Haunebu and 3kpk3 - merit system abuse

[yahoo62278]

You need to pay attention to how long ago the abuse happened. I read 2018 which is pretty close to the time merit became a thing here. People were still learning what is and isn't acceptable.

DT isn't condoning scamming or abuse of the system. We are going by what the admins have set the guidelines as basically. You can always ~ the 2 accounts in your trust list and ignore them, but seems like you will not be happy until they are punisihed(which isn't going to happen). Just let it go man.

[yahoo62278]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5463509.msg62710067#msg62710067

It's already established that they are alts, that's not illegal on this forum. It's only illegal if they are joining the same sig campaign at the same time or abusing bounty campaigns.

[holydarkness]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5463509.msg62710067#msg62710067

It's already established that they are alts, that's not illegal on this forum. It's only illegal if they are joining the same sig campaign at the same time or abusing bounty campaigns.

I'm quoting the original post being referred here in full [below], just for the sake of added context. If I may add, aside from what yahoo said, one that's also not allowed is to add one's main account into alt's their trust list [on this case, I'll assume Haunebu is the main and 3kpk3 is the alt], though it's ok to add your alt to your main's trust list.

[...]

• It's okay to include your alt-account on your own Trust list. This means you trust the feedback you left from that account. [...]
• Don't include your main account from your alt account(s). This could influence DT1-voting, and although that's not part of this guide, it's bad

[...]

Username: Haunebu

[Frankolala]

...Merit system abuse!

Is it a scam or not? Say it straight and we'll all know what to do whit it

It's not.

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

If theymos says this, don't expect much from the DTs in this regard.

Congratulations! You just justified every merit scam! 

Don't feel bad that nobody is nailing the two accounts just like what you thought will happen because I don't think that it is a scam or some sort of offense that needs immediate attention.

Sending merits from one account of the other by the same user is called merit abuse and not scam because the user hasn't taken anyone's funds to render a service and didn't or has involved in any scam activities. You should know what scam is,this is a big word and is like you want to tarnish the user reputation. The DT members will look up to it,if the action is worth a neutral tag or not.

[1miau]

Nice catch, @OP but do you have a really convincing proof, it's really his Alt Account?
Just sending Merit, even for large amounts as long as posts are at least halfways useful, doesn't prove anything. Do we have more proof like linked BTC / ETH addresses or shared Social Media accounts?
If not, it's just not enough proof in my opinion. 

One thing I can add is that until September 2017, the person behind Haunebu account wrote only in fluent German and was well educated technically, after that date only English spam began.

Indeed, in his early days, Haunebu submitted many German posts.
But it doesn't look like a hacked or sold account, there's no posting gap at all.

@OP
Do you want me to shoot him a PM? I could ask for some clarification and verify if it's still the original (German) owner, I speaking German. 

[holydarkness]

Nice catch, @OP but do you have a really convincing proof, it's really his Alt Account?
Just sending Merit, even for large amounts as long as posts are at least halfways useful, doesn't prove anything. Do we have more proof like linked BTC / ETH addresses or shared Social Media accounts?
If not, it's just not enough proof in my opinion.  

According to this old digging by decodx, yes, they shared an address and username. This was part of OP's evidence on his opening post, though he can only share link because the thread was locked. It was also repeated here [quoted below], so their alt relationship is pretty much established.

I believe Haunebu and 3kpk3 are alt accounts of the same user. Maybe someone is willing to do a full report?

proof:

SegWit BTC Address: 3NHVD2aUvDqSz1ZU8HhFUjBV8TdDHtCXPA

Bitcointalk Username: 3kpk3
BTC Address for payouts: 3NHVD2aUvDqSz1ZU8HhFUjBV8TdDHtCXPA

BitcoinTalk Username: Haunebu
Telegram Username: kpk33
Bitcoin address: 3NHVD2aUvDqSz1ZU8HhFUjBV8TdDHtCXPA

BTC Address: 3Kjuqbkpdo2D7LQDHWrYrvmcguSrs6Bfnb

Telegram Handle : @kpk333
Bitcoin Address : 3Kjuqbkpdo2D7LQDHWrYrvmcguSrs6Bfnb

Username: Haunebu

[p.s.: I envied your avatar, LOL]

[1miau]

Nice catch, @OP but do you have a really convincing proof, it's really his Alt Account?
Just sending Merit, even for large amounts as long as posts are at least halfways useful, doesn't prove anything. Do we have more proof like linked BTC / ETH addresses or shared Social Media accounts?
If not, it's just not enough proof in my opinion.  

According to this old digging by decodx, yes, they shared an address and username. This was part of OP's evidence on his opening post, though he can only share link because the thread was locked. It was also repeated here [quoted below], so their alt relationship is pretty much established.

Yeah, I didn't click the links in OP, so our case seems pretty obvious here. Many thanks for sharing.


I've re-read everything and especially the quote of theymos about Merit selling got a bit misinterpreted here in my opinion. He said:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

In his statement, he's leaving lots of space for speculation.
Because who defines, what's similarly bad like Merit selling (theymos: "probably anything less than selling merit")?
In my opinion, sending Merit to my Alt Account is such a case. We can still argue if it needs to be deliberate, repeated sending to our Alt Account.

In his quote, I believe theymos only wanted to express to be very lenient how someone spends his sMerit, as long it's not directly involving Merit sales (x Merit for x BTC) or sending Merit to our own Alt Account.
For example even if I send 50 Merit to this post from holydarkness and do it 2x again for similar posts, it's not abuse because
- it's not selling
- holydarkness is not my Alt Account
- the quality provided is enough be be a meritable post (yes, can be argued if it's deserving 50 Merit)

Conclusion:  
In my opinion, a tag to Haunebu Account for Merit abuse would not violate the quote from theymos. Opinions?

[holydarkness]

[...]
I've re-read everything and especially the quote of theymos about Merit selling got a bit misinterpreted here in my opinion. He said:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

In his statement, he's leaving lots of space for speculation.
Because who defines, what's similarly bad like Merit selling (theymos: "probably anything less than selling merit")?
In my opinion, sending Merit to my Alt Account is such a case. We can still argue if it needs to be deliberate, repeated sending to our Alt Account.

In his quote, I believe theymos only wanted to express to be very lenient how someone spends his sMerit, as long it's not directly involving Merit sales (x Merit for x BTC) or sending Merit to our own Alt Account.
For example even if I send 50 Merit to this post from holydarkness and do it 2x again for similar posts, it's not abuse because
- it's not selling
- holydarkness is not my Alt Account
- the quality provided is enough be be a meritable post (yes, can be argued if it's deserving 50 Merit)

Conclusion:  
In my opinion, a tag to Haunebu Account for Merit abuse would not violate the quote from theymos. Opinions?

Sadly, I have to disagree. In my opinion, [negative] tagging Haunebu [and 3kpk3] account for merit abuse would violate the quote from theymos.

The post quoted, as you've very nicely laid out, is about leniency [though I think that case is for Merit Source and about how they exhaust their merit quota]. Combine that with what yahoo said here on #22 that the merit exchange happened close to when the merit system is being introduced and everybody is still fumbling with sending and receiving merit, and that he has never exchanged any between both ever since, there's a huge chance that Haunebu didn't know what he may or may not do with his merit. So, it's a case of merit cluelessness rather than a merit abuse, which warrant even more less [negative] tag. Tagging him for such would step into the realm of "something stupid involving merit".

If a tag should be given, at best, it'll be a neutral tag to indicate the alt-connection to give pointer to campaign manager if he's ever enrolling both of his account on the same campaign, but not for the merit abuse cluelessness.

[1miau]

Sadly, I have to disagree. In my opinion, [negative] tagging Haunebu [and 3kpk3] account for merit abuse would violate the quote from theymos.

I'm really trying to understand, why Haunebu and his Alt 3kpk3 shouldn't be punished for what they did and where it violated the quote from theymos but when doing research on Reputation and Meta, I'm just getting even more convinced, that it would be very deserved to give out a negative tag for both.
Even then, they could create a new account, moving on and (hopefully) learning from the mistake, they did on their old accounts.

Combine that with what yahoo said here on #22 that the merit exchange happened close to when the merit system is being introduced and everybody is still fumbling with sending and receiving merit, and that he has never exchanged any between both ever since, there's a huge chance that Haunebu didn't know what he may or may not do with his merit. So, it's a case of merit cluelessness rather than a merit abuse, which warrant even more less [negative] tag.

The abuse happened until late 2018, where everyone was well aware how Merit should be used, how important it was for ranking up.
We had many guides on Meta, that sending Merit to our own Alt is not allowed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2766177.0

Can I give merit to my alt accounts?

No, this is frowned upon and will almost certainly lead to you receiving negative feedback if discovered.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2766177.0

I just can't believe it's just "Merit cluelessness", it seems much more like deliberately sending it to his own account.
Repeatedly, back and forth, again and again. This abuse happened from April 2018 to November 2018:


https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Haunebu&from=3kpk3


https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=Haunebu&to=3kpk3

This is massive abuse and it's running for over half a year. A total of 39 Merit was abused (16 3kpk3 account, 23 Haunebu account)

I'm not buying the excuse that some members were "clueless" about Merit.
It's everyone's duty to read the Merit guidelines.
Back then, DT's position was very clear that there's no excuse of using Merit fraudulently.
Many abusers played the "I didn't know" / "I'm just a bit clueless" card. But DT called the bluff right away.
And for the case of Haunebu and his Alt 3kpk3, it's very clearly deliberate abuse. Sending Merit to our own Alts is not allowed.

Another important point, why I believe Haunebu and his Alt 3kpk3 shouldn't complain in case DT will tag them, is because we have seen many similar cases.
Like for example here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862145.0
Similar case, where Merit was sent between Alt accounts, Alt Accounts were proven by solid proof.
Abusers got tagged by marlboroza and Lauda. Didn't cause any controversy.
Case happened also in late 2018.
And in my opinion, our Haunebu and 3kpk3 case is much worse.

That's why I believe a negative tag is appropriate and deserved.

[holydarkness]

[...]
The abuse happened until late 2018, where everyone was well aware how Merit should be used, how important it was for ranking up.
[...]

Hmm... I stand corrected on the merit cluelessness. I admit that I didn't check the log [I assume the log didn't cover that far back to 2018, just like the archiver by loyce and ninjastic] and thus didn't aware the full depth of the merit distribution. I assumed that both accounts sent a huge amount of merit once, realized or being warned about it [or got educated by himself] and stopped doing it.

If the distribution was spread evenly throughout the year, then yes, I think Haunebu should be, at one point, aware of the implication of his action and continued on doing so before stopped altogether.

I am now torn for the negative, though. I initially inclined to think that even the merit abuse is proven, then the tag should be a neutral one, given the negative dictate,



and on this case, there were no risk [at least according to my opinion, but I am open for discussion] of trading with Haunebu, i.e., he's not scamming anyone. But your reference of what hilariousandco said moved me an inch or two from my stance. I am now not sure what to do.

May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page]

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.

if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others.

What's your thought on this?

[1miau]

May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page]

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.

if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others.

What's your thought on this?

I'm very much in favor of forgivenness. For example to give people a second chance after they admit their mistake, even for plagiarizing under certain circumstances and that's also why I'm not in favor of our current "ban evasion" rule, because such a rule is exactly the opposite of forgivenness. Everyone needs a fair chance to admit his mistakes and a fair chance to improve.
But I'm also in favor of drawing a clear line to prevent abuse from getting more common. Every member should know that certain practices here are frowned upon and it's important to avoid such abuses, like Haunebu and his Alt did. If these members are really valuable for our comunity, they will admit their mistake, accept the consequences about the involved accounts getting tagged and then, they can start from scratch building a new Account, where such abuses are avoided. That's a fair second chance in my opinion.

As a DT member, consistency is very important for me. When Merit was introduced, the consensus was pretty clear that sending of Merit to our own Alt Accounts will almost certainly lead to red trust.
If Haunebu and his alts are getting out of this untagged, we are at risk, that someone else will come here, setting up a bunch of own Alt Accounts and sending them Merit from his main account. In case he's getting a negative tag (which would be deserved in my opinion) he could point at Haunebu and his Alt, where no negative tag was issued.
And DT would be in trouble to explain it properly because it would be a very inconsistent story.
That's why I'm in favor of tagging the abusers because DT needs to be consistent about our Merit guidelines and issue a fair punishment for the abusing accounts because it's important to prevent abuse in the future.

[holydarkness]

May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page]

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.

if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others.

What's your thought on this?

I'm very much in favor of forgivenness. For example to give people a second chance after they admit their mistake, even for plagiarizing under certain circumstances and that's also why I'm not in favor of our current "ban evasion" rule, because such a rule is exactly the opposite of forgivenness. Everyone needs a fair chance to admit his mistakes and a fair chance to improve.
But I'm also in favor of drawing a clear line to prevent abuse from getting more common. Every member should know that certain practices here are frowned upon and it's important to avoid such abuses, like Haunebu and his Alt did. If these members are really valuable for our comunity, they will admit their mistake, accept the consequences about the involved accounts getting tagged and then, they can start from scratch building a new Account, where such abuses are avoided. That's a fair second chance in my opinion.

As a DT member, consistency is very important for me. When Merit was introduced, the consensus was pretty clear that sending of Merit to our own Alt Accounts will almost certainly lead to red trust.
If Haunebu and his alts are getting out of this untagged, we are at risk, that someone else will come here, setting up a bunch of own Alt Accounts and sending them Merit from his main account. In case he's getting a negative tag (which would be deserved in my opinion) he could point at Haunebu and his Alt, where no negative tag was issued.
And DT would be in trouble to explain it properly because it would be a very inconsistent story.
That's why I'm in favor of tagging the abusers because DT needs to be consistent about our Merit guidelines and issue a fair punishment for the abusing accounts because it's important to prevent abuse in the future.

I took it to my sleep and mulled over it the entire day after, I have to say I'm still inclined more to the idea that as Haunebu did not scam any forum members [at least none proven or being pointed out so far], a negative tag is not warranted [in spite of what hilariousandco said].

In attempt to gain a deeper insight on how to face this matter and what DTs did on such cases, I ventured through the reputation board and from a quick glance that I did, I found that what case of merit abuse warranted is a neutral tag with mention to the said violation, unless there is another violation being involved [account sold, hacked, the merit is being sold/bought, and the likes]. For example, ltcrstrbrt, or the older one, HunnyFinance.

Nonetheless, I have to agree that there should be a consistency in DT on what warrant a tag and what doesn't [though, if I'm not mistaken, the general consensus is cases should be taken on case-by-case basis], and that if this case is not cleared, one might use this case in the future to argue their negative tag.

Thus, unfortunately, the best way I can see from my position right now is to bow down from this thread until there are more DTs giving their opinion on what to do with Haunebu, and I will adhere to the consensus once it is reached. I will respect whatever tag you're leaving to Haunebu and 3kpk3, though.

[1miau]

Thus, unfortunately, the best way I can see from my position right now is to bow down from this thread until there are more DTs giving their opinion on what to do with Haunebu, and I will adhere to the consensus once it is reached. I will respect whatever tag you're leaving to Haunebu and 3kpk3, though.

I've not decided what to do here as well, maybe my tag will be negative or just neutral and mabye the abusers will be lucky this time because DT doesn't seem to care much about the case. Of course, I reserve the right to leave a tag any time as according to our pinned forum Merit guidelines by hilariousandco, a negative tag for this abuse is "almost certainly leading to you to receive negative feedback if discovered" but we'll see.  
For now, OP hasn't replied here, especially regarding my question if I should send Haunebu a PM to give him an opportunity to clarify if he is still the original account owner (another possible abuse: buying /selling Bitcointalk Accounts).

I really don't like how Haunebu reacted when he realized he can get away with it and maybe I'll re-consider a tag if there's more evidence presented that he didn't show any guilt for meriting his Alt excessively / no sign at all, that he regrets his abuse.

Community will judge you

Try harder!..

...

..It's pretty evident that Haunebu is my alt-account..

[xLays]

As of now Haunebu is part of [Crypto.Games] ★ Signature Campaign ★ Hero - Legendary[Full] ★
You can verify it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/166babOzU2gCs7bycNiQ4nq-OJCUObaRs3CVmozubCTE/edit#gid=968004812
3kpk3 is part of COINS.GAME | Most Rewarding Crypto Casino | Signature Campaign Up to $100
Verify here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yy6HjijOFKbHS2DY1yW2vYD9eSVJLaxHj_3jNLKAApk/edit#gid=0

One of the rules of participating Crypto.Games Signature Campaign:

4. Only one account per person is allowed. Alt accounts will be banned from campaign without getting paid during payday. Leave the campaign if any of your previous alt accounts were banned!

And COINS.GAME Signature Campaign

You, a person, are not allowed to enroll with more than one account.

[Little Mouse]

And COINS.GAME Signature Campaign

You, a person, are not allowed to enroll with more than one account.

I think you misunderstood this rule, same as the rule of crypto.games
As forum allow alt account, everyone is free to have more than one account. This rule says you aren't allowed to participate in coins.game campaign with more than one account.
If you are referring to an abuse?

[Solosanz]

One of the rules of participating Crypto.Games Signature Campaign:

4. Only one account per person is allowed. Alt accounts will be banned from campaign without getting paid during payday. Leave the campaign if any of your previous alt accounts were banned!

And COINS.GAME Signature Campaign

You, a person, are not allowed to enroll with more than one account.

Crypto.games rule isn't allow ban evader and cheater to join in their campaign, while Coins.game rule isn't allow cheater.

Both of them participate in different campaign, when a campaign manager said only one account per person is allowed, it's not mean the other account can't participate in the other campaign.

Go catch him where he use two accounts to apply in the same campaign.

[1miau]

One of the rules of participating Crypto.Games Signature Campaign:

4. Only one account per person is allowed. Alt accounts will be banned from campaign without getting paid during payday. Leave the campaign if any of your previous alt accounts were banned!

And COINS.GAME Signature Campaign

You, a person, are not allowed to enroll with more than one account.

It's just a rule relevant for each campaign, so if he enrolled both of his accounts in the same campaign, he would violate the rule and DT could tag him. However, since he just enrolled 1 Account for each campaign, he's not violating the rule. But could be interesting to follow (or to track) if he enrolled both Accounts in the same campaign in the past. If so, a negative Tag for Signature campaign abuse would be appropriate.

Edit: Solosanz and Little Mouse were faster, thanks for stepping in.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Most DT members stopped tagging or won't tag just merit abusers, however, if there is evidence that the person behind the alt accounts has been cheating on multiple signature or bounty campaigns using his alt accounts. This is when most members could come out to negative tag the offender and his alts.

I remember tagging a number of members who were involved in merit abuse, but the major reason was bounty abuse. The merit system abuse mostly helped me to connect their accounts.

[xLays]

And COINS.GAME Signature Campaign

You, a person, are not allowed to enroll with more than one account.

I think you misunderstood this rule, same as the rule of crypto.games
As forum allow alt account, everyone is free to have more than one account. This rule says you aren't allowed to participate in coins.game campaign with more than one account.
If you are referring to an abuse?

Im just giving some insight here about this accounts.

About the rules you provide maybe I should not put it on my 1st post since yeah it might irrelevant. But yes you allowed to participate a person that his alt account is already in another campaign (Not really allowed let say you just didn;t know about it) but the crypto.games rules he really violated it at the time he/she used alternative accounts to join that campaign.

As stated of the rules of crypto.games signature campaign:

4. Only one account per person is allowed. Alt accounts will be banned from campaign without getting paid during payday. Leave the campaign if any of your previous alt accounts were banned!

Now that you know about these accounts, will you still allow or continue to participate the mentioned accounts to your campaign?

[Bitcoin_Arena]

About the rules you provide maybe I should not put it on my 1st post since yeah it might irrelevant. But yes you allowed to participate a person that his alt account is already in another campaign (Not really allowed let say you just didn;t know about it) but the crypto.games rules he really violated it at the time he/she used alternative accounts to join that campaign.

I don't really understand what point you are trying to drive in.

Question:
1. Did Haunebu and 3kpk3 apply and get enrolled in the said signature campaign at one point? If yes, please provide the information in this thread.