Account changed hands, neutral or negative tag is more appropriate?

[Apocollapse]

There's a thread created by a woken up user which she say she's using her dad account with his consent and the reason why she use her dad account is a restriction on speech. Well I wouldn't judge her excuses since she's still not really understand about this forum rules.

Does this mean your dad will never use this account again and now you're the one who have full control about this account (BccKing) ? I will wait for your answer.

2. He has passed away, and he gave me this account. If I re-register a new account, I am worried that there will be restrictions on speech, so I use this account.

The concern is I leave a negative feedback on her dad account, the reason is the account already changed hands and it's used to warn other users which know who's BccKing wouldn't get tricked as now the ownership already changed. There's no reason to use her dad account, creating an account is easy and she would be fine (she can ask LoyceV to whitelist her as long as she isn't a shitposter). But someone warn to me if my feedback is wrong, he advice me to use neutral feedback. But AFAIK when account already changed hands, the account will get negative feedback just like this thread [1]

If leaving negative feedback is wrong, then how about many DT members already leave negative feedback then? does they should changed his feedback to neutral?

I don't get mad, but I just have different opinion against him.

I also think he give positive feedback to the account with the reason of counter feedback against me isn't correct too.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5410299.0

[NeuroticFish]

But AFAIK when account already changed hands, the account will get negative feedback just like this thread

While the story behind BccKing new owner may or may not be true, I would say that I didn't really got to see people "starting their journey" by telling they took over an account.
So I've seen it as a rather honest approach, hence my neutral feedback (since a warning is still in order there).

I don't like to apply the same rule everywhere, I prefer to think and take my own decision, case by case. And here it's.. fuzzy. Your negative feedback is not bad, and also not great either; although when you get such a strong feedback as you've got, you should indeed think it over and see if you did good. But it's your feedback and your decision.

I do agree that the new user should have made a new account. Clearly. But for the negative feedback you made... I expect you may get various answers, favoring your decision, or telling it was too harsh, .. or neutral. Again, it's your decision.

[YOSHIE]

I am impartial, standing in the middle, I think.

@BccKing, already said he took over his father's account, [1]
Two members gave credence: [1], positive by: @NotATether, for [2] Neutral by: @NeuroticFish and third by: @Apocollapse, yourself, red.

Quoting @BccKing's father's post in 2017, his father said.

Thirty years later, you sit in front of a computer with your grandson and your grandson asks you, Grandpa, why do not you have bitcoin?
You open the IFC wallet, tell him: your grandfather has a lot of IFC, their value exceeds bitcoin!

From his father's statement, in my opinion, if you suspect the @BccKing account changed hands, you should do exactly as done by: @NeuroticFish, more professional and without problems, all well received.

[Little Mouse]

Account changing hand obviously deserves a neg tag to notify other people that the account doesn’t belong to the original owner. Original owner and new owner may not have the same standard, trustworthiness and that's why it warrants a negative tag. I would prefer a neg tag over a neutral as neutral isn’t notified all the times. And if the account seems trustworthy later on, delete the feedback and turn it into a neutral.

[AnotherAlt]

But AFAIK when an account already changed hands, the account will get negative feedback just like this thread [1]

Is that a written rule?
It should vary from case to case. The alleged account is not hacked or sold account. Hacked or sold account deserves red paint. But, I don't think she deserves to get negative feedback. The account legitimately confesses the truth in the reputation section, and here you come to show your power. I understand you have your own opinion. But it doesn't make sense to me. FYI, My wife knows all my passwords, and I trust her. If I die, She will also have access to all my wallets and accounts.

If leaving negative feedback is wrong, then how about many DT members already leave negative feedback then? does they should changed his feedback to neutral?

Doesn't matter. You don't have to follow others. The accounts got negative feedback for changing hands and were sold, or hacked.  

Account changing hand obviously deserves a neg tag to notify other people that the account doesn’t belong to the original owner. Original owner and new owner may not have the same standard, trustworthiness and that's why it warrants a negative tag. I would prefer a neg tag over a neutral as neutral isn’t notified all the times. And if the account seems trustworthy later on, delete the feedback and turn it into a neutral.

As I already said above, It should vary from case to case. Did you see her post?

[Rikafip]

Well I wouldn't judge her excuses since she's still not really understand about this forum rules.

Which forum rule are you referring to?

But AFAIK when account already changed hands, the account will get negative feedback just like this thread [1]

Not necessarily. While it is a standard practice to that (at least in the majority of cases) there are no rules that account that changed hands has to get negative feedback and each case should be seen separately.

I personally wouldn't leave negative feedback in this case simply because of the honest approach and I think that neutral would suffice to warn everyone that account changed hands.

[Pandu Geddon]

we have to see the purpose of the child using the father's account. we don't know if the story is true or false.

but if the account is not involved in a farming account or a cheating bounty campaign, I think we can still provide opportunities for how children will be in the forum.

indeed it would be better if someone created an account for him. learn what's on the forum with his account. surely he will be more appreciated by others.

Regarding feedback, neutral in my opinion is the most appropriate. this was enough to warn anyone who would come into contact with him. it was because he had already said that he was using his father's account.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Based on how clear and clean she came on the forum, by announcing her taking over her late dad's account,  I think a neutral trust is more appropriate,  like the majority here have said,  a neutral trust is enough to warn every user that that account have changed hands,  and not like the account was or has been involved in any form of scam or fraud in the past while still under the custody of the dad.
So I personally think a neutral trust would do just fine,  a negative used to warn about account changing hands when such account have not committed an offense before, I personally think is too harsh.

[logfiles]

Give them a benefit of doubt and put a neutral maybe for future reference purposes. Negative is too harsh in this situation, and it's completely different from the other aacount situation you are trying to compare.

If the account changed hands and the first thing the new owner would do is to go ask for a loan in the lending board, post a trade deal or apply for a signature campaign, then a red would be worth it.

I also don't think the counter-feedback is necessarily. It worked with the old trust system, but not this one.

[_BlackStar]

If leaving negative feedback is wrong, then how about many DT members already leave negative feedback then? does they should changed his feedback to neutral?

I'm sure there was some doubt on your part after posting a negative tag on an account, and I honestly think you can turn it neutral if you really aim to warn people the account has changed hands instead of damaging it with a negative tag. All issues should be resolved differently and on a case-by-case basis. I think it's very rare for someone to admit that it's his father's account [^{he may have been honest or who knows].} But the thing I don't understand is, why did he change the email from that account while he has access to the account.

While for different cases, you don't have to turn negative into neutral as long as it is known which accounts were sold, hacked and changed hands. CPNpr Changed Hands?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

This case is very interesting. BccKing has got one negative, one positive and one neutral tag so far. In any case, this is certainly not a clear-cut case.

In my humble opinion, in general when the account changes hands, the tag should be negative but in cases like this, which are exceptional, a neutral tag is fine.

I would like to know what The Pharmacist thinks about this.

[yahoo62278]

The account was 0/0/0 no trust rating, so in this case a neutral would be fine. It's a member account with no reputation or trust in the community so no potential harm to the community. If there was a large amount of positive trust and potential to scam a large amount of money, I might have a different opinion.

[Apocollapse]

Is that a written rule?

Which forum rule are you referring to?

I'm sorry, it's not written on the unofficial forum rules, but it's such kind like convention or unwritten rules where there's a similar or same case and got same punishment if they're did that.

It should vary from case to case. The alleged account is not hacked or sold account. Hacked or sold account deserves red paint.

How you can make sure the account is either changed hands due to family uses, hacked or sold? If only sold and hacked will get negative tag, they can easily say the account is used by his family even though the real truth the account was sold to a stranger.

I'm sure there was some doubt on your part after posting a negative tag on an account

Nope, I'm not doubt to leave negative feedback until I saw someone give positive feedback and give advice to me.

The account was 0/0/0 no trust rating, so in this case a neutral would be fine. It's a member account with no reputation or trust in the community so no potential harm to the community. If there was a large amount of positive trust and potential to scam a large amount of money, I might have a different opinion.

Somewhat I understand about your opinion, well I will change my feedback to neutral then.
Maybe if the account is gain enough reputation, I would consider to ask the community again because I've seen few users when already gain many positive feedback, they're become a scammer.

I've done changed my feedback, I would like to ask @NotATether to reconsider his positive feedback.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Let's now set rules for all old accounts that can be sold but must honestly admit to the death of their relatives, and after that, it is naive to believe that the account is not lying. 
Why do few people think that account sellers deliberately do not sell accounts with a password change? After all, it has already been proven more than once by the account buyers themselves that they have a rule not to change the password immediately after waking up.

There is a rule that is not to change the password after buying an account. I'm complying so this account isn't locked.

Of course, this account is of no value to the forum, but in the same way, registering a new account takes about three minutes. Why not honestly say that dad died, and I'm the son of this account? Is everything fair? Yes. This topic has already been discussed, but everyone forgets that those who were going to buy an account could also read it. Why does no one think that it is very easy to follow the recommendations in this topic, talk about death, and live in peace with a higher rank than messing around with promoting a new member?

[AnotherAlt]

Snip

You got a point here. Yeah, potential account buyers can see this thread and try to trick. As I already stated above, this should vary from case to case. In this particular case, it's just a low-ranked member account and I don't think he has any intention to scam someone (I could be wrong). If a Full Member or above-ranked member claims such things, then it should be handled carefully.

How you can make sure the account is either changed hands due to family uses, hacked, or sold?

Well, I don't think he/she can do much with such a low-ranked account. Do you believe people going to buy a Member Rank account? IDK.

[Lucius]

In this particular case, I see no reason to tag the account with negative feedback due to all the reasons already mentioned. In addition, for the person who inherited that account, it may have sentimental value, and the original owner could very easily have prevented anyone from gaining access to his account if he wanted to.

The only part that doesn't make sense to me is the statement about "restrictions on speech" when it comes to the new account, although maybe it's just a misunderstanding resulting from not knowing the rules of the forum.

Perhaps the most famous BTT account that came to life a few years after the owner's confirmed death is that of Hal, and no one painted it red because of that.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

*Wow*

As an aside, I hadn't read that thread, but I was just thinking the other day that there are going to be young people right now who've only known a world where bitcoin exists--and if that girl's story is indeed true, she's one of them.

To the topic at hand, I don't think a negative is warranted though I think a neutral is essential, just as it would be for any other account discovered to have changed hands. 

Let's now set rules for all old accounts that can be sold but must honestly admit to the death of their relatives, and after that, it is naive to believe that the account is not lying.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but if your point is to be skeptical of claims like the one we're talking about, I think we all should.  A hacker or account buyer could easily use an excuse like this one--but I'm not sure about this girl.  Something about the post just seems genuine to me, and I don't see any reason why someone who hacked or bought the account would need to write something like that.  Sure, there's a negative trust from 2017, but I skimmed through the reference thread and didn't see anything that jumped out at me.

Anyway like I said, neutral trust is appropriate here and for any case like it, not a neg.

[rozak]

This case looks like it's over. @BccKing account changed hands. the feedback that has been given and I think it is enough to provide a warning to other members.

@Apocollapse has turned negative to neutral as many other members have suggested.
@NotATether also needs to change the feedback given to the @BccKing account.

[Rikafip]

Why does no one think that it is very easy to follow the recommendations in this topic, talk about death, and live in peace with a higher rank than messing around with promoting a new member?

Do you really think that people who buy high ranking account (and spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars) will take a chance and incriminate themselves by self-admitting they got their account from dead relative or whatever bs excuse they come up with just because Member account with no trading history did that and ended up with neutral?

Keep in mind that no one stops you (or anyone else) from sending negative feedback so I don't think that there is any real danger of this becoming a sort of standard excuse.

[NotATether]

This case looks like it's over. @BccKing account changed hands. the feedback that has been given and I think it is enough to provide a warning to other members.

@Apocollapse has turned negative to neutral as many other members have suggested.
@NotATether also needs to change the feedback given to the @BccKing account.

I just noticed this thread. I stand by my words and deleted my positive feedback.