User Yahoo62278 is a brutal account seller and

[LegalDiscussions]

Well, see this

Just check this user : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=542429

Made from starting to just sell and buy accounts ( mainly sell )

and hence a potential serious signature spammer, and where are those guys who tag account sellers ?

Basically because its a trusted member selling/buying accounts brutally you allow him ?


And yes , an auction which was abandoned without any information and this is quite rubbish.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1150562.msg12133013#msg12133013

To lauda : you give -ve trust to people for selling accounts and encouraging members to earn from sigs from multiple accounts ( see : http://prntscr.com/e8j4uf ) and yourself working with a brutal account seller dude ?

[lemipawa]

How did you connect Yahoo62278 and sellsrmember? Can you also post that information here as well and I hope you noticed that sellsrmember account last logged in this forum was more than a year ago.

[Lauda]

Basically because its a trusted member selling/buying accounts brutally you allow him ?

Last Active:   February 10, 2016, 10:21:52 PM

Wake me up once you post with your main account. Otherwise, I can't take this seriously. These futile attempts won't have any effect on Yahoo.
This is your 5th thread about Yahoo.

[Lauda]

So basically you mean that you are happy to allow any scammer/spammer after an year ?

I don't see any evidence of him being neither a scammer nor a spammer.

Dude he is inactive with his alt account but with his yahoo account he might be doign the same too !

Proof?

And why you so curious for my main account, so bombard it ?

Leaving a negative rating for a opinion or criticism is not justifiable. That said, I can't take these 'attack with alts' tactic seriously. Anyone who supports them has horrible judgement.

He sold accounts brutally and you cannot deny that fact man, can you ?

He never hid the fact that he did sell accounts in the past. "Brutally" is a complete exaggeration, as the number of sold accounts is unknown.

[lemipawa]

How did you connect Yahoo62278 and sellsrmember? Can you also post that information here as well and I hope you noticed that sellsrmember account last logged in this forum was more than a year ago.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339787.msg13666738#msg13666738

a year ago ? Does that also means that a criminal changes his mindset with time ? If you are once a account seller you always will remain a account seller man !

This forum believes in second chance that's why there are DT members that removes their negative feedback once they see the person changed their ways. I even know a DT member who created a thread to buy accounts with red flags but now he is in the DT list, but that doesn't make him a scammer or a type of person who cannot be trusted actually he is a cool guy in this forum.

[mexxer-2]

So basically you mean that you are happy to allow any scammer/spammer after an year ?
Dude he is inactive with his alt account but with his yahoo account he might be doign the same too !

If once you committed a crime you are always known for it, no ?

And why you so curious for my main account, so bombard it ? Huh man you are not a man of facts rather a man of accounts.

Its not a 'crime' , people have different standards when handing out negs and pos ratings and account selling happens to be something lauda is against. I've seen many spammers improving and account sellers choosing not to do so later on. I think even Lauda himself was banned at one point(albeit temporarily) in his early days, Dabs was copy-pasting stuff(which too can get you banned) , Ognasty was found escrowing for his friend(eh we're getting off-track here)

And hilarious how you think you can coerce someone into handing out a neg because that person gives out a rating to others for doing the same.

Edit: Forgot the reason I dropped by here. Completely agree with what you have on your sig

[Lauda]

But how can you allow a user who has a past of selling accounts in such a complicated team where a single blacklist means that the user won't be able to take part in any campaign ( that respects SMAS )

Simple: I'll take all the users from his list and add them into mine. Therefore, he does nothing but use SMAS. Therefore, your concern is invalid. Looks like you are either:
1) A butthurt troll.
2) Someone who got their shit accounts blacklisted.
Anyone is free to use or not to use SMAS.

[Lauda]

See first thing is he is main member of SMAS and can easily blacklist innocent people while encouraging his own account.

The list is transparent, therefore anyone can review the users that are on it. You can't really do malicious damage undetected.

Plus added to this he has a poor history, been working with girl-btc a hilarious scammer and a anti-bitcointalk forum and site.

Yawn, not this again

Added to all these gave some rushed -ve feedbacks which he removed later.

Those were feedbacks that he left before he was DT.

Had a newbie done all these, please tell me honestly would you allow him in the DT mate ?

Comparing apples and oranges again, are we?
What is the goal here? To get him removed from DT? To get him neg. rated?

[Quickseller]

In short : Yahoo sold accounts in past and there is no reason to deny that he won't be doing the same today and maybe that's why you guys opened SMAS ? to disallow others while making money with own accounts ?

He sold accounts brutally and you cannot deny that fact man, can you ?

Selling accounts alone is not a reason for yahoo to be discredited. There are many very trustworthy people that have traded accounts in the past, a fairly large number actually. 

Although the SMAS participation does create a conflict of interest. The question of if yahoo can manage this conflict of interest in a way so that he does not profit from his position can be discussed by others. 

[Lauda]

Now you see how blind eyed you are that you cant even see that he gave poor trust after being in the DT and after a discussion with shorena he deleted them

AFAIK most of those were left prior to him becoming DT, which is fine I guess. He is here to learn, and that's what he did by discussing and removing them.

Do one thing, please visit yahoo's house have a fight .. maybe that opens your eyes dude ? You really are being like his father lol or maybe lawyer.

You mentioned me in the OP, what did you expect?

[Lauda]

A learner should not be a part of a list that are believed to be experts and teach others plus him being a part of SMAS can well be a very wise decision by allowing his own accounts and being partial towards them.

I couldn't care less about what you think 'should' or 'should not' be. DT members are most certainly not "experts" and do not need to "teach others". You're confused.
This thread is useless, and your 5th attempt at attacking Yahoo. Add this to the list of failed ones.

[Lauda]

Well happily accepted the other threads as failed because you were an excellent lawyer though I hope some common sense people come here and understand how Yahoo62278 is playing with SMAS for personal interests.

There is no proof of said accusation.

You are working with a account farmer on a very complicated service so what can i say, maybe you are strongly connected to him ..and he has a unclosed auction, any notes on that ?

He did have/sell a few accounts in the past from what I see. He has seen why account trading is bad, and has long stopped doing it AFAIK.
FYI 1 account doesn't make you an account farmer. You should have properly written down the total amount that was sold.

[shorena]

Let me say this first: your signature makes me cringe.

Well, see this

Just check this user : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=542429

Made from starting to just sell and buy accounts ( mainly sell )

and hence a potential serious signature spammer, and where are those guys who tag account sellers ?

Basically because its a trusted member selling/buying accounts brutally you allow him ?

No, IMHO anyone should be able to buy and sell as many accounts as they want. Should it lead to spam, its for staff to handle and - if needed - ban the person with all accounts they hold. Someone that buys an account in order to ROI on it via signature campaign(s) has a high interest to avoid spam as it would destroy their investment (the account). Another point - originally brought up by Salty IIRC (sorry no ref) - is that open account sales and signature campaigns together make it more difficult for scammers to ROI on a bought account. Simplified the argument is: account sales are public thus people trust accounts less in general which lowers the amount that can be scammed w/o significant work (long cons); signature campaigns offer a legit way to ROI on a bought acct which increases demand and thus price for accounts raising the amount needed to scam to ROI nefariously.

And yes , an auction which was abandoned without any information and this is quite rubbish.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1150562.msg12133013#msg12133013

Auctions are often finished via PM, please show us the related scam accusation.

To lauda : you give -ve trust to people for selling accounts and encouraging members to earn from sigs from multiple accounts ( see : http://prntscr.com/e8j4uf ) and yourself working with a brutal account seller dude ?

I have been discussing this topic with Lauda for quite some time and my latest information on this is that Lauda is reviewing these ratings. Be that as it may, it changes nothing about yahoos position on DT.

But how can you allow a user who has a past of selling accounts in such a complicated team where a single blacklist means that the user won't be able to take part in any campaign ( that respects SMAS )

You are being blind eyed man !

SMAS is just a list for a few members, it does not apply to all campaigns and I think its better that these members put their list in the public instead of doing the same in secret. I have no doubt that campaign managers frequently warn each others about spammers to reduce their workload. I think there can be improvements made to SMAS, but overal its a good idea against spam. One improvement I offered in the past was to check whether or not someone should be on SMAS or not. I have yet to receive a list of accounts I should check, it seems either your signature misrepresents me or there is no strong interest in getting this done. I could do it blind as well, a few of the accounts could not be on SMAS and Id have to find those that should be. If SMAS is all you have, it wont be enough to get yahoo removed from DT.

-snip-
Edit: Forgot the reason I dropped by here. Completely agree with what you have on your sig

I dont think those 98 days are wasted.

-snip-
Had a newbie done all these, please tell me honestly would you allow him in the DT mate ?

No, a newbie has no history. The question whether or not someone should be on DT is the same as "are the ratings they leave helpful to me?" For me this answer is yes for yahoo. I had some issues with some ratings they left, handled it rather poorly on my end, but they came around and changed them.

-snip-
A learner should not be a part of a list that are believed to be experts and teach others plus him being a part of SMAS can well be a very wise decision by allowing his own accounts and being partial towards them.

Thats not really how it works. You just log in one day and boom your inbox is full of PMs, because newsflash someone put you on DT. Everyone needs some time to adapt to this. Depending on your past ratings this can take some time.

-snip-
Yahoo62278 is playing with SMAS for personal interests.
-snip-

That might be true, but I dont see any evidence of this and I dont think SMAS has enough influence to make this profitable. Besides, due to its public nature anyone could verify and more importantly dispute being on that list.

[mexxer-2]

Let me say this first: your signature makes me cringe.

Bask in its glory 'cause its true.

Thats not really how it works. You just log in one day and boom your inbox is full of PMs, because newsflash someone put you on DT.

Heh, remember when that happened to me and I was all "Nah, couldn't be that easy could it?"


*OT post but who cares... custom sig deals all the way

[keyscore44]

No, IMHO anyone should be able to buy and sell as many accounts as they want. Should it lead to spam, its for staff to handle and - if needed - ban the person with all accounts they hold. Someone that buys an account in order to ROI on it via signature campaign(s) has a high interest to avoid spam as it would destroy their investment (the account). Another point - originally brought up by Salty IIRC (sorry no ref) - is that open account sales and signature campaigns together make it more difficult for scammers to ROI on a bought account. Simplified the argument is: account sales are public thus people trust accounts less in general which lowers the amount that can be scammed w/o significant work (long cons); signature campaigns offer a legit way to ROI on a bought acct which increases demand and thus price for accounts raising the amount needed to scam to ROI nefariously.

I'm not sure if I understand correct, but it seems to me that in this statement you are saying that censure/mark spammers raises prices of Bitcointalk accounts.. It can be interesting tool...

-snip-
Yahoo62278 is playing with SMAS for personal interests.
-snip-

That might be true, but I dont see any evidence of this and I dont think SMAS has enough influence to make this profitable. Besides, due to its public nature anyone could verify and more importantly dispute being on that list.

Maybe you're right, and SMAS has very little meaning in the dealings, so we do not have to worry about.
But it is always good to talk - people can have own thoughts about that..