[Type-1 Flag] Account Sales

[Lauda]

You've asked, and I've delievered.

Agreed, creating a type-1 flag for sold accounts is an appropriate usage of the system. Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though; for example, these points of view could all be defended:
 - Some people think that trading an account is an inherently untrustworthy act in 100% of cases.
 - Some people think that trading an account is usually untrustworthy, but is OK if it's made extremely clear that the account traded hands.
 - Some people think that trading an account is OK unless active deception is used (eg. lying in order to say, "this is not a sold account").
 - Some people think that a little lying is not enough for even a type-1 flag, and a flag is only merited if there's also some additional underlying shady behavior; in other words, account trading can only further degrade an existing untrustworthy act, but cannot be considered flag material in itself.

I specifically do not want to decide which of the above is correct. The flag is an appropriate usage of the system in any case, though.

Tl;dr: It is a correct use of the system to flag any sold account using flag type-1. I'll be this thread as a dumping ground for names and just use it as a reference for everything; feel free to join.
Note: Quote is clearly from my... private time... with thermos.

[1713972476]

1713972476

[1713972476]

1713972476

[1713972476]

1713972476

[1713972476]

1713972476

[1713972476]

1713972476

[1713972476]

1713972476

[Lauda]

CoinFoxs - Flag: here.
Fruitbaskets - Flag: here.
Fire Rabbit - Flag: here.
Reserved.

[The-One-Above-All]

You've asked, and I've delievered.

Agreed, creating a type-1 flag for sold accounts is an appropriate usage of the system. Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though; for example, these points of view could all be defended:
 - Some people think that trading an account is an inherently untrustworthy act in 100% of cases.
 - Some people think that trading an account is usually untrustworthy, but is OK if it's made extremely clear that the account traded hands.
 - Some people think that trading an account is OK unless active deception is used (eg. lying in order to say, "this is not a sold account").
 - Some people think that a little lying is not enough for even a type-1 flag, and a flag is only merited if there's also some additional underlying shady behavior; in other words, account trading can only further degrade an existing untrustworthy act, but cannot be considered flag material in itself.

I specifically do not want to decide which of the above is correct. The flag is an appropriate usage of the system in any case, though.

Tl;dr: It is a correct use of the system to flag any sold account using flag type-1. I'll be this thread as a dumping ground for names and just use it as a reference for everything; feel free to join.
Note: Quote is clearly from my... private time... with thermos.

Let's see if laudas pal/alt account that was likely sold will get a flag.

Nutildah

http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0


unless you are now claiming people can post " no longer for sale " months after the account is put up for sale and that proves it was never sold?

Then again have said previously that there is NOTHING people could say that would cause you to leave nutildah negative trust....  

flag him up scumbag

[Lauda]

Let's see if laudas pal/alt account that was likely sold will get a flag.

Nutildah

http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

He will not, no and I will actively oppose such a flag. I consider Nutildah to be against my principles nowadays to be straight.

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's see if laudas pal/alt account that was likely sold will get a flag.

Nutildah

http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

He will not, no and I will actively oppose such a flag. I consider Nutildah to be against my principles nowadays to be straight.

So although your friend nutildah (DT inclusions shared, merits etc) has far more damning evidence of selling his account with the actual sale being offered in black offered in black and white ( after nutildah is claiming that any account sellers are facilitating scams) YOU REFUSE TO FLAG HIM and will OPPOSE any flag raised against him on that basis.

So your opinion is that you should flag people on the basis of they are not your pals or fellow DT supporters?

LOL at the double standards.

You now consider Nutildah to be against your principles you say?? this is interesting. Well your principles are obviously scamming and extorting people so is this some kind of strange endorsement for nutildah? you feel he merely willing facilitates scamming for 0.3btc so  that means he is against your do the scamming and extorting directly principles you employ? or is that not what you mean?

Are you saying ANYONE can offer their accounts for sale and then so long as there is a message later on from that account saying " oh yeah not selling now" that makes it okay ? and they will not get a flag?

Make sure to start a nutildah flag or else this will be served up as evidence of clear double standards ever time I see a new flag for account selling especially if there is not 100% concrete undeniable evidence it took place.

[Lauda]

You're boring me; I'll just do whatever I the fuck I want as thermos is clearly in bed with me.
Reference sake: You're asked to not respond to non-responses such as this one. Don't bore me even more by forcing me to use local rules to get rid of you.

[The-One-Above-All]

You're boring me; I'll just do whatever I the fuck I want as thermos is clearly in bed with me.
Reference sake: You're asked to not respond to non-responses such as this one. Don't bore me even more by forcing me to use local rules to get rid of you.

LOL SO SCAMMER.. you refuse to explain your reasoning hey, because we would pull it and you apart ( and enjoy doing so) ??. So you just admit you are selectively enforcing your own made up rules for yourself and your alts/pals/ colluders then.  What a chicken shit.

But theymos asked over 100 people to black list you? seems unrealistic to believe you have wormed your way back into the good books already.

Bring your local rules, they only work in rep, so you will be marooned here or else you will face my on topic and relevant posts where ever and whenever the fuck I WANT.  Meta is my own board now. I stay on topic and relevant and destroy the scammers and scammer supporters that were enjoying free reign there lecturing others and asking for ways to punish deed far less evil than their own. LOL

Hide behind your local rules, if they do not work go full self moderated haha

Start a flag for nutildah the account seller  http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

or else this thread will be used as ANOTHER example of your double standards and collusion. Get it scammer?? Get on with it.

The best part is that you claim you will oppose a flag for nutildahs account selling  -- hahahahah SCUMBAG COLLUDING SCAMMER.  Wants to punish others when there is less compelling evidence in their case. How is this piece of shit on DT.

[DireWolfM14]

First off I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I oppose account sales.  I would venture to guess that the vast majority of times accounts are sold or bought for deceptive purposes.  Even if no scam is intended, the buyer might only want to elevate his rank to earn more in signature campaigns, which some may argue is a mild, or even acceptable deception, it's a deception none the less and I'm opposed to it.

But I'd like to paint a hypothetical scenario where I might actually find the sale of an account as acceptable:

Lets say for example a member has an anonymous account used solely to conduct a service that doesn't require clients to trust the account.  The owner of the account and service decides he no longer has the time or desire to continue operations.  If one were to have such a service that's profitable, valued by it's clientele, and would be sorely missed if it ceased, would it be acceptable to the community if the service along with the account were sold?  If the account and service were offered for sale out in the open, transparent, and continued to operate in a way that didn't require it's client's trust, I think I would be okay with such a scenario.

Obviously, this would be a very unique case and I'm merely trying to open up the discussion (play devil's advocate.)

Theymos has refused to ban the activity, probably in part due to his Anarcho-Capitalist tendencies (I speculate.)  Since I tend to lean right-of-center I understand this, and back his decision.  It's his decision to make, after all.  

So, I present this question to the community:  Is there any scenario you could think of where you would find account sales acceptable?

[The-One-Above-All]

First off I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I oppose account sales.  I would venture to guess that the vast majority of times accounts are sold or bought for deceptive purposes.  Even if no scam is intended, the buyer might only want to elevate his rank to earn more in signature campaigns, which some may argue is a mild, or even acceptable deception, it's a deception none the less and I'm opposed to it.

But I'd like to paint a hypothetical scenario where I might actually find the sale of an account as acceptable:

Lets say for example a member has an anonymous account used solely to conduct a service that doesn't require clients to trust the account.  The owner of the account and service decides he no longer has the time or desire to continue operations.  If one were to have such a service that's profitable, valued by it's clientele, and would be sorely missed if it ceased, would it be acceptable to the community if the service along with the account were sold?  If the account and service were offered for sale out in the open, transparent, and continued to operate in a way that didn't require it's client's trust, I think I would be okay with such a scenario.

Obviously, this would be a very unique case and I'm merely trying to open up the discussion (play devil's advocate.)

Theymos has refused to ban the activity, probably in part due to his Anarcho-Capitalist tendencies (I speculate.)  Since I tend to lean right-of-center I understand this, and back his decision.  It's his decision to make, after all.  

So, I present this question to the community:  Is there any scenario you could think of where you would find account sales acceptable?

Well of course unless you can GUARANTEE that EVERY member that comes into contact with a purchased account is aware that is is a purchased account then some will say that it is impossible to prevent DECEPTION.

I mean if you are saying: if you could 100% ensure the account would never be used in a way that leveraged that deception in a way that could result in any financial damages ever then that is more acceptable, but how to say if they will ever just go scamming someone at any moment? 

WHATEVER the accepted case for selling or buying accounts is IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERY MEMBER. No saying " well he's our pal so he can do it" or " he has been good now for a couple of years so this deception is fine" or " well I believe the little message posted months later saying..not selling now" 

Transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members.

Nutildah's case as I have told you previously is MORE indicative of someone who is FINANCIALLY HIGH RISK because he is certain that selling his account is clearly facilitating scams, most selling their accounts likely are not 100% sure or even believe they are facilitating scams. This seemed a difficult concept for you and mikey to grasp though.

The fact there is more compelling evidence he sold his account that these others that are getting flagged COUPLED with his willingness to facilitate scamming is WAY MORE reason to flag him up that these other members.

Double standards and total and utter corruption.   Undeniable.

Lauda has said previously  that there is nothing anyone could tell him about nutildah that would cause him to give him negative trust.  Sounds legit. It seems very likely lauda or some gang member purchased the nutildah account when you start to look at how he is operating even though he is presented with the undeniable evidence of nutildah selling his account, and saying nothing will cause him to give him negative trust.  They include each other on DT, merits passing between them, I mean both accounts are clearly aware of each others undeniable wrong doing and yet they both believe they are DT material LOL

Theymos must be blind watching this happen under his nose.  Well actually he isn't and blacklisted lauda, however according to lauda they are all pals again now.

Get a flag on Nutildah because these other flags are just fuel for the clear double standards we will enjoy presenting everywhere when they are on topic and relevant. Also get him off DT. Unless you want people that will willingly facilitate scams for 0.3 btc on there.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So, I present this question to the community:  Is there any scenario you could think of where you would find account sales acceptable?

I can't, but that's just me.  I've thought about the issue extensively since 2016 and every conclusion I've come to points to the fact that account sales are harmful, deceitful, and/or lead to future scamming and spamming.  If there were exceptions to this, they would be in the extreme minority of cases and the perpetrators ought to know how much it's frowned upon and find another way to accomplish whatever they're doing.

CoinFoxs - Flag: here.
badjacks99 - Flag: here.

Supported.  I also like Theymos's stance on account sales with respect to flagging them and appreciate his input.  And Lauda, obviously the trolls came back, so if you're planning on starting new threads you might want to make local rules about CH, TOAA, and all the other ones.  I have them all on ignore but it's still annoying to see that they've posted so many times here.

[suchmoon]

if the service along with the account were sold?

Lock the service thread with the last post pointing to a new thread started by a new copper account. Clean, transparent, no room for misinterpretation.

I can't think of a trust-inspiring reason for selling or buying an account. And before someone starts screaming about nutildah again - yes, that was not a trust-inspiring action. I'd still trust him 10x over any of you screamers. Sometimes the way people deal with controversies is more telling than someone's squeaky-clean virtual persona.

Theymos has refused to ban the activity, probably in part due to his Anarcho-Capitalist tendencies (I speculate.)

Probably about as much to do with practical impossibility to enforce such a ban (short of KYC) as any anarcho-ideals.

[Deathwing]

So, I present this question to the community:  Is there any scenario you could think of where you would find account sales acceptable?

No. Never. I can't think of any situation that would make selling accounts an "okay" thing to do. A lot of people use it as a "shortcut" to the signature campaigns only to end up getting their accounts banned from the said campaigns. There have also been account sales which resulted in scamming. People are buying reputable/trusted accounts (which I heavily doubt were sold by the owners' themselves, more like hacked.) and then scamming people left and right. If there were to be a service that switched hands and its announcement post was written by the service account, I support suchmoon's idea of just locking the old account and the thread, make a new account and clearly state that the service has been sold.

I just hate people who hack accounts, the local forums are riddled with them. I wrote a thread in Turkish (here) about people buying accounts and abusing the system. There was one specific person who was against me and literally told me that I am basically sucking Veleor, Lauda and Foxpup and encouraging merit circles and that I am doing everything so that I can get more merit... well guess what... That account was hacked sometime in between 2014 and 2016. Suddenly switched from Chinese to Turkish. These people are so annoying and the only thing that's keeping them here on this forum is their insatiable greed.

[nutildah]

So although your friend nutildah (DT inclusions shared, merits etc) has far more damning evidence of selling his account with the actual sale being offered in black offered in black and white ( after nutildah is claiming that any account sellers are facilitating scams) YOU REFUSE TO FLAG HIM and will OPPOSE any flag raised against him on that basis.

So your opinion is that you should flag people on the basis of they are not your pals or fellow DT supporters?

For the record, before Lauda cleared their trust list, we had mutually excluded each other for quite a while, and been civil about it the entire time. We're not exactly "pals" and we don't necessarily "support" each other, so you're just wrong in your assumptions here.

You have the power to open your own flag on me. You're the biggest hypocrite here for demanding others do it when you won't even do it yourself. Stop being such a crybaby and do it. Maybe you'll even get some supporters.

Every time you mention me in a thread, I gain a new inclusion on somebody's trust list. So obviously your tactic of repeating the same thing ad nauseum isn't working. Step it up and walk the walk for a change.

[Timelord2067]

Oh goodie, a non-moderated thread...

Nutildah

http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

...

And I quote:

This account is was up for sale. Any previous feedback/transactions cannot be relied upon when considering dealing with this user as there is no guarantee the account was or was not sold. (They have also attempted to cover their tracks by deleting the details from their sale thread.

See also: ref

...and people reckon my trust wall/feedback posts are inaccurate  

@suchmoon - can we add "Bruno's" account(s) that you bought to the list?

[nutildah]

...and people reckon my trust wall/feedback posts are inaccurate  

I think you just proved that (yet again). This is pretty off-topic as this is Lauda's thread about their tags, not yours. However,

1. You fucked up your reference link.
2. Its been impossible for me to "cover my tracks" since October 4th, 2016. How can someone just read some of my feedback but skip that one? Thus, what am I "covering up"?
3. My previous feedback is all negative with the exception of an erroneously left positive feedback and a positive I received for buying a NEM shirt in 2014 (from a member who was never DT).
4. As far as there being "no guarantee the account was or was not sold," what guarantee do I have your account wasn't sold? Or anybody's for that matter? There are no guarantees. What there is, however, is a little bit of common fucking sense, which most people have but you (and other of my critics on this issue) seem to be lacking.

Seriously, do you like to get hammered before you leave trust feedback, or else what's wrong with you?

I'm sick of addressing this issue. Nothing new has come to light. Nothing has changed. I was pretty much just an angry troll up until 2017 and the positive reputation I have is built is all thanks to deeds performed after that. Perhaps Timelord's rating (however erroneous) will quench cryptohunter's thirst for vengeance, but I doubt it. Oh well. Mods please feel free to delete this shit if its off-topic.

[Timelord2067]

...

Precious little wall flower ... what *are* you on about?

From BPIP: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Nutildah



That's quite a lot of password changes for an account the DIDN'T change hands... Or, was it (your account) used as collateral?


Hey OP: Are we also going to add all the account sellers?  Or, what about the ones who held accounts as collateral?

[nutildah]

Great rebuttal  

I just don't understand what it is you think you are accomplishing besides being a magnificent asshole. Or how you can continue to wonder why most people find you useless.

Edit: oh, I see, you fixed your feedback link while pretending to not understand what I was taking about... real classy.

[marlboroza]

Oh goodie, a non-moderated thread...

It can't be moderated thread because it is used for flags 

Nutildah

"Bruno's" account(s)

Either create flag and post it here or don't, both things have already been discussed dozen times, I don't see any other reason to point them again except for trolling purposes.

[The-One-Above-All]

...and people reckon my trust wall/feedback posts are inaccurate  

I think you just proved that (yet again). This is pretty off-topic as this is Lauda's thread about their tags, not yours. However,

1. You fucked up your reference link.
2. Its been impossible for me to "cover my tracks" since October 4th, 2016. How can someone just read some of my feedback but skip that one? Thus, what am I "covering up"?
3. My previous feedback is all negative with the exception of an erroneously left positive feedback and a positive I received for buying a NEM shirt in 2014 (from a member who was never DT).
4. As far as there being "no guarantee the account was or was not sold," what guarantee do I have your account wasn't sold? Or anybody's for that matter? There are no guarantees. What there is, however, is a little bit of common fucking sense, which most people have but you (and other of my critics on this issue) seem to be lacking.

Seriously, do you like to get hammered before you leave trust feedback, or else what's wrong with you?

I'm sick of addressing this issue. Nothing new has come to light. Nothing has changed. I was pretty much just an angry troll up until 2017 and the positive reputation I have is built is all thanks to deeds performed after that. Perhaps Timelord's rating (however erroneous) will quench cryptohunter's thirst for vengeance, but I doubt it. Oh well. Mods please feel free to delete this shit if its off-topic.

Your argument is bogus, people are not going to essentially be trawling through your shitty trust sheet looking for links to the ORIGINAL SALES PITCH when it should not have been deleted in the first place. Imagine every scammer editing the evidence used to demonstrate they are scum bags and then they say ...Well someone linked to the original somewhere so we can alter what we like and it does not look shady as hell.

LOL where is timelords FOR SALE THREAD? SO why does timelord have to prove it is not sold???  really since any person can put a " no longer for sale and never really was it was all a joke" message up after it is sold.
The rule should be IF YOU PUT YOUR ACCOUNT FOR SALE IT GETS FLAGGED end of  story.

Also selling your account is not the worst part of it at all. YOU WERE CERTAIN SELLING AN ACCOUNT WAS SCAM FACILITATING and you were screaming anyone selling their account was scam facilitating and should be make a pariah. THEN YOU PUT YOUR ACCOUNT FOR SALE for 0.3btc .  The intention is clearly financially motivated wrong doing.  

You gave into greed and now you must pay the same as everyone else. Yours was a particularly nasty one since in your mind you were facilitating scamming for a price.

There is no thirst for vengeance, the thirst people including ch likely has is for TRANSPARENT RULES THAT ARE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS.

The fact is there is more compelling evidence your account was sold than for the others getting a flag. ALSO they were not certain they were deliberately facilitating scams like you were and have not deleted their histories in shame.

Now shut up and enjoy being our bitch where ever account sales are ever mentioned at any time in the future by your scum bag colluding dt scamming pals.

@moronbozo.

stop crying trolling , that faux defense was destroyed every time you tried to use it to mask observable instances of wrong doing. Crying trolling to try to prevent justice is UNTRUSTWORTHY and should perhaps have a flag for trying to protect scammers.

Get the flag on  nutildah you weasel and stfu.

Timelord is the first person here with some real balls who is not totally corrupt it seems. There are others that are not corrupt but they have no balls.  Sure timelord can be a total asshole but at least he seems to apply his principles to every member without being a chicken shit wimp. We will glady suffer some of his over zealous flags and tags if he takes the same stance on every member here fairly and equally.

Let's hope he finds the dirty turds thread and follows those links and does some real investigative work on those too soon.

TLDR - more compelling evidence nutildah account is sold than the others getting flagged but his pals won't flag him or tag him.

 People complain about his timelords overzealous tags (perhaps some are) however there are no incidents of financially motivated wrong doing in his past, and he is not tagging whistle blowers for whistle blowing , however if you swear too much at him or other members you make get a tag. Treats every member the same from what we can see. NOT CORRUPT is a vast improvement over the colluding scum there atm.

Don't support any of laudas flags until he puts up nutildah on his account sellers list. There can be no denying he is an account seller. He has deleted the sales pitch but it is the backed up off site.

[Timelord2067]

Nutildah

"Bruno's" account(s)

Either create flag and post it here or don't, both things have already been discussed dozen times, I don't see any other reason to point them again except for trolling purposes.

Now that's funny - I directed my comment to @suchmoon, yet you (marlboroza) gave the answer he should have...

Slip up, perhaps?