ㅤ

[Symmetrick]

ㅤ

[1715473352]

1715473352

[1715473352]

1715473352

[1715473352]

1715473352

[1715473352]

1715473352

[Awaklara]

I don't know what's wrong with old account and then Woke up. lately, I found a lot of newbie accounts with enough Merit to climb the rankings. an account that has been sleeping for a long time and then wakes up. got some past Merit from alt their accounts which had already retired due to negative tags.

Is ignoring accounts and reports moderator enough to limit the growth of such spammers on forums?

[NeuroticFish]

Just a wonderful merit overflow, most likely, to his alt.

Well, I see that coldice has his fair share of negative feedback.
Is this enough proof for also neg HunnyFinance? If people consider it's not, then it was a good move for a "fresh start".

[logfiles]

The fact that coldice wakes up, Hunnyfinance then suddenly makes 2 posts after almost a year of silence and immediately receives 34 merits in one of the posts in a short time span means both accounts are under one person's control.

Coldice has negative rep involving at least 3 scams and I think they are trying to farm another account

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

[LoyceV]

What do you think, folks?

I think it's not important enough:

I'm not going to lose sleep over people going to ridiculous lengths to buy merit, since only a small number of people will be willing and able to do that.

As long as merit sales are a black market, I'm happy, since that makes it far more difficult and expensive to buy merit. If that's the case, then the small volume of black-market merit trades don't themselves bother me much, and I think that it does more harm than good to get too witch-hunty about it.

[ABCbits]

What do you think, folks?

I'll just add those member to ignore list, so i won't accidentally give them merit.

[FatFork]

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

It's probably not enough evidence to link these two accounts beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't see any harm in leaving them neutral feedback for future reference.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

It's probably not enough evidence to link these two accounts beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't see any harm in leaving them neutral feedback for future reference.

The Trust page of another user is not a dairy taking place for others. logfiles can easily keep a note for himself using Ninjastic's (TryNinja) users note extension: [Script] BitcoinTalk User Notes

These days I see too many neutral tags which actually can not be considered as neutral but a way to underestimate others. Most of it are given to achieve two agenda:
1. Of course to underestimate the users who they do not like
2. To build up their own reputation proving that they are always active to find wrong doings.

Both are bad since it's all are in personal level.

[FatFork]

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

It's probably not enough evidence to link these two accounts beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't see any harm in leaving them neutral feedback for future reference.

The Trust page of another user is not a dairy taking place for others. logfiles can easily keep a note for himself using Ninjastic's (TryNinja) users note extension: [Script] BitcoinTalk User Notes

On the contrary, since the trust system is designed for, to quote theymos, "getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location" ^[reference], and taking into account the evidence presented by Ratimov, it makes perfect sense for a neutral tag with a reference to this thread. After all, while "user notes script" may be useful for taking personal notes, it is in no way a substitute for a proper-ish trust system when it comes to making people feel safe while engaging in transactions with questionable characters.

These days I see too many neutral tags which actually can not be considered as neutral but a way to underestimate others. Most of it are given to achieve two agenda:
1. Of course to underestimate the users who they do not like
2. To build up their own reputation proving that they are always active to find wrong doings.

Both are bad since it's all are in personal level.

That may be so, and there is even a saying about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, however, I don't see any of these points as valid arguments against leaving the neutral tag in this case.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

On the contrary, since the trust system is designed for, to quote theymos, "getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location" ^[reference], and taking into account the evidence presented by Ratimov, it makes perfect sense for a neutral tag with a reference to this thread.,

Unless there are concrete evidence we have no right to write anything in others trust wall even with neutral feedback. The forum gave too much freedom to the users who are regular (us) just to do what we like wherever we like.

These days I see too many neutral tags which actually can not be considered as neutral but a way to underestimate others. Most of it are given to achieve two agenda:
1. Of course to underestimate the users who they do not like
2. To build up their own reputation proving that they are always active to find wrong doings.

Both are bad since it's all are in personal level.

[..]

For the record this was mentioned to consider in general. Sorry I failed to point it out so you thought it was meant for this particular case.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

If I still left negative trust for merit abusers, this is one case where I'd have no doubt about what's going on.  If the timing alone weren't enough evidence, the fact that 34 merits were given to an absolute shitpost should eliminate any doubts that these two accounts are either alts or that there's some merit being sold.

Theymos might have written that guidance a while back, but it's not like he's going to punish anyone for tagging an account in an instance like this--nor would many, if any, DT members have any problem with it either.  My point is that if you think this is blatant merit abuse and warrants more than a neutral feedback, my advice is to be bold and leave a neg.  No debate is needed when the shenanigans is so obvious you'd have to be legally blind or sound asleep to miss it.

[logfiles]

What do you think, folks?

I think it's not important enough:

I'll just add those member to ignore list, so i won't accidentally give them merit.

Not necessarily a neutral feedback about merit abuse, but rather one talking about a possible linkage between hunnyfinance account to that of a serial scammer. I was thinking the timeline of events, including the sudden donation of merits to hunnyfinance was enough evidence to confirm that both accounts are linked.

[saxydev]

Why does it matter? How merit helps him to scam? There are no vouches on his profile.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Not necessarily a neutral feedback about merit abuse, but rather one talking about a possible linkage between hunnyfinance account to that of a serial scammer. I was thinking the timeline of events, including the sudden donation of merits to hunnyfinance was enough evidence to confirm that both accounts are linked.

In any case, this was not done by chance. We will soon be convinced of this and understand what purpose was pursued. Earlier, he also sent out 10 merits to new accounts for completely trifling posts. But all his accounts are now asleep. I think that the new idea will also fall asleep soon.

[Solosanz]

Why does it matter? How merit helps him to scam? There are no vouches on his profile.

Merit can't help someone to scam because it's meaningless for reputation, anyone will look on his feedback to know if the account is trustworthy or not. Based on this case the account only have 4 activity which is he can't rank up since he need to post more and he can only rank up to Member rank. Since signature campaign mostly accept full member rank, I think this matter isn't really that matter. It's a different case if he haven't earn any single merit and someone give them 5 merit since the campaign requirement need at least 5 merit in 120 days to apply the campaign.

[Igebotz]

I am not sure if It's a good idea from me to leave a neutral feedback on hunnyfinance profile for future reference. What do you think, folks?

If I still left negative trust for merit abusers, this is one case where I'd have no doubt about what's going on.  If the timing alone weren't enough evidence, the fact that 34 merits were given to an absolute shitpost should eliminate any doubts that these two accounts are either alts or that there's some merit being sold.

Only evidence removes doubts, and I've yet to see any previous connections between these two accounts. On the other hand, it's very possible for a random user to wake up and decide to spread his smerits as he pleases to random accounts, and I've seen a case or two like that in the past where a user woke up and started spreading merits to reputable and non-reputable members in order to have some merits activities..

Merits are personal, and how they are distributed is up to the user; I see many shit meme posts in the WO thread get many merits for being so shit! I saw you give a post 50 merits instantly, and TBH , I wouldn't give such a post even one merit. It's a matter of personal preference.

There could be connections to these accounts, but we don't have proof.

2. To build up their own reputation proving that they are always active to find wrong doings.

Both are bad since it's all are in personal level.

Lol there is this famous phrase "some people are wise, some are over-wise "  the over-wise ones tends to do much, they see being on DT as job so they must write at least  1 feedback/day.

The forum has become so boring that we now investigate a number of smerits given out.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

The forum has become so boring that we now investigate a number of smerits given out.

Merit history checking, checking plagiarism, busting scammers, investigating alternative accounts are always a thing for a group of people. It always will be. Like you said those with "over-wise" sometimes make it their career to climb the ladder of the forum. It's fine occasionally you find something and talk about it but when it become a regular routine for someone then it's questionable. Why? Let's talk about it some other day 🤣

TL is exceptional from my experience though.

[hugeblack]

Most of these accounts end in deadlock because they cannot generate more merits and therefore will not be able to earn more money so the only mistake would be for the campaign manager who accepts members without merits, did not review the merit history, or at least create a new rule like you must get a single Merit every week or two.

But it is wrong to take any action regarding trust.

[Igebotz]

The forum has become so boring that we now investigate a number of smerits given out.

Merit history checking, checking plagiarism, busting scammers, investigating alternative accounts are always a thing for a group of people. It always will be. Like you said those with "over-wise" sometimes make it their career to climb the ladder of the forum. It's fine occasionally you find something and talk about it but when it become a regular routine for someone then it's questionable. Why? Let's talk about it some other day 🤣

TL is exceptional from my experience though.

I have no issue with scam bursters or alt account investigation; there is nothing wrong with cleaning the forum, but making it a daily job is where the problem lies. It is preferable to report when you step on something suspicious rather than searching for something suspicious. I will use my DT status to correct mistakes rather than make new ones.


I'm off to the gambling section because that's the only place where there's no drama.

[Welsh]

It's probably not enough evidence to link these two accounts beyond reasonable doubt

FatFork has got it right. While, these are suspicious circumstances there's just not quite enough evidence to link the two. However, anything that these two users do in the future, could potentially link them, and confirm the suspicious here.

Plus, if they start offering services or try to join a signature campaign a good signature manager will do their research, and likely find this thread, and take it into consideration. So, I don't consider posting the thread detrimental to catching them if they're alts or bought merit. However, I don't think there's enough compelling evidence to link the two accounts either.