Tagging alt/farmed accounts when they are making loan repayments

[JollyGood]

I had thought about the subject before on several occasions but did not create a thread to invite discussion. As it was raised in a different thread recently, I decided the time was appropriate to create this thread. I doubt there will be consensus on this matter, nevertheless the question is very important.

What should the community do with regards to either neutral or negative tags (depending on the situation) when it becomes known that an account is not only a farmed account or alt-account, it has also taken a loan (or several loans using several of the farmed accounts) and those loans are being repaid as agreed with the lender.

When/if the lender asks the community not to tag the accounts as they might be removed from campaigns thus bringing an end to receiving any more payments, you can understand their predicament as they want their money returned with any interest that was agreed.

Having said that, if farmed accounts and alt-accounts were/are being used to effectively engage in merit abuse, trust abuse, cheating campaigns and/or other nefarious activity then they should not consider themselves as being privileged or untouchable by virtue of taking loans. They should not be using as leverage the fact they will not make loan repayments if they are removed from campaigns because they have received tags.

Where should the community stand on this?

[Free Market Capitalist]

I’m not sure what the community will do, but I know exactly what I’m going to do: I’ll red-tag people if there’s a reason to do so, regardless of whether they have an active loan. The only thing is, I’m not as active on these issues lately. But given the cases we’ve seen, I’m done letting people who break the rules get away with it—especially since, in most cases, they end up defaulting anyway.

[stompix]

Tags should be given to everybody, no matter their forum business!

I'm sorry for Shasan if he lends money to spammers and account farmers but he also makes money from spammers and account farmers!
This thing of not tagging people who owe money because they might not pay back makes no sense whatsoever!

Let's assume I'm an account farmer or spammer and I know that the loan is the only thing keeping my account safe, what are my choices?
- I disappear and fuck the debt, which means the tag was right from the start as I was a risk
- I keep the loan going as much as I can because once that protection is gone, they will tag me, which basically means I pay protection money

[hugeblack]

I gave both @Xcode7 and @jems a chance, and they ended up requesting more loans/repayment extensions and not repaying them at all.

Therefore, not taking any action against them will likely lead to continued scam, and it's best to add negative trust as soon as alt accounts are discovered.

[shasan]

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction. Though there might have some other cases eg: abuse trust system, joined on the same campaign while announced alt account is not allowed, merit exchange, loan default, scam by any account. When any account fall into these then all the accounts can be tagged.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction.

Please put examples of those alleged red tagged accounts just because they are alts.

[ABCbits]

FWIW, some user found out account with many neutral/negative tags accepted on signature campaign.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5535279.msg66553848#msg66553848
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575985.msg66467314#msg66467314

So IMO there's far less reason not to tag such alt/farm account.

[Oshosondy]

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction.

Please put examples of those alleged red tagged accounts just because they are alts.

If you did not quote Shasan full posts, what you quote has different meaning. Shasan also added there might be other cases which are abuse trust system, joined on the same campaign while announced alt account is not allowed, merit exchange, loan default, scam by any account.

I have seen accounts that abused the merit system before by sending merit to their alt and they are given red tag. But if it is just about alts that has not committed any violations, they can not be tagged.

[LoyceV]

Where should the community stand on this?

I try to be conservative with negative feedback, but when I think it's deserved, I not going to to stop myself from tagging someone because of a loan. If that were to become the de facto standard, I wouldn't be surprised if account farmers start taking loan as a guarantee against getting tagged. That's the opposite of what we need.

~which basically means I pay protection money

Well said.

[The Cryptovator]

What should the community do with regards to either neutral or negative tags (depending on the situation) when it becomes known that an account is not only a farmed account or alt-account, it has also taken a loan (or several loans using several of the farmed accounts) and those loans are being repaid as agreed with the lender.

If the loan is repaid and the alts haven't abused the campaign, then don't necessarily tag them. I will not tag such users from my end since using alts is allowed as long as they don't abuse the trust system, including abuse campaigns. But whether users or alts take a loan or not, I will tag them if they abuse the campaign or trust system.

When/if the lender asks the community not to tag the accounts as they might be removed from campaigns thus bringing an end to receiving any more payments, you can understand their predicament as they want their money returned with any interest that was agreed.

Has the lender asked the DT members or community before giving the loan? Then the lender shouldn't request not to tag the abuser or cheater. Taking loans shouldn't be considered abusing licences. Lending isn't forum business, but the trust system implemented by the forum and DT members must have to take care of it.

Having said that, if farmed accounts and alt-accounts were/are being used to effectively engage in merit abuse, trust abuse, cheating campaigns and/or other nefarious activity then they should not consider themselves as being privileged or untouchable by virtue of taking loans. They should not be using as leverage the fact they will not make loan repayments if they are removed from campaigns because they have received tags.

Where should the community stand on this?

I am not sure about the whole community, but probably I will tag. It's the lender's responsibility to take back his loan; he doesn't necessarily get back loans from the campaign payments. Campaign managers never engage with lenders nor take the responsibility. Why should the abused take advantage of the loan and stay safe instead of abusing the campaigns or abusing the trust system? Doesn't make sense at all.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction.

Please put examples of those alleged red tagged accounts just because they are alts.

If you did not quote Shasan full posts, what you quote has different meaning. Shasan also added there might be other cases which are abuse trust system, joined on the same campaign while announced alt account is not allowed, merit exchange, loan default, scam by any account.

If your reading comprehension sucks, don't go around lecturing people, otherwise you'll just end up looking like a fool.

Here is what shasan said:

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction. Though there might have some other cases eg: abuse trust system, joined on the same campaign while announced alt account is not allowed, merit exchange, loan default, scam by any account. When any account fall into these then all the accounts can be tagged.

In the first part, I've put the general statement in bold, and then I've made very big the key words that indicate that, according to Sashan, there are exceptions to that general rule.

So, no, I haven't misquoted sashan, rather you are trying to lecture me when you don't even understand what he said.

There you go—a kindergarten-level explanation just for you.

[examplens]

Based on the forum rules alt account is allowed. Still few people give negative trust based on their own satisfaction. Though there might have some other cases eg: abuse trust system, joined on the same campaign while announced alt account is not allowed, merit exchange, loan default, scam by any account. When any account fall into these then all the accounts can be tagged.

You went a little outside the substance of what is being discussed here.
In your case, if you give 3 loans to three different altaccounts, you've actually given 3x loans to the same person. That doesn't make sense to me.
The community does not want to make it more difficult for you to return your investment, so it refrains from negative marking, which implies that, in some way, you are keeping multiaccounters alive in signature campaigns.
You're right, alt accounts are allowed on this forum, but abuse is not.
Does this method seem like an abuse of an alt account to you?

[DireWolfM14]

This forum can be so myopic at times.  Getting paid to post isn't the only way to earn money, and being in a signature campaign isn't a requirement to pay beck your debts.  Of course there are people on LoyceV's weekly list who have red-tags who I would trust with thousands of dollars, campaign or not.

If some account is involved in nefarious activity, the person witnessing and exposing that activity has an obligation to the entire community, not just one person among us.  Lending is risky business, and shouldn't be taken lightly.  If one of us chooses to take that risk, the blame for not thoroughly vetting the borrowers is his and his alone.

[yahoo62278]

The lender knows the risks when lending the money. It's not up to the community to protect their money and turn a blind eye to an account that deserves negative trust. When a lender gives a collateral only loan they are protected if this situation arises, if they give a no collateral loan they are not. The lender should have some idea of the borrowers character before deciding whether to give a no collateral loan.

IMO if a tag is valid, the loan is a non topic.

[Revolution2025]

JollyGood will always be a jobless attention seeker. Loaning is a risky business, if the lender decides to take the risks of allowing alt accounts to take a loan what is your fucking business. Nothing is wrong with taking a loan using multiple accounts if the lender didn't state that no using of alt account in his loan thread. It will only become an issue if the loan is defaulted by either of the accounts. Even the most famous lender shasan did not state no application with an alt account so why is it a problem to you jobless attention seeking JollyGood. This is a forum that we don't know our real names and identity, loans are supposed to come with a collateral but when a lender ignores and accept a non collateral loan, he should dance to the music that plays thereafter.

If alt account cheats for other reasons, you have the right to red tag them even if they are owing loans.

The lender knows the risks when lending the money. It's not up to the community to protect their money and turn a blind eye to an account that deserves negative trust. When a lender gives a collateral only loan they are protected if this situation arises, if they give a no collateral loan they are not. The lender should have some idea of the borrowers character before deciding whether to give a no collateral loan.

IMO if a tag is valid, the loan is a non topic.

You are a man with so much wisdom, i envy your height of intelligence. Keep it up and any day i get sMerits remind me to merit your post pls.

[lovesmayfamilis]

If some account is involved in nefarious activity, the person witnessing and exposing that activity has an obligation to the entire community, not just one person among us.  Lending is risky business, and shouldn't be taken lightly.  If one of us chooses to take that risk, the blame for not thoroughly vetting the borrowers is his and his alone.

That's exactly what I said once.

Don't feel sorry for those who give loans. That's their problem. Their problem is how they decide to trust the person they're lending to.

Then, when there is another drama about negative tags, and ignoring tags from DT, the question arises: do we, the whole community, need to understand that someone has a business here on the forum? At a certain point, this business becomes something that is "a kind of security guarantee," which I also mentioned earlier.

Sure. If we see similar requests from the lender not to touch these accounts, then this is a kind of protection against negative tags (just in case). It's a kind of insurance that the taker pays the lender as a percentage, just like we all pay for insurance offline.

But the creditor, in those moments when he does not receive payments, appeals to the community with a request not to cause any damage to the debtors, since they, by their very nature, "have not done anything wrong to anyone," but only owe him a debt. Although he had not previously listened to the tags from DT.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3504269

The question is, does the forum profit from the lender, so how should everyone get into the "position"?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[rat03gopoh]

When a lender gives a collateral only loan they are protected if this situation arises, if they give a no collateral loan they are not. The lender should have some idea of the borrowers character before deciding whether to give a no collateral loan.

Well, I almost wrote the same idea. Collateral is key to a successful lending business. If lenders don't want to protect themselves from any risks from the start, why should the community bother with that?
I've read the community's default rule of "no collateral, no loan," but I don't recall any actual lending transactions following this rule since I've been on this forum.

[Rikafip]

Not tagging someone just because he has a loan would only entice others to do the same, and I don't see how this forum would benefit from that.

So yeah, I am going to keep tagging those who I believe deserve a red tag, regardless of whether they currently have active loan or not.

[JollyGood]

I’m not sure what the community will do, but I know exactly what I’m going to do: I’ll red-tag people if there’s a reason to do so, regardless of whether they have an active loan. The only thing is, I’m not as active on these issues lately. But given the cases we’ve seen, I’m done letting people who break the rules get away with it—especially since, in most cases, they end up defaulting anyway.

This opinion resonates with me. There have been cases in the past where I refrained from tagging because the lender requested not to tag but I decided I would not do it again. If a tag is warranted, the account will be tagged and any associated loan (or potential defaulting of a loan) is a different matter altogether.

Tags should be given to everybody, no matter their forum business!

For me, that is the ideal principle that members should be following.

I try to be conservative with negative feedback, but when I think it's deserved, I not going to to stop myself from tagging someone because of a loan. If that were to become the de facto standard, I wouldn't be surprised if account farmers start taking loan as a guarantee against getting tagged. That's the opposite of what we need.

Sending a message to members that have taken loans that they are exempt from tags because ultimately the lender will suffer with loan defaults, would be massive mistake. That pattern should not be normalised in the forum.

Has the lender asked the DT members or community before giving the loan? Then the lender shouldn't request not to tag the abuser or cheater. Taking loans shouldn't be considered abusing licences. Lending isn't forum business, but the trust system implemented by the forum and DT members must have to take care of it.

Ultimately, the lender has taken a risk by giving the loan therefore has to face the consequences in the event the loan is defaulted.

IMO if a tag is valid, the loan is a non topic.

That is the basic fact of the matter, the loan should never be factored in when contemplating whether an account deserves a tag or not.

JollyGood will always be a jobless attention seeker. Loaning is a risky business, if the lender decides to take the risks of allowing alt accounts to take a loan what is your fucking business. Nothing is wrong with taking a loan using multiple accounts if the lender didn't state that no using of alt account in his loan thread. It will only become an issue if the loan is defaulted by either of the accounts. Even the most famous lender shasan did not state no application with an alt account so why is it a problem to you jobless attention seeking JollyGood. This is a forum that we don't know our real names and identity, loans are supposed to come with a collateral but when a lender ignores and accept a non collateral loan, he should dance to the music that plays thereafter.

If alt account cheats for other reasons, you have the right to red tag them even if they are owing loans.

Why use your alt-account to post?

It would have been interesting had you posted using your regular (or one of your regular) accounts