Quote from: actmyname on January 04, 2017, 03:51:18 PM

Quote from: moonpie45 on January 03, 2017, 01:47:53 AM

A few more examples of account sellers that Lauda/Lutpin has failed to leave negative trust for:

achow101
blazed
mexxer-2
KWH
shorena
zazarb
redsn0w
yahoo62278
grtthegreat

EAL (buyer, not a seller)

I would like to know why Lauda/Lutpin are not going to leave any kind of a negative trust rating on any of the above.

Would time play a factor in this, given that most of these are over a year old? (apart from grtthegreat's thread)

Of course, this doesn't mean that the account sales had never happened, but what is true is that they are no longer actively involved in account sale activity. Even if DT members would hound after account sellers, who do you think should be targeted first? Individuals who were involved in it a year ago, or individuals who are currently selling/buying accounts?

No, why would time play a factor in this? If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied.

There is no statue of limitations for being called a scammer, nor for receiving negative trust.

Since both Lauda and Lutpin are now aware that the above people have at least attempted to sell accounts, they should leave a negative rating for them, just as they have for everyone else that have engaged in similar activity, right?

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on January 04, 2017, 03:55:22 PM

Definitely!The time when account sales didn't provoke as much signature spam and potential scams as of now.

If anything it would be the opposite, when signature campaigns were paying higher rates, providing higher incentives for spammers, and a lower threshold for spammers to break even after buying an account.

Quote from: Odd on January 04, 2017, 04:59:44 AM

@moonpie45 - Giving -ve trust to account sellers became a hype only within this past few months and that does not include those persons above. You can read also that ratings/trust are put on as a "personal" thing. It is Lauda's or other DT's choice to give +ve or -ve to users, it's personal.

I don't think it is right for personal feelings to be involved in trust ratings. That sounds unethical to me.

Quote from: KWH on January 03, 2017, 04:19:04 AM

If they want to leave feedback, they are free to. I see you don't live your convictions since you have abstained. If I had something to hide, I would have used a throw away account like you and others do.
Life must be pathetic for you, sitting on this and other forums, digging through years of posts only to try to cause trouble for an equally pathetic "agenda". Sad existence, I truly feel sorry for you but it will be short lived.
You can don another toss away account and play house with your other accounts all you want as I laugh at the childishness of it all.

Quote from: KWH on January 03, 2017, 03:34:06 AM

Obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong point. Care to finish that short thread and report back?
Why not post with one of your many other accounts, maybe a higher ranked but slightly more red?

It looks like you posted that you cancelled the sale when you said that you received too many low-ball offers. If we were to operate under the assumption that you really did not follow through on the sale (I think some people say they did not sell an account when they really did to facilitate the privacy of the buyer), then you at the very least attempted to sell an account.

Society tends to view attempting to commit a crime almost as bad as actually committing a crime. If people were to view the sale of accounts as severe enough of a "crime" to warrant negative trust, then trying to sell an account should warrant negative trust, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is reasonable to hand out trust ratings to everyone using similar standards, regardless of who you are. Otherwise the trust system will only turn into a "boys club"