Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

[JollyGood]

This is self-moderated in order to stay on-topic and to keep clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers

Account sellers are not accepted within the community, their accounts are tagged with negative trust as soon as they are noticed by several members and I welcome that course of action as we try to minimise the impact they have on the wider forum with spamming and nefarious activity.

Going further, as a community we should not be selective about which accounts we tag for being previously sold on the basis of some traded accounts might be deemed as positively contributing to the forum. As a community we should be able to achieve some form of consensus about effectively what is the correct course of action in these types of circumstances.

If we as a collective pick and choose which sold/bought/traded accounts we tag and the ones we opt to not tag, then in my opinion we are setting a dangerous precedent because if we allow traded accounts to operate freely with impunity on the basis 'x' amount of time has passed (therefore they should not be tagged) it will send a signal to other would-be account buyers and account farmers. They too can use that as an argument and it should never be allowed.

If accounts are continuously traded on the understanding that if they are exposed at a later date they can try to defend their position by saying they purchased the account a long time ago and deserve to be given a chance just as other traded accounts were given a reprieve, it is unacceptable. This should not cloud any judgement and this practice should stop.

Once again to be clear, in my opinion if account traders make what are deemed to be any positive/good contributions towards the benefit of the forum, that cannot be superseded by the fact the account was traded. On that basis I will ~exclude accounts from my trust list and tag them.

If you know or suspect any members operating traded accounts feel free to post their name in this thread and state why you think they are using a traded/sold/bought account in order for it to be discussed as a prelude to it being possibly tagged by myself and/or others.

Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag. After all, if you feel strongly enough about it to mention the account here maybe you should consider placing your own tag beforehand.

[JollyGood]

reserved

[Timelord2067]

I've got about 350 trust feedback remaining (some of which that have account sellers mentioned). I'll have a look through my notes and see if there are others.


Some old and inactive account sellers mexxer-2, tomatocage, quickseller and shorena all sold accounts while EFS (Formerly known as "EAL" ) Once bid 0.055 on a Full Member account back in 2015 being offered by shorena before such actions were deemed Tut-Tut...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190707083942/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0 (see also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5410618.0 )

mexxer-2

2020-09-09

Reference

This users' first post was to sell BitCoinTalk accounts (and continued to do so their entire time active) which causes instability in this forum. https://archive.vn/eLos9#selection-2017.9-2046.1

Tomatocage

2020-09-15

Reference

This person engaged in account sales which causes instability in the Forum and in real life. They engaged in DT trust abuse to silence those who exposed their self-escrowing then went off line and has rarely come back to post. I do not trust their behaviour. https://archive.vn/6ZFNN#selection-5005.0-5005.47

Then there's the much publicised purchase of one of the "Bruno" accounts by suchmoon who tried to keep that quiet then lashed out when it was exposed.


TEXT is another account seller...

Text

2022-09-17

Reference

Account seller which causes instability in the forum and in real life. User "Text" Activity just one post sold a "BANNED/RED TRUST SR.+ ACCOUNT" - http://archive.is/0KI7N Vouching for a very dubious signature campaign. http://archive.is/7o3jd#selection-5595.0-5594.4 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2644741.msg27059189#msg27059189

More to come.

[DaveF]

While I do agree, it really can become a full time job to deal with.

Case in point the entire Dank14 issue. I saw the topic this AM, replied to it @ 6:45 AM give or take and had the idea of looking through the other accounts and adding them to my ~ list and tagging them.

The time it can take is not insignificant

For these scammers / spammers it is their job, so that is what we are fighting against. People like me have to take the time to do it when we could be doing other things.

Yeah, it makes me look lazy but I'm being honest here. If it's a choice between tagging someone and creating a post about how to pull your coins from a non-standard collectable private key or helping someone setup their node when it's giving them trouble. Those will win every time over tagging someone.

What would be nice, but even MORE work for the people doing hard work of tagging these people would be a standard format that others could glance at, verify that they agree with what has been said.
And then copy / cut / paste.

And here is where the work comes in, have a nice section where you can just copy and paste into their feedback and be done.

Using Dank14

Code:

~Dank14 
~grim007
~grim07
~Omegasun
~Mintcondition
~Casabrandy
~IKZIR31
~pratamaPR31
~Gastotade
~Armstand
~Lumada
~Blamsud
~vasrasus
~Wandika
~Palodar
~Kolder
~PhilPrime
~Bitcoin Market
~xWill
~Dahhi
~Gaugh
~Goms 
~Daisy14
~BlockEye
~Gahs
~Dinki
~Goms

Is somewhat quick.

But now you have to go get to EVERY profile:

Code:

Dank14          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812245
grim007         https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553970
grim07          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=732026
Omegasun       https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=639376
Mintcondition     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=21178
Casabrandy       https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=689046
IKZIR31           https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1022760
pratamaPR31     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1541769
Gastotade         https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=668291
Armstand         https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=755960
Lumada          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=665374
Blamsud         https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=663190
vasrasus        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=664935
Wandika        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=665433
Palodar         https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662306
Kolder          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662310
PhilPrime      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=859971
Bitcoin Market      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=609823
xWill        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=876763
Dahhi        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=813174
Gaugh      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=813670
Goms       https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=808046
Daisy14        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812240
BlockEye     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553066
Gahs          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=813718
Dinki           https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812256
Goms          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=808046

Getting those links took a while. And, since they all are old and tagged and inactive or banned I didn't bother doing anything. Since it would not matter.
But for fresh ones, it would be nice to have to have a quick link kind of thing.

But, either way. Keep up the good work.

-Dave

[DireWolfM14]

Going further, as a community we should not be selective about which accounts we tag for being previously sold on the basis of some traded accounts might be deemed as positively contributing to the forum. As a community we should be able to achieve some form of consensus about effectively what is the correct course of action in these types of circumstances.

This is so wrong on so many levels.  You can't go around treating everyone who fits a certain criteria the same way.  We're all individuals, and we all deserve the respect of being treated according to our actions.  Some people who purchased accounts long before you registered yours have contributed to this forum in more ways that you could ever hope to.  I'm not completely innocent in this regard, look at my recent interactions with newbies in the lending board as prime examples of my own bigotry.  But this is bigotry, unequivocally.  It's no different than walking down the street and treating everyone of a certain skin color the same way.

Now don't get me wrong, JollyGood; I don't believe you should be on DT and this black and white attitude of yours is a prime example of why I have those beliefs.  Life is full of grey areas.  If things go the way I expect, the minute you tag a long-standing contributing member for having bought his account years ago, with no DT feedback before the purchase, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people to follow your lead.  I also expect that it would lead to tons of drama, and likely cost you some DT1 inclusions.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

While I do agree, it really can become a full time job to deal with.

Oh buddy, you got that right!  In fact, though it wasn't exactly a full-time job for me, I did make it a personal project to start tagging anyone who so much as made an offer to buy an account back in 2016, and I kept up that battle for years--until I just got worn out.  Plus the merit system pretty much killed off account farmers, so there weren't as many accounts being dumped onto the market.

JollyGood, I agree with you about not discriminating but I've also given second chances to members to whom I've given negative trust years ago if, and only if, they've shown evidence of 1) not engaging in the buying/selling of accounts, and 2) not getting any more negative trust OR receiving legit positive trust since I gave them the negative.  

I still think these new idiots buying or selling accounts ought to be negged all to hell, and if they come to my attention I'll do so.  Anyone who's been here for a while should know that trading accounts is dangerous if the account(s) in question carry a positive reputation, as they can be used to scam, and they can also become a nuisance if they're used by sig spammers or bounty hunters who just want to write crapola nonstop.  

But none of that is new info to most of us.  Hopefully others will read what I just wrote and understand why account sales are severely frowned upon--even if they technically don't break forum rules.

Some people who purchased accounts long before you registered yours have contributed to this forum in more ways that you could ever hope to. 

As far as "discrimination" goes, I agree with you 100%.  I wouldn't start going back in history looking for account sales at this point.  Shoot, I did that myself when I started my aforementioned crusade against account dealers.  As an aside, I wasn't on DT at the time; when I eventually made it onto DT2, you wouldn't believe how much my inbox blew up.  It looked like a mushroom cloud all day, every day, for at least two months with messages from members who suddenly had their trust turn red overnight.  It's funny to think back on it now, but at the time it was annoying as hell.

[Onyeeze]

I feel like making suggestions in this thread base on the issue of tagging accounts sellers and bought accounts. I can't go back or remember a particular thread were I read that buying of accounts is allowed in the forum but the process of the negotiations of account buying and selling should not be negotiated in the forum, I think theirs a place in this forum such was discussed if I'm not mistaken.

my second point is that tagging all the accounts bought or trade can bring up issues because bringing all the sold accounts out it will raise many dust, because some of the bought accounts is not traceable and again they have not used any wallet in the forum before and theirs some of the bought accounts that contributed very meaningful in forum and their no evidence that shown that account bought has committed any crimes before except it was built and bought by another person ,  from the look at these, figuring out account sold might raise different alarm if is not properly handled, from my personal suggestion, I suggest that we show let this go and focus on the future and development of forum and bitcoin.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice.

But from my opinion, I won't go back to tag old accounts because of old account trades from way back in 2013 or 2016. How sure are you about the situation back then compared to the situation right now?
Were DT members back then incompetent to an extent that they ignored tagging account sales?

Just a mere look at the forum rules suggests that there was a soft stance on account sales back then, as people even used accounts as collateral for loans. This is not possible today.

This is similar to you suggesting that all DT members stop being "selective" and start tagging all accounts involved in merit abuse, spamming just because some accounts got red tagged back then for such acts, and now it's not a thing as it looks stupid leaving red trust on someone's account because they sent 5 merits to their alt account.

[JollyGood]

I've got about 350 trust feedback remaining (some of which that have account sellers mentioned). I'll have a look through my notes and see if there are others.


More to come.

Thank you for your efforts. The numbers involved are colossus therefore let us wait to see what you bring on your next post, who knows you even bring up some surprises.

While I do agree, it really can become a full time job to deal with.

Case in point the entire Dank14 issue. I saw the topic this AM, replied to it @ 6:45 AM give or take and had the idea of looking through the other accounts and adding them to my ~ list and tagging them.

The time it can take is not insignificant

For these scammers / spammers it is their job, so that is what we are fighting against. People like me have to take the time to do it when we could be doing other things.

Yeah, it makes me look lazy but I'm being honest here. If it's a choice between tagging someone and creating a post about how to pull your coins from a non-standard collectable private key or helping someone setup their node when it's giving them trouble. Those will win every time over tagging someone.

Dave it does not make you lazy and it cannot be denied what you are saying is true because taking a look at (and then tagging) accounts is a time consuming exercise. You have to prioritise where you want to spend your time and only you can decide where it is better spent. As you suggested, if there was a template for copying to the feedback it would help those that wanted to utilise it.

JollyGood, I agree with you about not discriminating but I've also given second chances to members to whom I've given negative trust years ago if, and only if, they've shown evidence of 1) not engaging in the buying/selling of accounts, and 2) not getting any more negative trust OR receiving legit positive trust since I gave them the negative.

You have first hand experience in this matter which will be helpful. Keeping in mind the two conditions you wrote above, in your opinion what is the furthest back (in years) is an appropriate number to go before the account is deemed to be not appropriate to tag?

I still think these new idiots buying or selling accounts ought to be negged all to hell, and if they come to my attention I'll do so.  Anyone who's been here for a while should know that trading accounts is dangerous if the account(s) in question carry a positive reputation, as they can be used to scam, and they can also become a nuisance if they're used by sig spammers or bounty hunters who just want to write crapola nonstop.  

But none of that is new info to most of us.  Hopefully others will read what I just wrote and understand why account sales are severely frowned upon--even if they technically don't break forum rules.

That is one of the dangers of the forum being flooded with spam and low quality posts when accounts are traded. It would not be a surprise if the buyer wants to get to work posting immediately. If the new/recent account sellers and accounts buyers manage to face problems some may decide to give and even if it is a small number it would mean our persistence is tagging accounts would have had some impact.

[Timelord2067]

Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice.

I'll be prepared to do that, yes.  Inactive isn't the same as banned.

Thank you for your efforts. The numbers involved are colossus therefore let us wait to see what you bring on your next post, who knows you even bring up some surprises.

Thanks for your good wishes.  Unfortunately, in deleting 2,650 trust feedbacks, I wasn't able to archive all of them, so I'm starting with those I have notes for:

A while ago (before you registered on the Forum) a profile "Operator" started a thread to explain they were buying up profiles with negative trust feedback so they could advertise in those bought profiles signature spaces.

Operatr's : SCAMMERS Relinquish & Exit Survey : Full, Senior, Heroe Get .002 BTC

Operator tried to sell their account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1058457.0;dt

I'm just looking back for my original post in one of the locked Known Alts threads, however, this is a thread I started more recently identifying some of the UID's Operator had bought.

I present the evidence as I see it.

TL;DR

txbtc was bought by Operatr.  txbtc was later banned.  leancuisine, Operatr, gysca, txbtc, P4ndoraBox7 and CanadaBits, Miyslovenic, Funny, tennozer, PrivacyLock and vCardVideo are alts.  Alts are still active after ban occurred therefore they are guilty of ban evasion.

12 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red

leancuisine, Operatr, gysca, txbtc, P4ndoraBox7, leen93, CanadaBits, Miyslovenic, Funny, PrivacyLock, vCardVideo, tennozer,

I might end up putting this in my first post.

Code:

Account sellers:

~mexxer-2
~tomatocage
~quickseller
~shorena
~Text

Purchased other accounts:

~Operatr
~suchmoon

Bid in auctions:

~EFS

Account that changed hands:

~leancuisine
~gysca
~txbtc
~P4ndoraBox7
~leen93
~CanadaBits
~Miyslovenic
~Funny
~PrivacyLock
~vCardVideo
~tennozer

[nutildah]

I'm strongly against retroactive punishment when it applies to offenses committed several years ago and involves inactive accounts or accounts that have since proven themselves as trustworthy and/or valuable members of the community. This is for a few reasons:

- the "offense" may not have been deemed as such back then,
- the person may have genuinely changed for the better, and
- we should be able to demonstrate some leniency toward long-time members in the spirit of forgiveness.

If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016.

Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag.

[DireWolfM14]

I still think these new idiots buying or selling accounts ought to be negged all to hell, and if they come to my attention I'll do so.  Anyone who's been here for a while should know that trading accounts is dangerous if the account(s) in question carry a positive reputation, as they can be used to scam, and they can also become a nuisance if they're used by sig spammers or bounty hunters who just want to write crapola nonstop.

I agree that anyone advertising accounts for sale should be summarily tagged as they are most likely scams to begin with.  What are they going to sell?  Newbie accounts created in mass back in 2019?  The days of account farming Hero accounts just by posting 500 times in 6 months are long gone.  When I got here (right after the implementation of the merit system) account sales were certainly going on regularly, but I think that was the beginning of the end.  There are likely a couple of people who've adapted, but it's not as endemic as it once was.

If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016.

If I didn't know better, this comment would make me suspect you actually did sell the account...  

To cryptohunter.  

[Chivas Regal]

If you want to slap account sellers, can I suggest you do a search of users with either "account" or "seller" in their profile name?  (Can't hurt to look)

[yahoo62278]

I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.

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

Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened.

People are allowed to have their feelings and not everyone is going to agree. Some of you believe account sales is the end of the world, others believe it's a right, blah blah blah basically. There was a time when you could get a loan using your account as collateral. Many of the old lenders probably had control of 20+ accounts at any given time. How many of those lenders do you think became permanent owners of accounts due to defaulted loans? How many of these lenders sold those accounts under a new account so as to not be detected? Not to mention those listed that didn't make a new account to sell and avoid detection.

I personally have bought an account back in the day and sold it for a profit. You wanna tag me, go for it. You're opening a can of worms here and I don't think you come out on top.

I have posted my opinion many times on the subject and feel that if the account is a nobody, then it's no big deal. If they haven't built a rep and don't have any + trusts, they have hurt noone. An account and name is what the person who controls makes it. The accounts sold with a bunch of positive trust and big reputations are the only accounts we should worry about as they have the best odds at scamming the community. The only reason someone would pay a premium price for a trusted account is so they can get away with a scam they have planned. We as a community should evolve and grow, but what you suggest is regress.

You guys do what ya want, tag me and multiple others. I disagree 100% , but that's my opinion.

[Findingnemo]

I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict?

[PytagoraZ]

I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.

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

Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened.

I have read these rules. But there are also those who really like to mark alt accounts. Who actually makes the rules? Didn't they break the rules by making up their own?

Edit: Btw...The person who ordered and taught me to register in this forum now doesn't dare to login to bitcointalk anymore. The reason is because his wallet and friends are connected. Yes, I know my friends don't have alt, but they do have a community that used to be active on the bounty. And often they ask their friends for a little eth/btc. Yes I am willing to bear witness that they are not spammers, just a bunch of young people playing the forums well. But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked

I got this story when I wanted to buy BTC from my own friend and he didn't want to sell it to me because later my account would be considered connected to my friend's account.

Edit: Sorry, maybe this is not a thread for me to join the discussion. Maybe DT can communicate with each other to decide whether tagging alt that doesn't cheat is allowed or not? because forum rules allow alt.

I know about the DT system after installing BPIP extension a week ago

[lovesmayfamilis]

my second point is that tagging all the accounts bought or trade can bring up issues because bringing all the sold accounts out it will raise many dust, because some of the bought accounts is not traceable and again they have not used any wallet in the forum before and theirs some of the bought accounts that contributed very meaningful in forum and their no evidence that shown that account bought has committed any crimes before except it was built and bought by another person ,  from the look at these, figuring out account sold might raise different alarm if is not properly handled, from my personal suggestion, I suggest that we show let this go and focus on the future and development of forum and bitcoin.

Did you understand what you wrote? How can you blame the account that was bought if you have no evidence? Are you meeting your weekly quota?

As for the purchase and sale of accounts, if you go beyond the forum, then there is an active sales business going on right now. But now the scammers are doing everything very carefully. We will not see any password or language changes; all of this is discussed before the sale. And if you mark old accounts, then there will be a lot of them, especially if you check the accounts that participate in subscriptions for altcoins.
But Yahoo62278 is right. If they don't do much damage, and they don't have other accusations, it's just a waste of time to pay attention to them. Even if they have bought accounts, most of them cannot get into subscriptions with payments in BTC, and participation in a bounty punishes them with regular non-payments.

[Onyeeze]

You guys do what ya want, tag me and multiple others. I think you're 100% wrong, but that's my opinion.

I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think  tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime.  From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you

[FatFork]

I have read these rules. But there are also those who really like to mark alt accounts. Who actually makes the rules? Didn't they break the rules by making up their own?

The trust system on the forum is unmoderated. There aren't any rules in place to stop a member from tagging a seller's or buyer's account.

<cut>
But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked

I call this bullshit. I haven't come across a single instance where accounts are tagged by DT members as alts solely based on token transfers between them. There is always other (circumstantial) evidence that connects them.

[JollyGood]

Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice.

I'll be prepared to do that, yes.  Inactive isn't the same as banned.

That is where I invite debate and conversation in order to find general consensus because if previously sold yet currently inactive accounts are tagged what would be the pros and cons as far sending out a message as a deterrent is concerned?

Thanks for your good wishes.  Unfortunately, in deleting 2,650 trust feedbacks, I wasn't able to archive all of them, so I'm starting with those I have notes for:

You certainly have your hands full with this one  

I'm strongly against retroactive punishment when it applies to offenses committed several years ago and involves inactive accounts or accounts that have since proven themselves as trustworthy and/or valuable members of the community. This is for a few reasons:

- the "offense" may not have been deemed as such back then,
- the person may have genuinely changed for the better, and
- we should be able to demonstrate some leniency toward long-time members in the spirit of forgiveness.

You make a great case against blanket tagging with the possibilities you cited, especially the demonstrating leniency part. I invite more views and opinions from members because widening the debate will bring benefits to the discussion.

If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016.

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?  

I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.

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

Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened.

This is a welcomed timely reminder that account trading is (as you put it) discouraged but not against the rules of the forum however much it is frowned upon by the members of the community. Still, there is no harm in having this debate in order to read and to understand a multitude of views and opinions on this matter.

I am sure someone who got scammed by a trusted member only to later discover the account was sold by the original owner would have a different opinion to say someone who is maybe have purchased an account some years ago but has constantly and consistently received excellent advice provided by an account buyer say in the technical boards (Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support etc), then in my opinion it would be a pointless exercise tagging the account and that is why this debate with these points of views are great to read.

I have posted my opinion many times on the subject and feel that if the account is a nobody, then it's no big deal. If they haven't built a rep and don't have any + trusts, they have hurt noone. An account and name is what the person who controls makes it. The accounts sold with a bunch of positive trust and big reputations are the only accounts we should worry about as they have the best odds at scamming the community. The only reason someone would pay a premium price for a trusted account is so they can get away with a scam they have planned. We as a community should evolve and grow, but what you suggest is regress.

You mention several more very important angles about account trading in that trusted green member accounts can plan scams and that we should watch out for those and you would not be wrong for saying it. At some point, at some stage there has to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the buying and selling of forum accounts.

If there is blanket tagging on account buyers and sellers, would it be appropriate to do it on the basis you pointed out that it is not illegal for buyers and sellers to do it according to the rules? On that basis there should probably not be any blanket tagging for that specific reason alone.

If there is no blanket tagging for account buyers and sellers then can a different approach be taken which would still be acceptable as general consensus?

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.