Merit abuse altaccounts (w'out scamming) banevasion plagiarism not valid -ve

[Timelord2067]

I recently read this:

Merit abuse, alt-accounts (without scamming) ban evasion and plagiarism are not valid reasons to leave negative feedback.

which flys in the face of this:

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

The result after receiving feedback once for each Type:
      

Certainly there are instances where a user (e.g. Humbertin) has both alts and repeatedly avoids bans to continue scamming.  Merit abuse usually occurs e.g. where a gang are trying to propel each-other into the ranks of DT1 or e.g. to build up an alt for an exit scam.  Plagiarists are usually scamming e.g. an ICO/IEO lifting the work of others to launch a shill coin and run with the bag.


You can only vote for four instances.

This thread is unmoderated to enable a honest, open discussion enabling all sides opinions to be put on the permanent record without one side or the other's opinion quietly being removed later giving the impression of consensus where there is none.  Personal attacks will be deemed to be off-topic.

If there are other examples that should be voted on, please say so here and I'll add a yes/no vote for each.  I'm not sure how many vote choices I can add, but it looks to be at least another ten (five twice)

[1715437584]

1715437584

[1715437584]

1715437584

[1715437584]

1715437584

[1715437584]

1715437584

[1715437584]

1715437584

[Timelord2067]

Reserved #1

If a user writes:

e.g.

Scammer - merit abuse. (example) - See ref.
Scammer - Ban Evasion. (example) - See ref.
Scammer - Alt Account. (example) - See ref.
Scammer - Plagerism. (example) - See ref.  

Does that overwrite the above?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Boy, where's Lauda when you need her?

As I see it, positive and negative trusts should be left to indicate how trustworthy you think the member is when doing deals.  If you think abusing the merit system dishonestly (or buying/selling bitcointalk accounts) causes you to doubt someone's trustworthiness, I think that's probably a valid reason for a neg.  Theymos agreed with the part I put in parentheses, as I remember asking him that question very specifically.

For ban evasion or plagiarism, I'd say it's not necessary for a neg to be given but it's not something I'd give a crap about as long as the feedback is correct.  Sometimes there's a lag time before a member gets banned, and a DT neg can facilitate the booting of someone from a sig campaign that they shouldn't be in for instance.  Is it completely appropriate to do so?  Not really, but it's much worse if you neg someone for trolling or shitposting or for saying something you don't like.  That's egregious misuse of the trust system--which I've engaged in myself, but only prior to the merit system being implemented in 2018 and only because DT feedback was one of the few tools you could use back then to combat spammers.

[eddie13]

Yes, -ve trust feedback for Alt Accounts where one or more have scammed  (Well proven)

I'll mark -ve as I please


I might - a shitposter, more likely neutral, if they directly impact me negatively with their nonsense.. Like post some pajeet word salad on a serious thread of mine..
Screw em..


How about ratings for disrespecting you?
Like the harsh neutral left to yoshi by cronicsky lately?
I thought that was quite hilarious, and legitimate..

[suchmoon]

which flys in the face of this:

It doesn't, it's just your faulty reading comprehension. Having alts, plagiarising, or evading a ban is not proof of high risk in trading, is what LoyceV was likely trying to say. But if the person otherwise deserves red trust and has alts obviously you can and probably should red-trust all those alts. Otherwise let mods deal with ban evasion and plagiarism.

The merit abuse post seems to have been taken out of context. I think sending merits to one's own sockpuppets can be an acceptable reason for red trust but it has to be proven first that the accounts are sockpuppets, not using the merit transaction as proof.

How about ratings for disrespecting you?
Like the harsh neutral left to yoshi by cronicsky lately?
I thought that was quite hilarious, and legitimate..

You can use neutral for whatever you want. That's why it's there, so that you wouldn't need to abuse the trust system if you dislike (or like, but that never happens here) someone.

[LoyceV]

which flys in the face of this:

It doesn't, it's just your faulty reading comprehension. Having alts, plagiarising, or evading a ban is not proof of high risk in trading, is what LoyceV was likely trying to say. But if the person otherwise deserves red trust and has alts obviously you can and probably should red-trust all those alts. Otherwise let mods deal with ban evasion and plagiarism.

This is my reasoning indeed.

Certainly there are instances where a user (e.g. Humbertin) has both alts and repeatedly avoids bans to continue scamming.

I agree. In such a case, you can leave negative feedback for the fact that it's an alt of a scammer. And you can report his ban evasion so he'll get banned again.
But just being an alt account is no reason for negative feedback.

Merit abuse usually occurs e.g. where a gang are trying to propel each-other into the ranks of DT1 or e.g. to build up an alt for an exit scam.

Plagiarists are usually scamming e.g. an ICO/IEO lifting the work of others to launch a shill coin and run with the bag.

I didn't think of this scenario. If plagiarism is used for scamming, obviously negative feedback is warranted. Other than that, don't lose sleep over it.
Most of the plagiarism I've seen came from users who wanted to earn from their signature, or earn Merit. In those cases, I wouldn't leave negative feedback but only report them to be banned.

[Timelord2067]

My thanks to all who have responded so far.  I wait until a few more people have responded (or voted) before I comment on a couple of observations that have been made.


I will, however, remind people the text of two of the questions reads:

Yes, -ve trust feedback for Alt Accounts where one or more have scammed
No!! -ve trust feedback for Alt Accounts where one or more have scammed

As you can see, the question alludes to alts that have been uncovered where one (or more) of the alts has already been identified as a scammer.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Yes, I trust all the reviews. But in my understanding, this is important for those who directly want to interact with the flagged account. The red mark acts as a warning.
In my case, when I mark such accounts, this is a warning to bounty managers. No matter how negative we feel about bounty programs, but this is the same part of the forum.
And they involve people who are trying to work honestly. But when farms from multiple accounts are pitted against such participants, successfully raising their accounts in the rankings using transfer of merit, I think it's unfair. And the most appropriate is to tag the scammers.

[Stalker22]

Yes, I trust all the reviews. But in my understanding, this is important for those who directly want to interact with the flagged account. The red mark acts as a warning.
In my case, when I mark such accounts, this is a warning to bounty managers. No matter how negative we feel about bounty programs, but this is the same part of the forum.
And they involve people who are trying to work honestly. But when farms from multiple accounts are pitted against such participants, successfully raising their accounts in the rankings using transfer of merit, I think it's unfair. And the most appropriate is to tag the scammers.

I agree. In my opinion, scamming is a very broad term. If it is proven that a member cheated in bounty campaigns and promotions with multiple accounts, I see this as indirectly scamming other participants and organizers of such promotions. I think such users should be marked in red as a warning.

[Timelord2o67]

Bemp - time to cast your vote.

[YOSHIE]

You can only vote for four instances

My opinion: although I have marked cases of this kind, but not 100% I do, to mark them, depending on how many Alt levels they have and errors (I respect the rules more).

Merit abuse, alt-accounts (without scamming) ban evasion and plagiarism are not valid reasons to leave negative feedback.

Honestly, I mark cases of this kind more often, I agree with this one.

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

The result after receiving feedback once for each Type:
      

So in conclusion: my choice is: point three (3).

⬜Yes, -ve trust feedback for Alt Accounts where one or more have scammed.