Be aware of nutildah -- a probable bought account

[Stalker22]

You earlier claimed that you never posted a wallet address before.

Posting a wallet address and staking a wallet address are not the same thing.  You should know that.

[owlcatz]

Posting a wallet address and staking a wallet address are not the same thing.  You should know that.

100%. I feel a bit dumber after wasting my time reading all this bs, but I know nutildah is the same dude as ten years ago.

[AB de Royse777]

I said I never staked an address

You're naturally playful, and I love that about you :-D

[Revolution2025]

nutildah account has changed password multiple times. it is sufficient evidence to tell that the account has either been sold or compromised but you all blind bartimaeus will still defend. hypocrites, that's what you all are

@stompix. If your goal is just to tag people without checking the facts simply to maintain your presence on the Reputation board, then you are welcome to do so. I will get back to you later, as I haven't had the time to look into your background yet.

stompix is another retard who gives negative tags even for situation that deserves just a neutral tag. an obvious abuse of the trust system but his co hypocrites will still leave him in their trust lists.

Supposed it's not you, but someone else did that long ago, would you tag their account as a DT member? I feel like most of the DT members would have red-painted the account by now if it were someone else.

let me help you with such user. AakZaki

[Shishir99]

It was me. My account has never been compromised. If you read the original sales pitch, it sounds like something I would say, haha. This was about 2 years into the 12 years I've been here. If anyone feels this admission is grounds to tag me, or that I'm lying, they definitely should tag me, I won't even try to stop you.

I don't think anyone would tag you for that, given your current reputation and the fact that the account trade was acceptable at the time. But I am curious about your own opinion. Supposed it's not you, but someone else did that long ago, would you tag their account as a DT member? I feel like most of the DT members would have red-painted the account by now if it were someone else. I believe the current reputation matters.

If the account sell was allowed/tolerated, then it should be fine. I learned that even the moderators were trading accounts back then. If account selling was fine, why are you guys tagging accounts that haven't scammed anyone? Who created this standard? I am curious.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

If the account sell was allowed/tolerated, then it should be fine. I learned that even the moderators were trading accounts back then. If account selling was fine, why are you guys tagging accounts that haven't scammed anyone? Who created this standard? I am curious.

What you call ‘standard’ is a matter of common sense, I think. Ten years ago, the merit system hadn’t been introduced yet. If you discover that someone bought a Legendary account six months ago, it’s more normal to leave a red tag on their profile – especially as this is usually accompanied by shitposting, merit exchanges between alts, and so on. I think it is fair to say that this person has, in a way, scammed the forum, because they have paid money to avoid having to earn the necessary merits themselves – as well as investing the time required – in order to reach a high rank and monetise their account. What’s more, they would surely not have been able to achieve the necessary merits.

If you discover that someone bought an account 10 years ago and has behaved impeccably over the past 10 years, it’s normal not to leave a red tag on their profile.

[nutildah]

Supposed it's not you, but someone else did that long ago, would you tag their account as a DT member?

For putting their account up for sale 10 years ago, without there being any evidence it was actually sold? No, I would not tag them. I have already decided I wouldn't tag a certain bounty manager with a bought account, seeing as how the sale took place a long time ago. There are a few other known bought accounts that contribute positively to the forum, and I haven't tagged them either.

If the account sell was allowed/tolerated, then it should be fine. I learned that even the moderators were trading accounts back then. If account selling was fine, why are you guys tagging accounts that haven't scammed anyone? Who created this standard? I am curious.

I look at it this way. Do you know what "Stolen Valor" is? That's what account buying is. Someone might be too stupid to ever accrue enough merits to ever rank up to Legendary, so they just buy a Legendary account. However, their posts are still stupid. So they get accepted into a campaign simply because they're Legendary, even though their posts read like a Jr Member's. This cheapens the value of the Legendary or Hero status. That's Stolen Valor.

Its an insult to anyone who actually took the time to work their way up to Legendary.

Campaign managers (Stake is a good example) that only accept Hero or Legendary members into their campaigns have that rule because supposedly these are higher quality posting ranks. But that idea is completely undermined by allowing bought accounts to participate. People who buy accounts are usually terribly shitty writers, and that's why they have to buy the account.

So account buying is simply stupid all the way around and should no longer be tolerated.