[POLL] What to do in cases where an alt account is evading a sigban?

[JollyGood]

This seems a fairly acceptable action and I doubt many members would disagree with it.

If an account has a signature ban then all known alt (or farmed accounts) should receive signature bans as all of the accounts are being controlled by one puppeteer. If need be, it can be assessed individually rather than an immediate ban across all accounts as and when it occurs but what are the chances that there would be any goodwill shown to one account when another operated by the same puppeteer has received a signature ban?

Since an "alt account" is considered a circumvention of the "signature ban" rule, it's natural that banning any account will result in banning all alt accounts.

As for applying the rule, it's best to treat each case individually. If the alternate account is posting high-quality content, the ban period should be short, as the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of posts.

[DireWolfM14]

Where can I find this topic?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5394559.0

[Mahiyammahi]

I think they already get a red tag from DT member's but still sig ban is needed . They are exploiting the system , Using alt account is not prohibited but what if after building a reputation they just exit scammed with a big amount of money.

So I think only one account should be allow in sig campaign. Although some campaign manager explicitly allows alt account in their campaign unless they are not participating on the same campaigns with two accounts.

I certainly don't allow more than one account in a single campaign (I have a rule about it). If I find out that more than one account applied from a single person, I warn them and ask not to do it again otherwise they will get tag. I could tag them immediately but I always is a soft person (I guess and allow to give chances without destroying someone completely. Sometimes it brings criticism to me but that's okay. I do what I feel is right to do). One can hate it but the truth is many people depends on the income from this community. Thanks to Bitcoin and the ecosystem created by Bitcoin around this community. In my opinion, it's very powerful.

When a person have more than one account and if they join in different campaign from those accounts, it's fine to me.

If I'm not wrong Hhmpuz also said similar thing , but couldn't find it. They even sometimes allows red tagged user's even though the user is related with scam , abuse.

So a sig ban should apply to that person not in account.

[mindrust]

I voted last option for laughs, but I was surprised to see that it had already 3 other users having voted too and apparently it's having highest voted option as of now so forum be like, 'In Nutildah we trust'.

same here xd

technically tho, you should ban the ban evading acc as well but this can get out of hand easily because you'll need solid proof of that account being an alt. to be on the safer side, you can wait for that alt to post shit all the time and then sig ban based on that pattern. otherwise, it can get messy real quick.

logic says ban the alt too but it might backfire in the long run if you are not careful.

[AB de Royse777]

They even sometimes allows red tagged user's even though the user is related with scam , abuse.

In terms of scam - I don't think any of us managers allow a member in the signature campaign if we find out the user was/is involved in a scam. The red tag these days don't mean anything unless it's given by some users who are aware of using the feedback system properly.

[joker_josue]

I can't imagine a scenario, unless it's for mischief, where a user would create an alternate account without disclosing that they already have one. There might be a reason, I can't see it, but if anyone can point to it, I'd appreciate it.

The reason is freedom of speech without consequences to your main account:

If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

I understand... but...

This led to this alternative account having very few activity, or very specific activity. Unless a person spends their life saying controversial things, in which case that second account becomes the first account.

Furthermore, even in this scenario, I don't see the need to create a third or fourth account. In other words, you can use just one account to be controversial.


It should be noted that I continued to believe that, since this forum is a space for free opinion, people should not be ashamed to express their opinion. The fact that a person has to create a secondary account to express their opinion does not demonstrate the existence of freedom of expression; quite the opposite.



In turn, do you think it's too harsh of me to always leave a neutral tag whenever I find an account that I think is alternative?  

[Pandu Geddon]

So a sig ban should apply to that person not in account.

Regarding sigban, handling it on a case by case basis isn’t really a problem. If there’s one sigban account and a user finds their alt account with solid proof, that actually helps for development because it means all of their alt accounts could possibly get sigbanned too. Actions like that really shouldn’t take too long. 

The posting activity pattern from an account controlled by one person is most likely the same. Especially for accounts that just woke up, they will be very active on threads that are easy to get Merit, or aggressively apply for campaigns on the first post after being offline for a long time. 
But there’s also another possibility when it comes to accounts that have changed hands.

[LoyceV]

It should be noted that I continued to believe that, since this forum is a space for free opinion, people should not be ashamed to express their opinion.

Feeling ashamed of your opinion implies that you know your opinion is (morally) wrong.

The fact that a person has to create a secondary account to express their opinion does not demonstrate the existence of freedom of expression; quite the opposite.

This post comes to mind:

Great one LoyceV.
Getting to a status where you state your intendent opinion without fear is an absolute freedom.

Bitcointalk is a scary place, especially for Newbies. Remember the days Lauda would go around and tag 500+ accounts in a single day? I get that many users don't feel safe posting anything they want.

In turn, do you think it's too harsh of me to always leave a neutral tag whenever I find an account that I think is alternative?  

It's part of the freedom this place offers

[JollyGood]

It can become problematic therefore simple steps can be implemented. Only confirmed known farmed accounts and alt-accounts should be given a ban after one of their associated accounts receives a signature ban. Even if there is not enough evidence to link them (as farmed accounts or alt-accounts), the other accounts can still receive bans based on their own post history and activity.

technically tho, you should ban the ban evading acc as well but this can get out of hand easily because you'll need solid proof of that account being an alt. to be on the safer side, you can wait for that alt to post shit all the time and then sig ban based on that pattern. otherwise, it can get messy real quick.

logic says ban the alt too but it might backfire in the long run if you are not careful.