Should DT members tag accounts that evade the ban?

[lovesmayfamilis]

I have a question for the community: should DT members tag accounts that evade the ban but participate in subscription campaigns?
I know that the situation on the forum is such that the number of participants is getting smaller. However, the rules do not change, they remain the same. There are times when certain highly ranked accounts participate in subscription campaigns despite being accused of ban evasion.

7 Accounts Connected (or more I'll just update it): (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

eXtremal
iHaveDreams
greekcomunity
regarcigar
joycigar
kolpher001
duniakripto96

Moderators do not always consider such applications.
What do you think should be done in such cases? I always rely on the opinion of the moderators, and the rules do not seem to say that we should flag violators of the ban. But in this case, can we say that these rules do not work today? May I hear your opinion?

Here is an example of such an account.

=============================================================================================
Ban evasion.

joycigar Autoban user
eXtremal

Twitter Profile Link: https://mobile.twitter.com/sahamku2

twiter profile link : https://mobile.twitter.com/sahamku2

[ archive ]

Ban evasion.

mel1978 Autoban user
Restmand

BTC Address: 3CN6moBxz9vNXkirtDkMsMgNsrGV7NCp3Y

SegWit BTC Address for Payouts: 3CN6moBxz9vNXkirtDkMsMgNsrGV7NCp3Y

[ archive ]

Интepecнo,cкoлькo нyжнo дoкaзaтeльcтв нa этoт aккayнт?Tpeтий paз пoшлa зaявкa.

[suchmoon]

Moderators do not always consider such applications.
What do you think should be done in such cases? I always rely on the opinion of the moderators, and the rules do not seem to say that we should flag violators of the ban. But in this case, can we say that these rules do not work today? May I hear your opinion?

I wouldn't do it for ban evasion alone, but if the new account deserves red trust for some other reason (e.g. attempting to scam, hacked account etc) and I suspect that they're evading a ban - I will mention it in the trust rating.

The ban evasion rule, like some other rules (e.g. trolling) really isn't working the way it should and that makes it tempting to use the trust system to make up for it, but we shouldn't use red trust for something that doesn't indicate high risk in trading. Neutral - probably fine.

[The Cryptovator]

I agree with @suchmoon. But in some cases, I had used a red tag to ban evaders if they were involved with some shady activities. Although we shouldn't handle ban evader, but I will not consider it is a trust abuse. But admin doesn't like to mix the trust system and forum moderation. Rather, you may raise a case on the meta with clear explanations, hope moderators will handle them if they think it's reasonable. So I can say, you may use a tag for specific cases, not for all cases.

[hulla]

I believe the rules are created for the fairness and wellness of the forum and the abusing act may increase in the forum if nothing is done by the DT about ban evade users. However, i think reporting ban evaded account or flagging such an account is still fair since it has nothing to do with a single person's decision.

[YOSHIE]

In the current belief system, the prevailing scores on the Bitcointalk forum rules are three things at the moment.

"distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters".)

In the case of the account (ban evasion), I am referring to the basic rules.

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.[e]

If I personally in a case like this take one score of the belief system that I use, namely (Negative).
Like the basic rules currently in effect.

You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person,

Simple example like the case below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5237630.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206872.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5199182

but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Clarity about opinion.

Opinion is not a fact, but if in the future it can be proven or verified, the opinion will turn into a real fact or fact.

Most of the accounts (Ban evasion), have big problems in this forum, In such cases it is not classified as "opinion"
Reason:
based on valid evidence and strong facts and real.

The conclusion: my opinion for those who (Ban evasion) apart from being reported to the mod, is also very deserving of (negative).

[TalkStar]

Moderators do not always consider such applications.
What do you think should be done in such cases? I always rely on the opinion of the moderators, and the rules do not seem to say that we should flag violators of the ban. But in this case, can we say that these rules do not work today? May I hear your opinion?

In a situation like this neutral tag with proper reference can be a good option. If you ask my personal suggestion then i will not encourage you to apply negative trust in this case. Through neutral trust and spending little extra time during ferdback comment submission we can easily notify all about his ban evasion or other connected accounts.

Although we shouldn't handle ban evader, but I will not consider it is a trust abuse. But admin doesn't like to mix the trust system and forum moderation.

Forum trust system and moderators work have differences where forum admin kept the power ON for DT members to identify scammers, frauds but trust submission is available for everyone just not for DT members only. Mods are just one step ahead and following admins guideline. (Except scam moderation)

[khaled0111]

It's up to mods to deal with ban evaders, so a neutral feedback would be OK if the alt account hasn't been banned yet.
However, in some cases, a red tag would be more appropriate if one of the alts already got a legitimate red tag or when the offender has many active alts which he uses to cheat in bounty/sig campaigns.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Thanks, everyone. I understood. I don't want to seem bloodthirsty under any circumstances, passing out negative tags to the right and left. But very often it happens when the accounts evading the ban do not look innocent. I doubt the first account only had one owner. Since the posts were originally written in Russian, but over time, Russian completely disappeared from communication.
The second account was also inactive for a long time. He has several previously blocked alternative profiles.
But what worries me the most is something else. These accounts have applied to subscription companies that have limited recruitment. Thus, they could simply take the place of another, more honest person.
I decided for myself that a neutral tag with a warning is just appropriate. This will serve as a signal, at the discretion of the manager.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The ban evasion rule, like some other rules (e.g. trolling) really isn't working the way it should and that makes it tempting to use the trust system to make up for it, but we shouldn't use red trust for something that doesn't indicate high risk in trading. Neutral - probably fine.

I tend to agree, although I'm pretty sure I've given ban evaders and plagiarists negative trust in the past when it became clear to me that moderators weren't going to take care of the problem.  At least with the DT neg, that scuttles their chances of earning money here when they should be permabanned....but I don't do that anymore and it isn't the right way to use the trust system.

Neutral feedback in these sorts of instances doesn't really do much of anything except act as a placemarker for those who might forget that the account should have been banned.  It isn't even worth the effort IMO, but to each his own.

Having said all that, if there were any DT members tagging ban evaders and/or plagiarists, I certainly wouldn't exclude them from my trust list for doing that.  It's not trust system abuse, IMO, just a wee bit of misuse. 

[suchmoon]

But what worries me the most is something else. These accounts have applied to subscription companies that have limited recruitment. Thus, they could simply take the place of another, more honest person.
I decided for myself that a neutral tag with a warning is just appropriate. This will serve as a signal, at the discretion of the manager.

Exactly.

[...]  At least with the DT neg, that scuttles their chances of earning money here when they should be permabanned....but I don't do that anymore and it isn't the right way to use the trust system.

Neutral feedback in these sorts of instances doesn't really do much of anything except act as a placemarker for those who might forget that the account should have been banned.  It isn't even worth the effort IMO, but to each his own.

Campaign managers can make their decisions based on a neutral rating just the same. Or they can decide to hire a person even with a negative rating. I think for this purpose (warning campaign managers) neutral or negative would have roughly the same effect, except negative is less appropriate for the general intent of the trust system.

[rhomelmabini]

Thanks for making it on the limelight but I tend not to put some tags on ban evaders because the reason is if I reported them to mods and it goes well then tag wouldn't matter anymore on that profile. I think the next maybe a neutral trust will be a necessary and if the profile has been banned already after the report that's when I take action to remove it, fair IMO.

[TGD]

But what worries me the most is something else. These accounts have applied to subscription companies that have limited recruitment. Thus, they could simply take the place of another, more honest person.

If the guy was a shit poster, He will not get accepted on campaign no matter what he do. Sometimes bounty manager still accept user with negative tag as long as his post quality is good and reason for tag is not cheating or scam.

If the honest person is doing really well in the forum by posting a good quality content, He shouldn't be worry on getting spot besides that, If the ban evader is accepted instead of the honest person that you are describing, It just mean that his post quality is not good enough and even though the ban evader didn't apply, someone better will get his spot.

[AB de Royse777]

Being honest, I was in a fence and not sure in the past if I tagged anyone for ban evading or not although I do not tag many users unless they are really caught into some proven shady acts like defaulting loan, scamming users in a trade.

I feel bad when I see  a user got ban for a mistake (especially plagiarize a content because of carelessness to mention the reference) they did long time ago. They admit their mistake when they get discovers but do not get any favour. If the user is a good poster then the forum is losing a valuable contributor. Officially they can not make a new account and start over. If a spammer gets banned and later he caught up with a new account and doing the same thing then if someone tag them, I would not mind.

After reading the posters above me, if someone asks me what I would do in such case then I think I will take a stand to treat it the same as plagiarism. I may leave a neutral but let the mods to handle it.

So, my simple answer in this topic is: No, I will not tag them.

PS: This could be a meta topic if I am not wrong. No one pointed it so far though :-P

[marlboroza]

should DT members tag accounts that evade the ban but participate in subscription campaigns?
[...]
Moderators do not always consider such applications.

Create topic in meta, report them to moderators, leave them neutral tag in case moderators don't take any action against those accounts and don't break your head too much over it. IIRC, I was giving negative feedback to ban evaders but lately I am giving them neutral feedback.

Actually, it doesn't make much sense to me, forum administration ban someone, they create new account, you expose them and all of sudden they are allowed to post again. Why not unban banned account then?  It's like account is banned, not the user.

There are times when certain highly ranked accounts participate in subscription campaigns despite being accused of ban evasion.

Some campaign managers simple don't care who is advertising project, they only care that signature is visible and someone will see it and click on it.

[Harlot]

Isn't reporting the ban evasion in the meta section the best method to effectively banning the alt account? Since this is an issue about perma-banned accounts I think this should be handled more in the meta section rather than the reputation section especially if a scam hasn't happened yet. Maybe giving a neutral tag for highlighting his ban evasion is good but if you want to completely remove his privileges the best thing you can do is to just report it.

[Mike Pompeo]

You should tag them for sure but more importantly if somebody is evading a perm ban you should report it to a moderator as it is against forum rules.

[yahoo62278]

If you can 100% prove that the accounts are connected, why shouldn't they be tagged? By not tagging them, we would be saying it's ok to be banned and come back on a new account. Otherwise, why have rules?

I also think the same if 1 of a persons accounts are tagged for scamming. If you can 100% prove an alt is theirs and 1 account is tagged, then all account should be tagged and referenced to the scam.

The same person controls the other account, how is it not fair the same judgement be placed on all of the accounts in their control?

[lovesmayfamilis]

If you can 100% prove that the accounts are connected, why shouldn't they be tagged? By not tagging them, we would be saying it's ok to be banned and come back on a new account. Otherwise, why have rules?

I also think the same if 1 of a persons accounts are tagged for scamming. If you can 100% prove an alt is theirs and 1 account is tagged, then all account should be tagged and referenced to the scam.

The same person controls the other account, how is it not fair the same judgement be placed on all of the accounts in their control?

Thanks to yahoo62278 for the answer. I completely agree with you. If we have evidence that an account is violating the ban rule, and there is evidence of this, a negative tag is perfectly acceptable.
Since if there was one deception, the person will not stop, and after another ban, another account may appear soon. Is it any different from its first owner?
Also, I agree that if one account has negative trust, why shouldn't we notify members of the forum about this, and tag his account? Otherwise, a person, upon receiving a negative tag, changes account, and looks as if he has a completely clean reputation.
This is a nice loophole in the rules. Is everyone ready to be deceived in such ways?