>See, the problem is you keep drawing false equivilancies trying to prove your null point. have absolutely no bearing on anything we are talking about here
Let's take it down to basics:
1. "Rape, murder, etc" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)
2. "account dealing" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are could be created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)
See the similarity my analogy tries to highlight?
No, you are using rape/murder's lack of 100% enforcement as justification for your point that even if it is unenforcable, you should try. You say, well rapes and murders aren't 100% solved, but there are still laws! Which is 100% incorrect on all levels.
First, selling accounts whether it is against the rules or not is not a crime, nor is it morally indecent to the same extent a violent crime is. You keep claiming that rape and murder are not 100% stoppable, but there are still laws against them. It is enforcable with life in prison or a death sentence, which is enough to disuade most people. Banning an account wouldn't dissuade anyone who is selling accounts.
Are you saying account banning is pointless, and knowing an account could be banned is not a deterrent? But I thought this forum banned accounts?
Am I mistaken?
Second, if you kill someone, there is a body, forensic evidence, etc. If people didn't publicly post about account selling, there would be absolutely no way of knowing that it was happening. What you propose is that moderators scattershot ban people in a completely unfair way, again to solve such a miniscule problem, or what you percieve as a problem.
You do understand that there are different levels of proof required for different transgressions, right? You must, because otherwise you couldn't possibly ban ban-evading accounts, where's the proof? Where's the due process? And yet, I'm sure it happens. How?
Many transgressions are punished on "more likely than not" basis, such as a 5-yr-old being made to stand in a corner for eating his cookies during class - no trial, no jury.
But all this is strictly irrelevant, because you're simultaneously arguing that there's nothing wrong with accounts being bought and sold, or, to use the wording from my previous post, dealing in bitcointalk accounts is not a
thing we do not want to happen.
Please make your position on this clear, since I'm not here to waste anyone's time.
If you think that buying & selling forum accounts is a good thing, and are happy that accounts are being traded, what's the point of discussing enforcement possibilities of rules against it?