WITHDRAWN

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[1714179202]

1714179202

[Huge Black Woman]

**Trying hard to muster up sympathy for Knighton**

Can't do it.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[actmyname]

Then simply don't sell the accounts, or don't accept the accounts as collateral. What's wrong with not trusting someone because they're trying to sell an account?

[KWH]

I always suggest for lenders to stop taking accounts as collateral but no one listens. While I leave a Neutral on bought/sold accounts, (Unless they are Trusted, then I leave a Negative until the Trust is Neutral.), some leave Negative. It's a risk for lenders and sellers. Too many people are looking closer for changes in post/writing style on suspected accounts.

My advice is to ask the leavers of positive Trust to remove or change to Neutral, then ask for the Negative to be removed or changed to Neutral.

[NamedUser]

I didn't think the trust system was a feedback system. Am I wrong? I just thought you stated whether you trusted someone or not.

[KWH]

I didn't think the trust system was a feedback system. Am I wrong? I just thought you stated whether you trusted someone or not.

Is that not feedback?

[Vod]

What happened:  Staff member using his position to abuse the feedback system.

Actually, it is his position on default trust he is using, not his position as staff member.   

Selling accounts.  I hate it. 

As long as seniority exists, accounts will have value based on that seniority.  As long as something has value, people are going to sell or trade it.  Therefore, accounts will be sold.

Does selling an account make that account tainted in any way?   In a perfect world, we would be tagging the person, not the account, so how do we make sure a scammer just doesn't buy a trusted account? 

IMO, the last question is the one we need to answer, not how to stop account sales. 

[Lauda]

That account was being auctioned off by a newbie (do not question my methods though).

Staff member using his position to abuse the feedback system.

Being a staff member has nothing to do with the feedback system and vice-versa (although you can be both).

Amount Scammed: .20+ (Collateral Value)

I have in no way or form scammed you nor is that account worth 0.2+.
PSA: I am not targeting accounts that are collateral. OP did not even link to the actual loan/default. Are you attempting an act of calumny here? Because this is a blatant lie.
P.S. You quoted my PMs twice.

[Gunthar]

Do as i do: dont sell the accounts. Put a signature of your service in defaulted loans accounts: you will get more customers by that advertising and will stop supporting account farmers.
Think on long terms about your business...

References:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818586#msg16818586
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818509#msg16818509

~Gun

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

This is only one of the three accounts you tagged for no reason and 2 of them were no for sale by anyone yet, so why were they tagged???

Tags for account trading, spamming and such are valid. I do not condone this type of behavior and thus do not trust anyone who engages in them. Simple as that.

If they did not have value, there would be no price estimator for the accounts.

That price estimator is a joke (the post analysis is even worse, it's just a very simple method that has zero analytical capabilities).

As far as your Newbie account selling it, I call BS because when you did it, I contacted you from my one and only account, this SR.

How exactly do you think that I've stumbled upon this account specifically out of thousands accounts? There is zero reason for me to lie about this. I did not even know that you, knightkon, existed on this forum prior to you sending me a PM.

Account and your still blew it off as I was crying.  

Of course I did. People tend to sell me bullshit stories all the time. You did not even link to the loan, did you? There was really no reason to jump out in public like this with a blatant lie (as in the thread title). I always give people a chance to resolve/improve after rating (as I do with sig. spammers).

I have counted another 25 accounts currently up for auction from newbies, did you tag them?  No you did not.

I can not know every account being sold, can I? Some fall for the methods that I use, while others do not.

Look at all the feedback you left lately, you are abusing the system.  If you were not and you were concerned with this forum, like you say, you would have been tagging for the past years, not just this month.  I CALL YOUR BS buddy.

My ratings were not visible by default until some time ago (as I got added to DT2). There was little reason to tag accounts at that time as those ratings had little-to-no effect. I was willing to work this out, but you seem rather very aggressive which makes me less inclined to help you out. FYI: DT1/2 members can *negate* my rating if they think it is invalid. A few DT members have read/responded in this thread and have not acted on it, which leads me to believe that they indirectly either support or accept it.

[Lutpin]

As far as not taking accounts for collateral, there is nothing wrong with that because they have a value.  If they did not have value, there would be no price estimator for the accounts.

So creating a price estimator for my sh*t will give it value? Why accounts have value was explained by Vod above, doesn't mean I support or like the trafficking of those (I use this word on purpose).

Take that away and have it against the rules to do this and I will stop. Just because you are not making nothing from it does not mean nothing.

Saying Lauda does this because they are jealous is taken out of thin air, you know that.
As for the first part, a user can't change the forum policies, but they can leave feedbacks. Gotta work with what you have.

I have counted another 25 accounts currently up for auction from newbies, did you tag them? No you did not.

So I understand correctly, you want more feedbacks left, not less?

Look at all the feedback you left lately, you are abusing the system.

Being active and fighting for something isn't abusing. There aren't much cases in which the trust system is clearly abused. This is none of them.

If you were not and you were concerned with this forum, like you say, you would have been tagging for the past years, not just this month.

What kind of arguing is that? Just because someone hasn't been doing something a year ago doesn't mean they can't do it now.
I wasn't even registered 2 years ago, does that mean I don't care about this forum today? If so, why exactly can't I care about it?

I CALL YOUR BS buddy.

You clearly did.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[TwitchySeal]

In my opinion, the only reason the accounts have value is because of the signature campaigns.  If someone purchases an account so they can earn more in a signature campaign, it would be a good investment, which is the only reason I would think one would want to purchase an account.  Lets work together and prevent the accounts from being sold for scamming purposes by all loaners agreeing to neutral tag every account the day it is sold as being sold on this day.  This tag would ideally have something stating in it that the account was sold and that no previous trust should be considered.  To give it purpose, I suggest that all ligament tags should have a reference back to the collateral loan where the account was lost.  I understand how account sales give scammers the opportunity to get over on people, but this would warn people which accounts have been purchased and which accounts were not.   

What most are not understanding, no offence high ranking members; however, anything can have a value to someone else.  It does not matter if it has a value to you or if it does not, if someone else has a purpose for it, then it has a value.   How many people throw away their plastic milk jugs after they are done being used?  Better yet, how many people send them to recycling?  Why do you do it?  Most people will answer because it is garbage.  Now if someone told you how you could come across 100,000 of those a day with very little effort and each one of them are worth $.012 USD, would throw them all away?  Most people would answer no.  The same goes with the accounts, they will always have value as long as someone else has a use for them. 

Lenders beware - if you accept an account as collateral, it might get neg feedback due to the actions of a previous owner.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

Why are they valid?  Just because you do not condone it?  So if you do not condone wearing t-shirts on Wednesdays, we should all stop wearing t-shirts?

Appeal to extremities fallacy.

I am not sure exactly how you stumbled across this account.  If it was one account, I would say coincidences, but you have 4 of my collateral held accounts tagged with less than 30 (-) comments and under 40 bad loans with accounts as collateral in the last 2-3 months.

I do not know which accounts are being sold/used as collateral in your services, and frankly I do not care.

can not figure out how to properly research before you leave feedback, the loan reference is here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1480336.msg16312515#msg16312515

My feedback has nothing to do with that loan, ergo invalid argument.

What methods do you seem to use??  I see no pattern in anything you did with the feedback you left in the month of November, other than abuse the DT rating you had.  Some of the accounts you tagged have not been active for over 2 months.  

I can get other trusted parties to verify that the methods are indeed genuine (from DT members to other staff members).

My first message to you was asking what happened and what I needed to do to fix it, yet your response was?? (I bonded it in purple to refresh your memory) How was that "willing to work this out"?  

I do not deny writing any of that and stand by my statement.

You were willing to work this out???

Correct and now I am not. I'm done with this blatant aggressiveness towards me.

[Fortify]

I don't agree with account selling and never will. However it has been confirmed on many occasions by other staff members that it is allowed and there are many sellers in the digital services trading section that get away with it daily. Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

[KWH]

I don't agree with account selling and never will. However it has been confirmed on many occasions by other staff members that it is allowed and there are many sellers in the digital services trading section that get away with it daily. Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

[Lauda]

Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Did you read what was written in this thread? I had no idea that these accounts were collateral at the time, ergo it is not selectively punishing anyone.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

Indeed.