Why is selling or buying accounts okay but not reputation loans or trades?

[xetsr]

People are quick to leave negative feedback for reputation loans and trades but not on bought accounts which are being used to buy, sell, trade and etc. Really, what's the difference? Neither are against the rules.

You could easily buy a hero account with trust and scam for thousands, much more then the account value before getting caught, so please think again before trying to use that. I also highly doubt scammers target those who are going to ask for a signed message (which can be included in the sale any way) or those who know what's going on. It would be easy to trade via PM and scam without anyone knowing until the one scammed comes forward.

EDIT: This is more towards members who have bought accounts with trust or accounts with higher ranks (hero+) that are using the account rep or rank to make them appear more trustworthy.

[1715120879]

1715120879

[1715120879]

1715120879

[prodigy8]

People are quick to leave negative feedback for reputation loans and trades but not on bought accounts which are being used to buy, sell, trade and etc. Really, what's the difference? Neither are against the rules.

People are quick to leave negative feedback for loans that does not have valid collateral or that have been defaulted in the past.
This is because to prevent another scam, and others can see the red color.
About the bought accounts, theymos said that it is allowed to sell/buy forum accounts and i don't see that it is a good way to leave negative feedback on these account. A neutral one i consider the border, to notify the others that the account is owned by somebody else.

[xetsr]

People are quick to leave negative feedback for reputation loans and trades but not on bought accounts which are being used to buy, sell, trade and etc. Really, what's the difference? Neither are against the rules.

People are quick to leave negative feedback for loans that does not have valid collateral or that have been defaulted in the past.
This is because to prevent another scam, and others can see the red color.
About the bought accounts, theymos said that it is allowed to sell/buy forum accounts and i don't see that it is a good way to leave negative feedback on these account. A neutral one i consider the border, to notify the others that the account is owned by somebody else.

Scams are not against the rules, so asking for a loan without collateral or trading for trust is ALLOWED. Frowned upon, but allowed just like account sales!

Come on. What's the difference? You can try to put it any way you want but at the end of the day, they are still BUYING trust. So I think you're missing the point, you can scam either way. Bought accounts with trust just take a little more effort.

I suggest sig campaigns allow negative trust as long as it's because of the account being bought. Then the bought account is used only for posting and not for deals happening over PM or outside the forum.

[EcuaMobi]

Buying trust may be comparable with buying accounts with positive trust. However buying accounts with neutral trust is very different.

Ideally the person who sells an account with positive trust should ask users who left that feedback to remove it before selling it. Of course that won't happen, it couldn't be enforced. It may make sense to add a single negative feedback to make it appear as '???', however again it's impossible to enforce as most accounts are sold privately.

Regarding your request to signature campaigns to accept accounts with negative trust as long as it's only because the account was sold I think it's too much to ask. Having an account with negative trust promoting a business can damage its image as most users won't check why the account is red. Most signature admins won't want that.

[xetsr]

Buying trust may be comparable with buying accounts with positive trust. However buying accounts with neutral trust is very different.

Ideally the person who sells an account with positive trust should ask users who left that feedback to remove it before selling it. Of course that won't happen, it couldn't be enforced. It may make sense to add a single negative feedback to make it appear as '???', however again it's impossible to enforce as most accounts are sold privately.

Regarding your request to signature campaigns to accept accounts with negative trust as long as it's only because the account was sold I think it's too much to ask. Having an account with negative trust promoting a business can damage its image as most users won't check why the account is red. Most signature admins won't want that.

I should probably update my first post to make it more clear as I created this thread about buying accounts with trust or reputation. The second part of your post is exactly what I was trying to say but it's rarely done. Most would think it's okay as account sales are allowed... but so are reputation loans and trades. That's really the point I'm trying to make.

Well, spam isn't good for business but it happens all the time and they appear to turn the other way most of the time or allow it until pay day. Of course not all sig campaigns do that but that's something for another day and thread. EDIT: Also, why do sig campaigns bother having posting limits when you can just buy an account to get around those limits? Just something to think about

EDIT: Another possibility would be for someone to buy an account for sig campaigns but after a couple of months and after it's achieved a higher rank it would be used to scam. The amount scammed would be higher then the account value and they could even ditch it and just bought a bunch of new ones. To bad there is no solution for this, as said before account sales would just go underground making it harder to identify them.

[Quickseller]

First of all not all reputation loans result in negative trust. There is at least one example of a reputation loan done out in the open and the result was the people speaking out against such reputation loan was removed and/or excluded from the trust list of the person who gave such reputation loan.

The primary difference is that a reputation loan/trade has zero purpose to the person receiving such loan/trade other then to make them appear more reputable. On the other hand if someone has engaged in a number of trades that were mutually beneficial to both parties (of each trade) over time then the person who has earn such trust has value because that trust also comes with a certain level of prestige and will have an easier time conducting (legitimate, non scamming) business.

If someone who already has preexisting value from the trust associated with their account, and they are unable to realize the value from that trust then the chances of that person attempting to scam would increase (as would the chances of them being successful) - this does of course ignore a person's morals/ethics, however this only goes so far as morals/ethics may be ignored if they are desperate enough for money.

You should also look at it from the point of view from the seller: If you have positive trust then there is a good chance that you have made some kind of positive contribution to the community/economy as a whole, so why should this person not be allowed to sell their account while someone who has spammed the forum with useless garbage can receive value for their account? If anything I would think it would be the other way around.

On the other hand when you have a reputation loan/trade, in a best case scenario, the only person receiving any kind of benefit is the person selling such trust/reputation.

[xetsr]

First of all not all reputation loans result in negative trust. There is at least one example of a reputation loan done out in the open and the result was the people speaking out against such reputation loan was removed and/or excluded from the trust list of the person who gave such reputation loan.

The primary difference is that a reputation loan/trade has zero purpose to the person receiving such loan/trade other then to make them appear more reputable. On the other hand if someone has engaged in a number of trades that were mutually beneficial to both parties (of each trade) over time then the person who has earn such trust has value because that trust also comes with a certain level of prestige and will have an easier time conducting (legitimate, non scamming) business.

If someone who already has preexisting value from the trust associated with their account, and they are unable to realize the value from that trust then the chances of that person attempting to scam would increase (as would the chances of them being successful) - this does of course ignore a person's morals/ethics, however this only goes so far as morals/ethics may be ignored if they are desperate enough for money.

You should also look at it from the point of view from the seller: If you have positive trust then there is a good chance that you have made some kind of positive contribution to the community/economy as a whole, so why should this person not be allowed to sell their account while someone who has spammed the forum with useless garbage can receive value for their account? If anything I would think it would be the other way around.

On the other hand when you have a reputation loan/trade, in a best case scenario, the only person receiving any kind of benefit is the person selling such trust/reputation.

That would depend on the value of the item they are selling, buyer or seller can get a great deal resulting in benefits for both- One gets the trust the other gets what they paid for but at a slight discount or just easier bought then through an exchange or other members here. Unlikely? Maybe but let's focus on long term cons. Buying an already high ranked account just makes it easier.

I looked at it both ways. I honestly don't see the difference, maybe it's just me so I thought I would ask what everyone else thinks. IMO, buying trust is buying trust. It can be used for good or bad.

[Quickseller]

If I am buying bitcoin at a discount from someone then you really cannot say that I am buying trust because I am also receiving the benefit of getting that bitcoin at a discount (and potentially selling it and pocketing the difference).

Someone who is buying trust is going to have to pay a premium for whatever they are buying (or accept a discount for whatever they are selling) in exchange for such trust.

I agree that buying trust is a bad thing. I can't deny however that trust does have value because it does. The difference is that the person selling their own trusted account has most likely contributed to the community while the person selling their spam account with no trust has harmed the community and I don't see any reason why the person who has made a contribution should not get to benefit while the person who has caused harm does not. 

A long con is extremely difficult to defend yourself against, although one red flag that someone can look out for is someone who is attempting to engage in ever increasingly larger trades, and who is making an active attempt to receive trust from every trade they engage in. Another thing to look out for is someone who appears to be attempting to engage in a larger number of small trades that they may be able to complete in a single trade at similar prices.

Trust farming/buying is also fairly easy to spot (there are a number of people with fairly high trust scores that I would not trust, or would only trust under certain, very controlled circumstances)(of these people who are/were pretty clearly buying trust, I really cannot think of any good way to hide the fact they are buying trust) while the trading of trusted accounts is extremely difficult to spot, especially if either party knows what they are doing.