Negative Trust for innocent newbies who have no knowledge yet in the forum

[crypto|george]

I would like to apologize again for something more than a year ago. "The Pharmacist" gave me this negative trust simply because I violated important rules on this forum. I was unaware that time when my client asked me to look for an account where I could buy. Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted. I saw a thread in the marketplace where there's someone posting that is selling accounts. I was interested so I replied not knowing what I was doing. Later on when I fulfilled my job for my client, I moved on. But later, I noticed that I have a red "-1" on my Trust. That is where I found out and kept apologizing to this person to forgive me and give a chance to negate his judgement. I admit that I was wrong and really regret that action. It was a long time ago but I am still using this account for a year now for my job and have no plans to create another one. I hope that admins would be considerate to help me and please "The Pharmacist" if you could help me I will be really thankful.

[1714227159]

1714227159

[1714227159]

1714227159

[1714227159]

1714227159

[Steamtyme]

This is not a meta (forum) issue this is a reputation issue. The Pharmacist has a thread open about your PM request to review the feedback left. You can find it here. I suggest locking this topic and moving your discussion issue to that thread.

[Bttzed03]

simply because I violated important rules on this forum.

You did not violate any rule when you tried to buy an account but this practice is highly untrustworthy that is why you were tagged.

Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted.

Having a high ranking account does not guarantee that it's trustworthy. Know that there are many hero/legendary accounts that has been tagged also for being untrustworthy.

[Daniel91]

This is personal issue between this user and you.
There is no meaning to ask admin for help or post here.
Nobody here can do anything for you.
As suggested, join discussion in the reputation thread and explain your point.
I wish you luck but you will have to explain a lot there.
 

[nutildah]

He actually started a thread with your name in it in the Reputation section, you should talk to him there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164556.0

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I did create a thread in Reputation about the PM you and another member sent me, in case you missed it.  I requested that anyone who had words of support to speak up, and so far it looks like no one did.

Account selling is a big no-no here.  It promotes shitposting, scamming, spamming, and account farming--all of which are detrimental to bitcointalk.  That's why account buyers and sellers have been getting negged since 2016.  You ought to have known this, but instead you jumped right in to buy an account.

He actually started a thread with your name in it in the Reputation section, you should talk to him there:

Dammit, you either beat me to this or I missed your post here.  Anyway.

[philipma1957]

I did create a thread in Reputation about the PM you and another member sent me, in case you missed it.  I requested that anyone who had words of support to speak up, and so far it looks like no one did.

Account selling is a big no-no here.  It promotes shitposting, scamming, spamming, and account farming--all of which are detrimental to bitcointalk.  That's why account buyers and sellers have been getting negged since 2016.  You ought to have known this, but instead you jumped right in to buy an account.

He actually started a thread with your name in it in the Reputation section, you should talk to him there:

Dammit, you either beat me to this or I missed your post here.  Anyway.

You should let him go.

Just this once.

My theory on account sales is as follows.

It is legal don’t punish any above board account sale.

Instead mark the sale as account sold on date it sold.

It must show that and it is not a tag offense.


Hidden account sales = ban the mofo.

This encourages all sales to be marked and shown.

What we do now encourages hidden sneaky sales.

And a do to doot person gets burned.

While a sneak does not.

I understand why you marked him but I think my solution is what to do. Mark a sold account as sold.

[xolxol]

The Pharmacist is an asshole,he will do everything to give those new folks a negative even if its not against the rules.You broke the rule thats why this abusive wont forgive you,ask him and he will laugh at you like what his colleagues are doing.

[rosezionjohn]

You broke the rule thats why this abusive wont forgive you,ask him and he will laugh at you like what his colleagues are doing.

What forum rule did the OP broke? The issue was account buying and, from what I understand, that is not a violation but it is very much discouraged by most senior members here.

[LoyceV]

I had a quick look at your post history, and noticed you've created many ANN-token threads filled with spam like "registration" and "good project". To make this a Meta issue again: I wouldn't mind if you'd get banned for incentivising low-effort posting (but that case isn't very strong). And you've done your fair share of low-effort posting yourself too.

Luckily, your spam stopped after the Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements took away your ability to post images.

[marlboroza]

I was unaware that time when my client asked me to look for an account where I could buy. Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted.

Who was your client?

Or, better, is project still alive?

[JaredKaragen]

You should let him go.

Just this once.

My theory on account sales is as follows.

It is legal don’t punish any above board account sale.

Instead mark the sale as account sold on date it sold.

It must show that and it is not a tag offense.


Hidden account sales = ban the mofo.

This encourages all sales to be marked and shown.

What we do now encourages hidden sneaky sales.

And a do to doot person gets burned.

While a sneak does not.

I understand why you marked him but I think my solution is what to do. Mark a sold account as sold.

100% agree.

The Pharmacist is an asshole,he will do everything to give those new folks a negative even if its not against the rules.You broke the rule thats why this abusive wont forgive you,ask him and he will laugh at you like what his colleagues are doing.

I have noticed many people don't care about offending others, as feelings are your own problem sourced from your own perceptions.

I have been called out on many things in the past, and keeping a cool head and being curt and straightforward has both earned me this same type of response, as well as myself being straight and curt has been the way I respond to such things... To myself, I feel this has earned me the respect I deserve.

Civility breeds itself.    Incivility gets exponential faster than civility.  

Knowing this:  be careful on how you approach people with preconceptions on how you think someone should be or act;  as everyone is just in their own feelings and has no right to push them on others.

[crypto|george]

I was unaware that time when my client asked me to look for an account where I could buy. Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted.

Who was your client?

Or, better, is project still alive?

The username is marcovaldo and the name of the project is Bitex.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3444351.msg36262958#msg36262958

[crypto|george]

I did create a thread in Reputation about the PM you and another member sent me, in case you missed it.  I requested that anyone who had words of support to speak up, and so far it looks like no one did.

Account selling is a big no-no here.  It promotes shitposting, scamming, spamming, and account farming--all of which are detrimental to bitcointalk.  That's why account buyers and sellers have been getting negged since 2016.  You ought to have known this, but instead you jumped right in to buy an account.

He actually started a thread with your name in it in the Reputation section, you should talk to him there:

Dammit, you either beat me to this or I missed your post here.  Anyway.

You should let him go.

Just this once.

My theory on account sales is as follows.

It is legal don’t punish any above board account sale.

Instead mark the sale as account sold on date it sold.

It must show that and it is not a tag offense.


Hidden account sales = ban the mofo.

This encourages all sales to be marked and shown.

What we do now encourages hidden sneaky sales.

And a do to doot person gets burned.

While a sneak does not.

I understand why you marked him but I think my solution is what to do. Mark a sold account as sold.

Thanks for understanding me sir. I just wanted to be trusted again. After my account got -1 Trust I've missed many opportunities with other clients not mentioning the changes on ranking which made me Newbie again. I am willing to grow my account if this will be removed and use it again often for helping others.

[Baronets]

>..<

Can I give you a tip - a lot on members don't like full quotes when they are not required, and nested quotes are even worse. Many members ( such as Jet Cash ) don't bother to read the replies when posters do this, and that can lose you the chance of earning merits.

[bob123]

~snip~

I don't agree with this opinion.

Account sales won't be done publicly. Regardless of whether they receive a negative trust rating or not.

The reason to buy accounts is to cheat on bounties, promoting scam and creating a wrong illusion of 'trustworthiness'.

Those people can't allow to have a 'Sold account' tag to be seen on their profile.


So, while very few people would actually do it publicly, exactly those are the people who do not indent to cheat / scam.
And exactly only them get punished.

So.. either tag everyone, or no one.
Tagging no one is obviously not an option tho..

[...]  Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted. [...]

Exactly this is the problem.

Instead of getting trusted on this forum, you tried to deceive others into believing you are a trustworthy user..

If a trusted member 'is needed', then you - as a newbie - obviously were the wrong person. So why trying to cheat and buy an account to create the illusion to be trusted while you are obviously not ?


IMO the tag is absolutely justified.
The fact, that he admitted the reason for buying an account was to deceive others into believing he is trustworthy, makes it 100% justified.

[crypto|george]

chance of earning merits.

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind.

[philipma1957]

~snip~

I don't agree with this opinion.

Account sales won't be done publicly. Regardless of whether they receive a negative trust rating or not.

The reason to buy accounts is to cheat on bounties, promoting scam and creating a wrong illusion of 'trustworthiness'.

Those people can't allow to have a 'Sold account' tag to be seen on their profile.


So, while very few people would actually do it publicly, exactly those are the people who do not indent to cheat / scam.
And exactly only them get punished.

So.. either tag everyone, or no one.
Tagging no one is obviously not an option tho..

[...]  Because he said that posting on this forum requires a ranking member to be trusted. [...]

Exactly this is the problem.

Instead of getting trusted on this forum, you tried to deceive others into believing you are a trustworthy user..

If a trusted member 'is needed', then you - as a newbie - obviously were the wrong person. So why trying to cheat and buy an account to create the illusion to be trusted while you are obviously not ?


IMO the tag is absolutely justified.
The fact, that he admitted the reason for buying an account was to deceive others into believing he is trustworthy, makes it 100% justified.

Then ban all account sales and ban anyone that buys or sells accounts.

Which also works for me.

What does not work for me is allowing sales and then tagging the buyer and seller with negative trust.

Don’t you see that a buyer could have a legit lawsuit?

He could force kyc on the website. Saying that bitcointalk is practicing deception by allowing the sale of accounts and then allowing tagging.

How many people have been tagged more then 100 means a class action lawsuit can be done.

You understand my thought is to protect bitcointalk. I feel this policy of allowing sales and allowing tagging of a sale could create a legal issue for the website and for the taggers .


Edit my solution is more legal for bitcointalk. 1) allow a sale mark it sold. Hidden sales get a ban.

My second solution is also more legal for bitcointalk.



2) don’t allow sales ban is punishment

My opinion is the current solution creates a liability for bitcointalk and for anyone that tags for account purchases.

3) allow a sale and allow a tag (edit a ban .  not  so smart a rule
Note my opinion is meaningless as I am not an official legal expert.

[bob123]

Then ban all account sales and ban anyone that buys or sells accounts.

It is not prohibited. So no reason to ban the accounts.

What does not work for me is allowing sales and then tagging the buyer and seller with negative trust.

No one has to 'allow' tagging.
The trust system is not supervised by theymos or anyone else.

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

I personally think that trading with anyone who bought his account (i.e. deceiving others into believing he is an trustworthy and/or long standing member of this community) is high-risk.

If you don't think so, you can simply ignore this specific trust rating and continue doing business with the tagged person.
It is not like the trust ratings contain "SCAMMER KEEP AWAY !1!!1!!11!one!!eleven".
They always contain the reason for the rating (i.e. account buying / selling).

Don’t you see that a buyer could have a legit lawsuit?
He could force kyc on the website. Saying that bitcointalk is practicing deception by allowing the sale of accounts and then allowing tagging.

Lol, no.

No user can force a forum to demand KYC.

Just because user X tags user Y because of Z, the forum is not liable at all. That's nonsense.

I feel this policy of allowing sales and allowing tagging of a sale could create a legal issue for the website and for the taggers .

Your feeling is wrong.

[philipma1957]

Then ban all account sales and ban anyone that buys or sells accounts.

It is not prohibited. So no reason to ban the accounts.

What does not work for me is allowing sales and then tagging the buyer and seller with negative trust.

No one has to 'allow' tagging.
The trust system is not supervised by theymos or anyone else.

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

I personally think that trading with anyone who bought his account (i.e. deceiving others into believing he is an trustworthy and/or long standing member of this community) is high-risk.

If you don't think so, you can simply ignore this specific trust rating and continue doing business with the tagged person.
It is not like the trust ratings contain "SCAMMER KEEP AWAY !1!!1!!11!one!!eleven".
They always contain the reason for the rating (i.e. account buying / selling).

Don’t you see that a buyer could have a legit lawsuit?
He could force kyc on the website. Saying that bitcointalk is practicing deception by allowing the sale of accounts and then allowing tagging.

Lol, no.

No user can force a forum to demand KYC.

Just because user X tags user Y because of Z, the forum is not liable at all. That's nonsense.

I feel this policy of allowing sales and allowing tagging of a sale could create a legal issue for the website and for the taggers .

Your feeling is wrong.

Okay if you say so.