Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc

[yahoo62278]

A couple days ago a THREAD was opened on a user regarding a possibly bought/hacked account. The user who opened the thread is fairly vigilant in scam busting and does a good job at it. I think lovesmayfamilis is fairly respected among the community, so I do not want them feeling like they are being attacked here. I think they do a great job, i just feel like some situations aren't worth looking in to.

I would like to see an open discussion regarding account sales. Obviously I know they aren't illegal but the forum users frown upon the activity. I would also like opinions regarding what is worthy of seeking as far as accounts that may be bought goes? Should users go out of their way looking for a connection on accounts that have 0 reputation? Should all accounts be tagged that are guilty of or presumed bought? Is a neutral tag appropriate for accounts that are bought that have no reputation, or should accounts be ruined period?

I know there are a lot against the buying and selling of accounts. I'm one that's sort of on the fence as all situations are not the same. If a reputable account is found to be sold that there is a high possibility it was bought to be used to scam, then of course I feel like more than a warning neutral should happen. As a community we should be always looking to protect the users of the forum, but what if the account is a nobody with no trust, no interest in the DT system, obviously bought to use in a sig campaign? IMO these accounts are not really harming anyone, and a neutral tag should suffice if found to be bought. Hacked accounts/stolen accounts should be tagged with a red IMO.


I've tagged all the current DT1 members so that we as a community can try to have a discussion regarding these issues. Some will respond, some won't but we should get a better idea of the community consensus this way.

Code:

theymos
HostFat
qwk
cygan
mprep
Foxpup
Carlton Banks
philipma1957
Cyrus
ibminer
Mitchell
wwzsocki
Timelord2067
jeremypwr
gbianchi
EFS
dbshck
hilariousandco
arulbero
Avirunes
buckrogers
JayJuanGee
NeuroticFish
achow101
DaveF
examplens
minerjones
sapta
irfan_pak10
BitcoinPenny
bitbollo
o_solo_miner
Real-Duke
klarki
LoyceV
LeGaulois
DarkStar_
SFR10
TwitchySeal
BitcoinGirl.Club
ekiller
Jet Cash
holydarkness
Lafu
Coin_trader
tweetious
Yatsan
buwaytress
crwth
comit
webtricks
Ale88
duesoldi
Kryptowerk
bobita
Vispilio
be.open
imhoneer
krogothmanhattan
roycilik
CryptopreneurBrainboss
El duderino_
KTChampions
Trofo
Coin-1
GreatArkansas
sheenshane
o_e_l_e_o
3meek
logfiles
joniboini
masulum
Agrawas
GazetaBitcoin
Maus0728
coinlocket$
mole0815
witcher_sense
bitmover
DdmrDdmr
Lakai01
morvillz7z
Husna QA
fillippone
abhiseshakana
madnessteat
The Cryptovator
lovesmayfamilis
1miau
Harkorede
YOSHIE
Ratimov
geophphreigh
zasad@
Rikafip
Lachrymose
FatFork
NotATether
BlackHatCoiner
MrCryptHodl

[1714306109]

1714306109

[1714306109]

1714306109

[1714306109]

1714306109

[1714306109]

1714306109

[1714306109]

1714306109

[_BlackStar]

I wanted to share my opinion, and of course I hope this thread will actually change my mindset about accounts sales.

As I learned to detect fraudulent accounts, I had to deliberately open through spreadsheets from campaign to campaign. I sometimes find them connected between accounts, getting different local board activity, language changes, and such. I managed to uncover several cases and solve them well. I'm also marking a few because they are trying to cheat the campaign as it is clearly intolerable.

About selling accounts, I think it's clear that some DT members really don't like it. But I'm starting to change the mindset that when an account is legally sold or changes hands ^{[not hacked/stolen]} then it's only eligible for neutral tag. I don't trust them [~] instead tag them with red tag ^{[right now].} But when this account is planning bad intentions, such as wanting to cheat through the reputation of old users, then it's clear that it will immediately turn into a red tag. But in practice, sold accounts allow spam to increase in forum so if a neutral tag is viable for them, then there should be plenty of people willing to report spam to the moderators as well. Of course this is all about me, although there are many people who disagree with this decision.

[rby]

In order to address this topic smoothly, we must have to explain in real words the controversial unofficial bitcointalk rule 18.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

Let us solve the puzzle of "but account sales are discouraged" even when "allowed".

What ways can it be discouraged?

• Neg tag?
• Not being allowed to participate in campaigns by the CMs
• Neutral tag - almost ineffective

I'll suggest that before an account that changed ownership could be tagged. There should be;
1st - Efforts to uncover if it was hacked or mutually changed hands by sells.
2nd - If the new owner is adding value to the forum or spamming along.
3rd - If the new owner has the tendency to scam; here the DT status and knowing if the account is offering services or has offered services in the past may come in.
Finally, maybe it should be handle case by case just as there might not be a unified rule to tackle every cases.

[yahoo62278]

Why does the forum need users who cannot grow on their own, but resort to such methods? A forum's account is history, it is status, it is reputation, it is knowledge, and all this should be assigned to only one user and should not be transferred somehow.

I think part of the answer to your stance here is geography. I sympathize with some cultures in the world because let's be honest, they can make more money here on the forum than they could with a real job in their area. So, they buy accounts so they can make money to feed their families.

Most people are on this forum to make money. Whether it be btc to save for later(HODLERS), money to feed their family, money to invest to make more money, or many other reasons. Even the forum itsself made money via selling ad space in the auctions, donations, or whatever.

Now, let's get back to the people who buy accounts for sig campaigns so they can earn money to eat. Do I love the quality of the user that usually is in this situation? No, they could really learn from reading the rules and stickies and try to contribute vs spamming the forum just to be paid. They should take the time to try and be a positive aspect of the forum vs something that everyone hates.

Should we only care about the financially well off? Should we be assholes to the less fortunate? That seems to be what I notice and probably have engaged in myself at 1 time or another. Everyone that visits the forum isn't the smartest, but they could possibly be taught a better way to use the forum if we knew they were willing to learn.

In order to address this topic smoothly, we must have to explain in real words the controversial unofficial bitcointalk rule 18.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

Let us solve the puzzle of "but account sales are discouraged" even when "allowed".

What ways can it be discouraged?

• Neg tag?
• Not being allowed to participate in campaigns by the CMs
• Neutral tag - almost ineffective

I'll suggest that before an account that changed ownership could be tagged. There should be;
1st - Efforts to uncover if it was hacked or mutually changed hands by sells.
2nd - If the new owner is adding value to the forum or spamming along.
3rd - If the new owner has the tendency to scam; here the DT status and knowing if the account is offering services or has offered services in the past may come in.
Finally, maybe it should be handle case by case just as there might not be a unified rule to tackle every cases.

I think all accounts found to be bought should be ~ so they can never make DT. A small thing, but they should know that they can never be on DT.


This isn't the hill I want to make a stand on. I just generally think the issue is worth discussing.

[holydarkness]

If I may talk about the referrenced thread first, as I happen to be attending that thread, I think my stance for that case remains the same: I dive myself there just in the interest to reveal the truth behind it, the whole story. So far, unfortunately, the OP seems to get caught in a tangled web of his lies stories. Suppose I can get to the bottom of the case and --again, suppose-- he was lying about the gift thing, his post history still were/are not detrimental to the forum^[1], he did not scammed anyone yet --or ever-- so I don't think I'll leave a negative tag or even a neutral one.

I just don't see the point of it.

Negative tag will be unjustified as the person did no harm, didn't fool anyone, didn't abuse any rule. While neutral tag will practically serve no purpose at all as the account is a pure bounty hunter. That thin-black numbers on his trust column will just serve to inform BMs that the account move hands, and most likely the campaign managers --if they're a wise manager enough-- couldn't bother less as long as if that person made a good posts and promote the campaign they're working on. So yeah, no purpose.

One thing that needs to be voiced though, is a possibility that the account is connected to several accounts, which leads to ban evasion. I've asked the individual in question about this matter and he's yet to reply me, but suppose that the final verdict is that he's indeed connected to those accounts and thus evading forum's ban, then the negative tag should be placed, but that's the only reason of the negative tag; ban evasion, not buying or receiving accounts.


Now, to address the issue globally, I personally think leaving a negative or neutral tag should be done on a case-by-case basis. No case has similar points and narratives and shouldn't be treated equally.

It leads us back to what happen after the account is bought.

Does the new owner use the account wisely? Post nicely? If yes, then why should they discouraged by negative tag and got all of their effort ruined? It's way past bedtime in my timezone so I am too lazy to dig the forum, but I recalled several cases raised about account changing hand on this forum. One of it that crossed my mind was a daughter of someone who passed away or something? I didn't follow the thread from the beginning, just got a summary of it, but IIRC she posted nicely, used the account wisely, got tagged and was forced to leave the forum for that reason. And what the forum got from it? We didn't get damaged by her existence and her posts here, but we might lose some potential by "banishing" her. Who knows if one day she developed into an excellent scam buster? Or build patches that helps the forum? Or spread awareness of this crypto to her friends and colleagues? So, as long as the new owner --whoever that is, my previous sentences were not limited to that specific female human-- use the account wisely, I don't think a negative tag is necessary.

Sure, they should have take the better way by building their account from the very basic level and climb up, that if their posts are good they'll reach high rank in no time so there's no reason to buy accounts, etc. but, it's already done, isn't it? The account is already bought, "damage" is already done, and the person --on this scenario-- put a good efforts and results on that bought account. I think the good outweight the bad thing. Maybe we can simplify it by turning it into a business POV. They invest in something, make a good effort on that investment and did no harm, so why should they be disturbed?

But umm... remember when I said earlier about case-by-case basis? Yeah, this is where my opinion get a little bit complicated.

If the bought account is a gleaming account though, high ranked member --I think it's suffice to say Sr. and above or maybe even FM-- who reached the position through earned merit instead of legacy, or account with positive feedback, then I think that bought account needs a neutral tag for the sole purpose of informing the members that at one point the account moved hand and the previous reputation --merit and feedback-- was not earned by the current owner. The tag serves as a divider of quality and reputation between the old and the new one created by the new owner.

Moving to the other side of the table, if the account was bought for the case of spamming, low quality post --which, sadly, as mentioned above by Ratimov, is the most likely to happen cases here-- though, then it deserves a tag. But even then, that tag was placed due to the post quality itself, one that's been placed to plenty of accounts that never moves hand for the very same reason.

Now, for the case that the account is sold, this is a completely different scenario than above.

The account seller, IMO, deserve at least a neutral tag to mark him for future reference. For the why he deserved a tag while the previous case should be treated after reviewing their posting habit is simply because I am sure that seller did not, does not, and will not care about how will the account be used after it moves hand. He couldn't care less if the new owner is a spammer, or a scammer, or both. Thus, clearly detrimental, and thus, a tag.

Of course this thread is strictly limited to account moving hand by being sold and bought? Not stolen and hacked? Because that two deserves a special room in hell, they go straight to jail.


^[1]At least that's what perceived by several honorable members of the forum who attended that thread too, and I choose to just trust them as I haven't give his most recent posts a read to be able to put any weight on any side of the scale.

[Poker Player]

Should all accounts be tagged that are guilty of or presumed bought? Is a neutral tag appropriate for accounts that are bought that have no reputation, or should accounts be ruined period?

I told you in the other thread. Who commits a crime does not change the typology of the crime. Giving different penalties depending on who commits the misconduct goes against the fundamental principles of law.

All this is stirred up by someone who not only bought an account, but is a ban evader and willingly participated in advertising a known scam site.

Being from a poor country and getting away with buying an account is a comparative aggravation against your compatriots from poor countries who do not take the fast track and with their effort little by little rank up the account.

[lovesmayfamilis]

yahoo62278, Can I create a newbie account and be honest that I am from a poor country, that I will not be a burden on the forum, and that my goal is only to earn food for the family? Will you accept me into your company? Why should I spend extra, expensive money for myself if, in your opinion, it is easier for me to admit to poverty, put pressure on pity, and calmly earn money here?

Wouldn't the one who bought an account with a rank be a beginner? Or will you sleep peacefully, realizing that you are being deceived but having too much faith in people?

So, I'm a newbie, and using Yahoo 62278 privileges, I'm going to my locale for communication. I write there: "Brothers, how are you?" And then, my brothers, who do not buy but honestly write and hope that someday they will also have a high rank and be able to feed their families, don't they think it's not fair? Why can I and they can't? Who puts the standard of living on the scale?

Can I make an amendment to the rules and provide a certificate of financial status when coming to the forum? For some reason, it seems to me that in this case, I, as a beginner, will be able to remain the poorest of all.
You are looking for justice, Yahoo62278, tell me, will the law be equal for everyone, or is the law more equal for someone?

All purchased accounts come to the forum to earn money, don't they? And since our forum is "not about work", we often repeat all this.

I suggested yesterday that we create a list of participants from the local Nigerian section, where people raise their own accounts. I have always said and will continue to say that I love these people and respect their patience and diligence. And it is in this section that I see people who work day by day themselves. What happened in this case to the Martyns? And what happened is that he is a lying, lazy guy, ready to go over our heads. Did he break the rules? Yes, and it's proven that, besides everything else, if he buys one account, he will buy two more.

There are cases of accounts being bought when we see a long-standing change of hands. At that time, it was not condemned, and in all the time that has passed, the new owner has been able to show himself by rising to the next level. Here we can talk about a neutral tag, and maybe even about its absence.

But the recent change of ownership and a blatant lie—look how Martyns writes about his brother— The fact that he died was not announced immediately. He corrected this, realizing that we would ask the brother. And also ignoring and subsequently lying about another blocked account—doesn't that deserve a negative tag? Does anyone here like to look like an idiot for believing this?

In addition, if someone buys someone else's account, he must understand that one day a ray of suspicion will be directed at him. If someone was Indonesian from the very beginning, why go to another locale?

As a result, I think that each case and each bought and caught account deserves separate consideration. When a person thinks people are idiots, the red tag fits well with his reputation.

[yahoo62278]

You are looking for justice, Yahoo62278, tell me, will the law be equal for everyone, or is the law more equal for someone?

The law in not equal for EVERYONE now. How many times do you see the term "case by case" basis?


Back when accounts were being used for collateral who do you guys think were the main sellers? Old lenders of course. How many of those old lenders would people tag now for sales? Since we are discussing equal laws.

I'm not looking to argue with anyone, I'm looking for discussion period.

[Poker Player]

The law in not equal for EVERYONE now. How many times do you see the term "case by case" basis?

"Case by case" basis does not mean that the law is not the same for everyone. When you analyze two murders, if one is in self-defense and the second is to steal money from the victim with premeditation and malice, obviously they will have two different sentences, the law being the same for all.

That said, there are things about the "case by case" of this forum that I do not understand, such as Naim027 not being permabanned again.

[Plaguedeath]

Back when accounts were being used for collateral who do you guys think were the main sellers? Old lenders of course. How many of those old lenders would people tag now for sales? Since we are discussing equal laws.

AFAIK past and present already different.

I check on many accounts which receive negative feedback from DT members were mostly about spam, merit exchange etc. That's not correct to leave negative feedback with such reason. If someone spam, just report it to moderator. If someone exchange merit with his alt, just leave him a neutral feedback.

I think due to high paying bounties and long term Bitcoin signature campaign, make people tend to spam and the rules are getting more stricter to prevent from someone milking the forum.


Now back to your question about buying and selling accounts, I think we need to agree if each person has his own judgement, right?

I will say if someone really think it's right to leaving negative feedback due to changed hands even the account has no reputation, do it. If someone not really sure if that's case is deserved to get negative feedback or in grey area, just leave a neutral feedback.

Then if you think that's account shouldn't deserved to get negative feedback, you can distrust them.

I just want to add the thread you mentioned before is fall to cheating in a campaign which deserve to get negative feedback

[T3PR00T]

Suspect a bought account?
Check the feedback history, do you see anything earned by the previous owner? Leave a neutral tag as it's a bought account, obviously give a chance to admit or defend the guy. If the account seem to be doing business before making a name for it then do something if the business looks shady but if the account is clearly trying to earn something from campings and not harming anyone, just let it go.

How would you know the account is hacked?
Well untill the main owner does not come and claim with evidence, you will never know.

I don't think distrusting is needed too unless it's found that the account is abusing the trust system.

Before the merit system introduced creating accounts and farming them was easy. People did not have value for their accounts as it was not earned the rank by hard working but now things are different. I don't think anyone who worked a lot to build up an account to hero or legendary will think about selling their accounts. It's more profitable for them to earn the money by doing signature campaigns.

Not all accounts used to buy / sell for scamming. But unfortunately it was becoming a common thing that buying account means the new owners will scam others.

We have many evidence where the original accounts scammed a lot of money when they thought they had enough with it.

May be lenders should be more careful when they are lending.

[yahoo62278]

Now back to your question about buying and selling accounts, I think we need to agree if each person has his own judgement, right?

I will say if someone really think it's right to leaving negative feedback due to changed hands even the account has no reputation, do it. If someone not really sure if that's case is deserved to get negative feedback or in grey area, just leave a neutral feedback.

Then if you think that's account shouldn't deserved to get negative feedback, you can distrust them.

I just want to add the thread you mentioned before is fall to cheating in a campaign which deserve to get negative feedback

Everyone is 100% entitled to their opinion. Never going to dispute that.

This is not exactly about the account in that thread. That user dug his own grave everytime he responded. I just used that thread as the reference point since some of what I am asking is being discussed there.

[Lakai01]

First of all, thank you yahoo62278 for bringing this thread to my attention. I need to look more into the subject matter, have only skimmed the facts now.

Negative tag will be unjustified as the person did no harm, didn't fool anyone, didn't abuse any rule. While neutral tag will practically serve no purpose at all as the account is a pure bounty hunter. That thin-black numbers on his trust column will just serve to inform BMs that the account move hands, and most likely the campaign managers --if they're a wise manager enough-- couldn't bother less as long as if that person made a good posts and promote the campaign they're working on. So yeah, no purpose.

I don't think so. Tags are all about trust:



Tags are supposed to warn other users that a person is not very trustworthy and you should be very careful when trading coins with this person. The trading of coins has of course now shifted away from the forum and currently concerns rather collectibles and co., but the intention is the same: Would I enter into a trade with this person in good conscience or not.

So if someone has bought an account I would at least at the beginning under no circumstances enter into a trade and I think only a few of us would. So for me, in this situation, a negative tag would be quite justified. The tags can later be relatively easily converted into, for example, neutral tags when it has become clear how the new account owner behaves and whether he is basically trustworthy or not.

[Poker Player]

So if someone has bought an account I would at least at the beginning under no circumstances enter into a trade and I think only a few of us would. So for me, in this situation, a negative tag would be quite justified. The tags can later be relatively easily converted into, for example, neutral tags when it has become clear how the new account owner behaves and whether he is basically trustworthy or not.

I am a supporter of this. Negative tags should serve to warn of danger and then can be changed in light of the facts.

[NotATether]

Since the reason why most people are targeting account sales in the first place is to fight spam, rather than the sale of the accounts themselves, it makes more sense to focus on more ways of filtering out forum spam that go beyond using the Ignore button.

Because let's face it. When someone buys an account with the intention to enroll a bunch of other accounts into a signature campaign, and some are accepted, one of two things will happen (assuming they don't get busted first):

1: Users spams, and they get kicked out or red-dusted.
2: The users all make constructive posts.

Of (2), there are two possible branches:

2A: The campaign forbids alt accounts for entering under any circumstances, in that case, all accounts involved get summarily executed as what happened with figmentofmyass and his alts.
2B: The campaign has no such rule, no action is taken against such accounts, and life goes on, such as hilariousandco/etc.

The overwhelming majority of account sales fall under (1). Most that don't fall into (2A) because almost all campaigns forbid alt accounts.

This serves to indicate that it is necessary to take measures to limit spam especially the kind that will not go away even if signature campaigns are banned, and if there is no stricter enforcement of the no-spam rule by moderators, then we need to make tools for (at least) registered users to be able to hide spam from their browsing experience.

[jokers10]

First and most obvious is that it is not good to pretend to have someone else's reputation, non depending if that someone else is very respected one or not. By appropriating someone else's achievements users with bought accounts show that they should not be trusted.

But it is not the main thing why I don't like secret account selling. If account selling is not prevented then we motivate hackers to hack accounts. Maybe someone is tired of forum and wants a break for a couple of months or years and then returns and what will he see? His account is hacked, his reputation is ruined by someone else. And if sold accounts will be forgiven by default we'll face with increasing the problem of account hacking. I don't want anyone use my account even if I'm tired of forum for a while... or if someone dies and someone dubious will use his acc.

If someone wants to sell his own account openly... well, it's not what looks right-minded but at least everyone will see everything in this deal. So it is not good but at least not so shady.

[NotATether]

First and most obvious is that it is not good to pretend to have someone else's reputation, non depending if that someone else is very respected one or not. By appropriating someone else's achievements users with bought accounts show that they should not be trusted.

But it is not the main thing why I don't like secret account selling. If account selling is not prevented then we motivate hackers to hack accounts. Maybe someone is tired of forum and wants a break for a couple of months or years and then returns and what will he see? His account is hacked, his reputation is ruined by someone else. And if sold accounts will be forgiven by default we'll face with increasing the problem of account hacking. I don't want anyone use my account even if I'm tired of forum for a while... or if someone dies and someone dubious will use his acc.

Sold accounts should be completely painted in red trust if they are bought with green trust on them, that's for sure. And if the owner manages to recover the account, they can be removed. Or at least converted to neutral feedback.

If someone wants to sell his own account openly... well, it's not what looks right-minded but at least everyone will see everything in this deal. So it is not good but at least not so shady.

That's why the merit requirement is so important. Campaign managers can easily increase the requirement to be at least 20 earned merit in the last 120 days, and a lot of weeds (bought accounts) would be rooted out.

[jokers10]

Sold accounts should be completely painted in red trust if they are bought with green trust on them, that's for sure. And if the owner manages to recover the account, they can be removed. Or at least converted to neutral feedback.
...

When I talk about reputation it is not just about marks in a forum trust system. It is about what ideas does a person stand for, how reasonable are his advice, etc. Many have no marks but we know them as persons. And then someone hacks their account and posts something silly, with low sense, standing for opposite ideas... even if there are no red marks it harms reputation anyway. You look at a person and don't know what to think. In several months even if account is returned to its owner the owner will have to do a huge work to restore what was ruined and probably some echoes of such hack will be heard for years. We shouldn't motivate hackers by making easy to use a hacked acc.

[Plaguedeath]

Maybe someone is tired of forum and wants a break for a couple of months or years and then returns and what will he see? His account is hacked

I think if someone want to take a break for long time and want to make sure his account will not be used by other person or hacker. You can change your email address with really hard and long username that you will not remember, enable secret password and then recover your account via secret password.

It will make your account will be locked and the only way to recover it through signing message.

That's why the merit requirement is so important. Campaign managers can easily increase the requirement to be at least 20 earned merit in the last 120 days, and a lot of weeds (bought accounts) would be rooted out.

I disagree, do you think someone who bought an account is always a shitposter? you can argue if he's not a shitposter, he can create his own account and rank up.

But buying an account is a way to skip him to wait until his account ranked up, Hero Member rank account need a year and 4 months.

[holydarkness]

Negative tag will be unjustified as the person did no harm, didn't fool anyone, didn't abuse any rule. While neutral tag will practically serve no purpose at all as the account is a pure bounty hunter. That thin-black numbers on his trust column will just serve to inform BMs that the account move hands, and most likely the campaign managers --if they're a wise manager enough-- couldn't bother less as long as if that person made a good posts and promote the campaign they're working on. So yeah, no purpose.

I don't think so. Tags are all about trust:



Tags are supposed to warn other users that a person is not very trustworthy and you should be very careful when trading coins with this person. The trading of coins has of course now shifted away from the forum and currently concerns rather collectibles and co., but the intention is the same: Would I enter into a trade with this person in good conscience or not.

So if someone has bought an account I would at least at the beginning under no circumstances enter into a trade and I think only a few of us would. So for me, in this situation, a negative tag would be quite justified. The tags can later be relatively easily converted into, for example, neutral tags when it has become clear how the new account owner behaves and whether he is basically trustworthy or not.

If I may argue, the snippet of my post you quoted were talking about a specific person who --in that scenario-- only use the account for signature bounty purpose and not for doing any trade, with assumption that didn't make posts that is not up to forum's standard; plagiarism, low quality post, out of topic. [We're taking the paragraph that followed it, about the possibility to leave negative trust for the reason of ban evasion and relation to multi-acc, out of the discussion]. He's not about to do any trade, selling goods or collectibles, or perhaps even borrowing some fund. He's strictly walking on the realm of bounty campaign.

This alone, IMO, should not warrant a negative feedback because the new feedback system are more reserved to trading purpose, as evidenced by the sentence on your screenshot, "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.", as well as your explanation below it.

You are not trading with him, not risking any of your money on him. He's living a quiet life making posts and engaging on forum's discussion. His case is a different case from a multi-acc abuser, loan defaulter, poster of questionable project [included in it: rug pull, plagiarized documents, fake team, and the likes]. Thus the statement that warrant negative feedback is not entirely met and the warn itself is rather pointless --aside from adding more misery to the account owner-- as other people are not and will not trade with them.

If I may borrow Loyce's guide for new trust and feedback setting,

[...]
Once you fully understand the system, it's important to start using it:

• Did you do a trade in which you risked funds? Leave feedback!
• Did you see users who left accurate Trust feedback on many accounts? Add them to your Trust list!

Anyone can leave feedback, and anyone can customize their Trust list!

[...]

Don't confuse your Trust list with feedback
Trust feedback: leave feedback to people you trust or don't trust. Or leave neutral comments.
Trust list: a list of people who's judgement on others you trust (username) or don't trust (~username).


Trust feedback
Trust feedback (Positive/Neutral/Negative) can be used to express your opinion about someone's trustworthiness. In other words: would you trust or have you trusted this user with your money?

As inferred by the upper portion of the snippet, positive, neutral, and negative feedback are reserved for when you dealing with someone and risking some funds.

While we can argue with the lower portion of the snippet that we can tag them with negative because we're expressing our opinion that we deemed the said person not trustworthy because he was giften an account, the do's and don'ts might give a better insight what should be done,

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules. Instead, use Report to moderator for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

Since we're assuming he's using the account for the purpose of earning from signature campaign, and he made a decent post, not scamming anyone, not using AI, not plagiarizing someone else's post or abusing campaign with multi-acc [remember, we took aside the possibility of the connection with blackviruse for this discussion], there were no forum rules being violated. But let's suppose account moving hand is now considered as a violation, it's still advised to not leave a negative feedback based on it.

Thus... the best approach if someone deemed it as necessary, will be to put the user on distrust list [~] to make sure the said person did not reached DT because we may argue that he has a very poor judgement by choosing to take a shortcut by buying an account/inheriting it instead of building his own reputation.

As an end note, I am not insisiting my opinion, just giving voice to what's on my mind and completely open for a discussion or a proposed other perspective for this matter.