^^^^
>the harm that some laws do
Sure. Just like some foods can be rotten. Extrapolating from this that *all* food is rotten & thus we should stop eating is nonsense.
This forum has some, albeit vague, unformalized and selectively enforced,laws rules. Are you arguing that these should be tossed, because of the "harm that some laws do"?
>but then they would make another and sell via a different method.
Let's not keep treading over the same ground. I've outlined what should be done:
1. prohibit bitcointalk account sales in general
2. enforce the policy in the market section, like you enforce "no drugs/guns/CP"
3. if sufficient evidence exists* of account no longer being used by original owner, ban it.
4. if sufficient evidence exists* of a user selling accounts, ban it.
5. Tell n00bs that accounts may be bought and sold off-forum.
Tell them that the simple fact that account sales are forbidden doesn't imply that it never happens.
Tell them about the birds and the bees & the Easter Bunny, if you think so little of their intelligence.
Tell them not to leave their money on the street and expect it to stay there, even though stealing is forbidden.
Teach them about life, Salty!
I mean, you already educate them with "default trust," because they wouldn't know who to trust without it
* You can spot people avoiding bans, and (likely) don't require absolute proof. This shouldn't be any different.
>the harm that some laws do
Sure. Just like some foods can be rotten. Extrapolating from this that *all* food is rotten & thus we should stop eating is nonsense.
This forum has some, albeit vague, unformalized and selectively enforced,
>but then they would make another and sell via a different method.
[...]I'd be happy if account dealing was done outside of the forum. This would make trading in bitcointalk accounts less frictionless, require more wits than simply making posts in the Digital Goods/Auctions subs, and thus less profitable.
Less profitable = less financial incentive. Take away financial incentive, and, as my rudimentary knowledge of economics suggests, will happen less.
[...]
Less profitable = less financial incentive. Take away financial incentive, and, as my rudimentary knowledge of economics suggests, will happen less.
[...]
Let's not keep treading over the same ground. I've outlined what should be done:
1. prohibit bitcointalk account sales in general
2. enforce the policy in the market section, like you enforce "no drugs/guns/CP"
3. if sufficient evidence exists* of account no longer being used by original owner, ban it.
4. if sufficient evidence exists* of a user selling accounts, ban it.
5. Tell n00bs that accounts may be bought and sold off-forum.
Tell them that the simple fact that account sales are forbidden doesn't imply that it never happens.
Tell them about the birds and the bees & the Easter Bunny, if you think so little of their intelligence.
Tell them not to leave their money on the street and expect it to stay there, even though stealing is forbidden.
Teach them about life, Salty!
I mean, you already educate them with "default trust," because they wouldn't know who to trust without it
* You can spot people avoiding bans, and (likely) don't require absolute proof. This shouldn't be any different.
See, the problem is you keep drawing false equivilancies trying to prove your null point. Rotten food, rape, murder, etc have absolutely no bearing on anything we are talking about here, and you just keep saying the same ideas over and over, even though they have been proven wrong.
Ok, if we ban the sales in general, you are right, people will stop posting about it here. You are correct.
"Just like we enforce the no drugs/guns/CP" Again, correct, we can remove these things from out site. But what you are asking is that we prevent these things from going on on other sites. If people do shady things through IRC or what have you that has absolutely no effect on this forum. If people sell accounts through IRC or what have you that still effects the forum.
Now we are getting somewhere. "If sufficient evidence exists of a user selling accounts, ban it" Ok, who is going to be the judge? Where do we draw the line as to what is sufficient? If I'm 50% sure that you bought that account you are posting on right now, does that give me the right to ban it? What evidence do we use to prove that someone bought an account? Are we going to use our non existant user identification program, or are we going to listen to trolls posting in meta to decide if an account has been purchased or sold?
your proposition opens a whole new can of worms. "If I think so little of their intelligence" to have to warn people that anonymous online non reversable payments can be dangerous if you don't know what you are doing? Isn't it more insulting to someone's intelligence to try to protect them with futile measures against issues that they can prevent themselves? We have two pages of discussion saying that people scamming with purchased accounts is nearly non existant and there are no proven cases besides someone who posted something out of the ordinary before scamming. Why would you want to open up a way for moderator abuse for a nonexistant issue, other than that its "embarassing" to you for whatever reason.
The only way you are going to understand why you are wrong is if you go manage your own forum and try whatever you want to stop account sales. Let me know how that goes.