When leaving trust for known Alt's of other users

[Timelord2067]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.0 and the various Scammer Family Tree posts I have made in the scam accusations https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 section.

[1714809607]

1714809607

[1714809607]

1714809607

[Jhanzo]

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.

[Joel_Jantsen]

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.

[jacee]

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.

[SFR10]

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.

[shorena]

Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.

[DarkStar_]

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

[KWH]

Negative for scammers, neutral for all others.

This is what I generally do.

[Timelord2067]

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. 

[Monnt]

Negative for scammers, neutral for all others because people deserve to know about potential scams.

[whywefight]

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. 

reset it! we can revote until we have voted the correct result, i mean the one you like, i mean.... ähhhhhh....

[Chris!]

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.

[robelneo]

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

[Duomo]

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.  

[Timelord2067]

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?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.

[Joel_Jantsen]

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.

[NOP@SSWORD]

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?

[Avirunes]

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?

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.

[Timelord2067]

363 days since last post, I guess I'm entitled to bump the thread....