Marcotheminer the Ban Evader

[peligro]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

It was meant as a joke.

[uki]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

Resetting trust score when IP changes is a bad idea. It wouldn't be a problem if it is investigated before resetting. IP addresses can change anytime for a person.

   -MZ

[uki]

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

Resetting trust score when IP changes is a bad idea. It wouldn't be a problem if it is investigated before resetting. IP addresses can change anytime for a person.

   -MZ

Of course that the change of the IP address alone shouldn't be the reason for reset. But if there is more evidence that the account was sold that should be enforced. we may discuss what are the right criteria, e.g., different range of IP addresses and devices than in the last three months, etc.
Until such rules are enforced the trust will stay absolutely meaningless.

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

[uki]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

[hilariousandco]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

[bitcoin_bagholder]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

Haha I didn't even notice it could be read that way but it's obvious what it means.

[BadBear]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

Probably. I was in a hurry and just wanted to make a quick comment.

Some funny responses though.   

[uki]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

Please, read my first post in this thread again. I also think it is unrealistic to believe that the trading of the accounts can be stopped. But, a bigger efforts can be made to put more trust into the trust ranking, and where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

[shorena]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

[crazyearner]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

Please, read my first post in this thread again. I also think it is unrealistic to believe that the trading of the accounts can be stopped. But, a bigger efforts can be made to put more trust into the trust ranking, and where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

Trading accounts can be stopped it is what security measures are in place. For example if IP changes and location changes on an account it could easily be locked and then have someone contact from the original email it was made and also provide documents to provide it is  their account or give veiled reasons as to why their was an IP change. If it constantly changes to different locations then that account can simply be suspended. I have all sorts of things in place to stop this happening from exchanging accounts to people selling them. Had all the excuses given me and I simply ban. Their is no good reason as to why someone should sell an account on other than to make profit from it or to be illegal  activity or something that does not quite add up to the point of selling trading or exchanging an account.

[uki]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

Nope, because that would open another door for scammers. But I believe, you know what I meant. I am saying about the positive trust that is bought together with the accounts. So to take into account your case, instead of reset, add -50000 to trust, if there is clear evidence that the account was traded.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

Nope, because that would open another door for scammers. But I believe, you know what I meant. I am saying about the positive trust that is bought together with the accounts. So to take into account your case, instead of reset add -50000 to trust, if there is evidence that the account was traded.

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

[uki]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

[Quickseller]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

Your argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that the previous owner would no longer have an incentive not to scam if their account has a large amount of positive trust if/when they are in need of money

[bitgeek]

In the above case what is the difference between buying an account with positive trust and buying trust? AFAIK the latter is not allowed.
If a transaction where an account with high positive trust (or default trust) is noticed the account should be tagged by a staff member and the account removed from default trust.

It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Yes it negates the chance of you being scammed but allows you to freely scam others, especially if you bought the account.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

People and especially scammers know how to calculate the risk. If you paid 1 BTC for the account just offer to sell something on the marketplace with no escrow for 2 BTC and send the guy a brick - pure profit.

[Quickseller]

In the above case what is the difference between buying an account with positive trust and buying trust? AFAIK the latter is not allowed.

Buying trust is receiving trust when a trade did not actually occur (e.g. a shell trade) while buying an account with positive trust is buying an account with a certain level of prestige. There is no forum rule against buying trust however most people (myself included) look down on such activity.

If a transaction where an account with high positive trust (or default trust) is noticed the account should be tagged by a staff member and the account removed from default trust.

No. This is not the job of the staff/forum administration.

It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Yes it negates the chance of you being scammed but allows you to freely scam others, especially if you bought the account.

No. Because there is still a chance that your scam attempt is called out and when this happens your initial investment of the price of the account would go down the drain

[uki]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

Your argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that the previous owner would no longer have an incentive not to scam if their account has a large amount of positive trust if/when they are in need of money

Sorry, it looks like you missed the point again. Please re-read my earlier posts again. The thesis is: the current trust rating system is not working, because it is ignoring the fact that accounts may be traded. Due to that fact, it is just a meaningless number.