Requesting DT members to have a clear stance on buying & selling accounts

[TrustedTrader]

Till yesterday I knew that buying & selling accounts on BitcoinTalk is allowed. But, I am stunned to see that DT member & Staff Lauda has marked me -ve and stated...

Account sales encourage different types of shady behavior (scams, spam, account farming, et al.).

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 & Digital Goods...

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.

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 to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

[1714056958]

1714056958

[1714056958]

1714056958

[1714056958]

1714056958

[1714056958]

1714056958

[1714056958]

1714056958

[1714056958]

1714056958

[Lauda]

Why this selective judgement?

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.

In case, the DT members conclude that it is not allowed, I'm hereby requesting Lauda to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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.

[TrustedTrader]

Why this selective judgement?

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.

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

In case, the DT members conclude that it is not allowed, I'm hereby requesting Lauda to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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.

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?

[Lauda]

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

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

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?

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.

[Lutpin]

In case, the DT members conclude that it is not allowed, I'm hereby requesting Lauda to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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)

[ndnh]

Requesting DT members to have a clear stance on buying & selling accounts

Why must they?

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

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.

[eddie13]

Till yesterday I knew that buying & selling accounts on BitcoinTalk is allowed. But, I am stunned to see that DT member & Staff Lauda has marked me -ve and stated...

Account sales encourage different types of shady behavior (scams, spam, account farming, et al.).

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 & Digital Goods...

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.

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 to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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..

[Jet Cash]

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".

[Lauda]

DT is not a unified front.

Indeed.

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.

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).

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..

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

I wish account selling was banned, alternatively the post count could be reset, as it is not relevant to the new "owner".

Unfortunately it isn't.

[TrustedTrader]

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[minifrij]

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.

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

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.

[Lauda]

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.

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.

Really? I can not request to remove -ve trust? Could u please show me a rule for the same?

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).

This.

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

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.

[shorena]

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

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

-snip-
Really? I can not request to remove -ve trust? Could u please show me a rule for the same?

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.

[Lutpin]

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.

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

That blew any chances you might have had left.

[Grinface]

Why this selective judgement?

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.

In case, the DT members conclude that it is not allowed, I'm hereby requesting Lauda to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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.

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!

[minifrij]

Lauda You are abusing the trust system.

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.

But take a look at you. You promots shady things. You abuse trust system and more.

These shady things being?

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.

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

If we want to have a nice forum and clean from spam and scammers it have to start from the top!

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

[shorena]

-snip-
I dont trust you and I dont trust your negative ratings.

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.

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.

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.

If we want to have a nice forum and clean from spam and scammers it have to start from the top!

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.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.

[Relnarien]

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 to remove my Red. In that case, I wont be involved in account trading on BitcoinTalk anymore...

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.)