person, but I strongly suspect that there are only about two individuals max behind all of those accounts.

What with the language barriers and all, there's a good chance he might take this statement literally.  I'd like to suggest that he NOT continue--not to stifle dissent but as a sanity-saver for those of us who've read the same tired arguments again and again and are tired of it.

I don't know if you've made any mistakes, per se, but it used to be that being on DT2 meant something.  Usually that something was that the DT2 member had a history of leaving accurate feedbacks and consistently tried to help the community.  I obviously can't speak for the members who excluded you, but you've received zero feedbacks from anyone, and the ones you've sent were all positive ones to well-established members and were fluff IMO.  The way I see it, there's no reason why you should be granted the power and corresponding responsibility of being on DT2 since you haven't proven yourself worthy of it nor capable of handling it.

As an aside, your posts (at least the ones in English that I can see) are generic and poorly-written and don't seem to be all that helpful. 

There are a lot of new DT2 members I've never even heard of, and though I haven't looked closely at their trust pages or posts, I do wonder how many of them are going to work out.  Truth be told, I'm wondering how this entire new system of trust is going to work out, but only time will tell.

I agree with you, and there's nothing I'd like to see more than Theymos finally banning account sales, with some consequences if a member is caught trying to sell an account. 

Assume he's not going to do anything, though (because that's likely going to be the outcome).  The red-tagging of account buyers & sellers will have to continue so as to discourage the practice, and this leaves it up to DT members who use their own judgement and bring their own human failings and whatever else to the table when doing the tagging.  You might have read in this thread the recent incident with grtthegreat and how I gave him a pass based on his overall trust, and the case with iluvbitcoins where initially I did the exact opposite.  Generally I trust my ability to make good calls as far as feedback is concerned, but those two examples were ones where I had a hard time deciding what was the right thing to do.

I think buyers & sellers of accounts should both be tagged in general, but I'm of the opinion that there can be mitigating factors unique to individual cases.  I'd also like to point out that anyone who feels strongly enough about the issue and agrees with my opinion is welcome to step up and hand out negs as well.  This isn't a one man show here--nor should it be.  But instead of the inherent subjectivity (and some other factors), it sure would be nice if Theymos made a ruling on the issue of account selling and settled it once and for all.

I don't recall our interaction, which must have been a few years ago--but no, I haven't had any issues with you before or since then.

Please note that I didn't tag Bruno and therefore am not in a position to help him out.  That's another situation where I've seen all the good he's done for the forum, especially in my early days here, and I was not inclined to leave him a negative during that whole drama.  Obviously others disagreed with me and did neg him, and I have to respect that.  Not all DT members have the same opinion on everything, not even the ones suspected of being in Lauda's kitty-cabal. 

But regardless of what other DT members do, I understand what having a negative feedback on your trust page means when it's from a DT member and I don't want to tag members unnecessarily.  I certainly have made some mistakes, and there's been feedback I've had to retract, and it's not a good feeling knowing that my judgement was off (and I'm sure it wasn't a good feeling for the member(s) who had the neg in place before removal, either).

I agree with this as well, and I think it was discussed a while back if my memory serves me correctly.  The community also discussed whether it was appropriate to tag members who escrow account sales, and I didn't support that.  There are only two things that I think are tag-worthy:  account sales and account buying.  While those other things might contribute to both, it seems like we'd be stretching the limits trying to find more members to tag, and I just don't think that's worth it.

The main reason against accepting accounts as collateral is because we end up with situations like this one, where the lender needs to sell the collateral given to him when a loan is defaulted on.  I'm obviously against account sales, regardless of whether it's an account farmer selling a whole bunch or a lender who got stuck with one on a bad loan.  I'd absolutely love it if Theymos banned certain things on bitcointalk, and account sales is near the top of my list (scamming would take the #1 spot).  If account sales were banned, chances are that lenders might become reluctant to accept them as loan collateral.  Hell, I wouldn't mind having a rule against putting them up as collateral in the first place, but I highly doubt Theymos is going to make such a rule.

I'm not against freedom, but there have to be rules unless you want anarchy.  Also, I would point out that sometimes members put their account up as collateral for a loan that they never intend to pay back.  It's a sneaky way of selling their account, basically.  You'd assume that a borrower would want his account back and thus giving it to the lender would motivate the borrower to pay the loan back, but there are many reasons why that doesn't always happens.  I've seen numerous examples of lenders ending up with bitcointalk accounts that they have no real use for (DarkStar_ even mentioned he has one), and then what happens?  They have to sell them.  Technically they don't have to, but it's the only way to recoup their money.

I don't see a clear consensus forming here, nor do I see anyone tagging grtthegreat.  Some folks argue that account sellers shouldn't be tagged at all, some don't like exceptions being made, and some just hate DT.  I know I can't please everyone with anything I do, but if and when a situation like this comes up again, it would be nice to know what the community generally expects.  Even better would be some input by Theymos, but I won't hold my breath.

That link isn't to one of my posts there, it's just a link to the thread which I posted multiple times in.  This is what I mean by time-wasting.  Show me the exact quote you're referring to and we'll see how well it matches up to your situation.

Again, this is a link to someone I tagged for selling an account.  What escrow service are you talking about?

Who are you talking about?  Why do I have to guess who or what it is you're talking about when you write things?  Both you and laracrofth (the user you linked to above) had negative trust before I left any for either of you. 

You're trolling and intentionally trying to get me to waste time jumping through your hoops, and I'm not going to do it anymore.  There's a big difference between everything you've written in this thread and a reasonable concern like the one r1s2g3 raised.  I'm done with you.

No, and in fact the first and only time I've done that was with grtthegreat, because I was trying to learn from the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins, where I knew I shouldn't have tagged him but did anyway in spite of his otherwise very trusted reputation. 

As for the other stuff you wrote above, I don't know what escrow you're talking about and if you don't give a clear picture of what you're trying to argue with details and links, don't waste my time making me search for what you're referencing.  In fact, just stop wasting my time in general.  I'm not going to bite the hook anymore.  You earned your red tags--all of them.

You can call it a double standard, but I'd call it reviewing each case individually and not using a cookie-cutter approach to negging account sellers.  I've also written that it was a tough call on that one and I'm not even 100% certain I made the right decision in not tagging grtthegreat.  See this post for my views on it.  In addition, any other DT member (or non-DT for that matter) is free to tag grtthegreat if they want to.  The account buyers I have no problem tagging, since they're using someone else's reputation and rank to do whatever they want with.

Valid question, except I missed this right at the end of your post:
My bad.  So my answer to this would be that everything you mentioned has been brought up so many times and has been met with indifference not only by Theymos but a good part of the community as well.  Your feedback speaks for itself--you earned it.  One of two negs would have been sufficient, but sometimes multiple DT members chime in and reinforce others' feedbacks.

As to why the other members have positive trust, the answer to that is that the community decided they were worthy of it. 

And as far as this:
I don't know what the bolded part even means.  Are you implying (or outright stating) that I'm a merit abuser?  If that's your claim, it would appear that no one agrees with you since I haven't been tagged by anyone who provided credible evidence of this.  And feel free to take a look at my merit-sending history.  I freely give merits to a wide range of members.  Sure, I've sent merits to members like suchmoon, o_e_l_e_o, marlboroza, and others multiple times--but that's because they make genuinely good posts.  It's not some evil plot or even misusing the merit system.

My connection with the HBW account has been known for a long time now, and what has the community's response been to that?  Nothing.  It was off-color humor done in jest, and I don't even use that account anymore.  It's a non-issue which you trolls keep bringing up constantly, hoping someone will eventually care.  Or maybe you're just power hungry yourself and are resorting to the age-old political tactic of smearing your opponent in an attempt to gain support. 

You might want to take a minute to reflect on exactly how much good you've done for the forum, and compare that result to how much good the members you're attacking have done.  I don't expect you'll do that, so I'll just hope that you really do take a break from the forum (like you said you were going to).

First of all, who's "we"?

Second, what question are you talking about?  If you're referring to what you addressed in the OP, you were specifically requesting input from Theymos.  Please educate me as to what question I'm supposedly ducking.

I thought you were going to take a break from the forum:


Or have you decided to keep rehashing the same arguments all of the recent trolls have been repeating over and over, and which consistently fall upon deaf ears?  I'm hoping you stick with your original plan and just leave--even if it's only temporary. 

Sweet.

Funny how the OP likely created this thread in order to get merits and is finally getting some one year later.  The account hasn't even been active for months now.  Maybe this thread needs to be locked?  

Edit:
No criticism from me as far as giving him merits--I got fooled as well when I started reading the thread and didn't realize it was from last year until I got about halfway through the first page. 

Stop it.  I've done business with Triple, and he's been completely trustworthy based on my interactions with him--and it looks like he's trying to resolve the issue with OP, which is good to see.  This all seems to be an unfortunate incident but not a scam attempt on Triple's part.

Edit:  Just to clarify, I don't have any issue with OP creating this thread--if that had happened to me, I would have done the same thing.  My issue is with the garbage post above that adds nothing to anything.  I'm also not saying that a Hero member with green trust couldn't/wouldn't scam, because I've seen it happen.  Hopefully OP will update this so the community can see if the issue has been resolved.

I have no idea who bolinao is, but his feedback causes OP's trust to be red on my screen.

OP, there's nothing DT members are likely to do for you (though I don't even know who's on DT2 these days), and this isn't a moderator issue either.  The only option you really have is to work it out with bolinao or just live with the neg on your trust page.

That's the exact situation I didn't want to happen again when I was made aware of grtthegreat selling this account.  When I started tagging account sellers in 2016, I always checked their feedback first and if they were extremely trusted, I didn't neg them.  OmegaStarScream was one of those if I recall correctly.  In addition, I've removed negs from account sellers/buyers after some time has passed IF they've shown proof that they've done trustworthy things and haven't been just a scummy account dealer. 

In the case of iluvbitcoins and grtthegreat, all the evidence of trustworthiness was already there.  In the former case, I chose consistency in tagging sellers over weighing in other factors, like his trust page.  I regretted that and didn't want to repeat the same mistake with grtthegreat--plus he gave me his word via PM that he'd stop accepting BCT accounts as collateral and wouldn't sell any more accounts.  Take that for what it's worth.

If any other member thinks I made the wrong decision here, I completely understand--and you're obviously free to leave grtthegreat a neg if you see fit to do so.  I'm reading all the replies here and am trying to gauge how the community feels about how the tagging should be done.  My feeling is that each case ought to be looked at individually, because there are sometimes mitigating factors that would suggest that some account sellers shouldn't get negged, and perhaps a neutral would be more appropriate if any feedback had to be given at all. 

Not all account sellers are the same.  There are ones who should clearly get tagged, e.g., in threads where the OP says he has multiple Sr. Member accounts in stock and is obviously an account farmer.  I really don't like the fact that grtthegreat sold a green-trusted account, and I'm glad it was identified.  I figured it would be with the info he gave about it in the sales thread.  I almost changed my mind when I found that out, but I didn't.

If you think I screwed up, please tell me.  As I said, I was conflicted about this just as I was with the iluvbitcoins case, and I'm open to suggestions. 

Yeah, but you've got the evidence and some unknown individuals reporting the same thing to a domain registrar is going to look like sock puppeteering.  We've got enough problems to deal with right here on bitcointalk without having to get involved with your issue with this website.

Edit:
My suggestion to you is to sober up and stop trying to waste people's time.

What do "trustworthy" members have to do with this?  This isn't a forum scam, and I'm not sure who you want anyone to report your experience with these people to.  Everyone probably ignored this thread because it's not a bitcointalk issue and there's nothing they can help you with.

I'm listening with an open mind to everyone here, and this was another call that I was conflicted about.  However, I did tell grtthegreat that i wasn't going to tag him, so I won't.  I did mention that this wouldn't mean that other DT members might not feel the same, and I would encourage any of them who disagree with my decision to go ahead and follow their conscience.

We had this discussion about consistency vs. treating each case individually when the situation happened with iluvbitcoins.  I meant it when I said that the little voice in my head was telling me not to tag him because he wasn't the average scummy account seller.  That same voice was telling me not to tag grtthegreat in this case, based upon his reputation and his promise not to engage in this shit anymore.  I appreciate the community's input here, whether it's critical or supportive, because hopefully it'll lead to a consensus on how these cases should be dealt with.

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.