Quote from: TMAN on April 28, 2019, 10:54:18 AM

anyway yes I agree, there needs to be a consensus and it should be that every account seller/trader/buyer is tagged for trying to cheat campaigns as that is what this comes down to - stealing. a uniform approach from all of DT starting today is the best way to deal with this, cant have people bringing stuff up from 4 years ago though as I think that will be counter productive here.

With regards to cheating campaigns, I believe your conclusion is a stretch of reality. At the end of the day advertising is being provided in exchange for payment. The fact that one person advertises "more" for a campaign unknowingly to the company (or the campaign manager) does not materially affect what the company receives. This if off topic here, and this discussion can be moved to a new thread if necessary.

In general, for other reasons a tags are given, the person can remediate the underlying issue to have the tag removed, and for scam attempts, warnings are often given so if someone does not understand what they are doing appears to be a scam attempt, they have a chance to stop. For example when this person resolve the scam accusation against him to his trading partner's satisfaction, his tags were removed, and newer users who try to take out no collateral loans are often warned that what they are doing appears to be a scam attempt and are given a chance to lock their thread to avoid getting a tag. However this guy did not receive DT negative trust until >1.5 years after the fact, when he (says) didn't go through with the transaction (I believe ThePharmacist was not on DT when he left his rating). However I don't see any real way to remediate his actions if he had gone through with the transaction.

Quote from: yogg on April 28, 2019, 11:12:43 AM

I agree that accounts shouldn't be bought or sold, but how to prevent that from happening ?

I believe creating the rule that prohibits account trading will stop the majority of sales. I believe most people who engage in this kind of business do so because it is explicitly allowed.

For those that continue trading forum accounts despite a rule prohibiting such trading, to confirm that a person is in fact selling accounts, they could look at IP addresses/browser fingerprints of the person, and when they see the account being used by a distinct second person (with other accounts) with a different IP address/browser fingerprint, the administration will know the person is selling accounts. From there, the administration can lock the sellers other accounts whose IP address/browser fingerprint has changed/separated from the seller, so that all the accounts he sold are now inaccessible to the buyers; a warning can be given to the seller to stop dealing in forum accounts, and if it continues escalating bans can be issued. The first warning should be sufficient because the seller can continue earning advertising revenue even if they cannot sell them, and a ban would prevent that.

Quote from: AverageGlabella on April 28, 2019, 11:20:28 AM

Regarding the shift in mentality if we were to establish a start date to applying universal guidelines of leaving feedback are we going to do the start date from today or january 1 2016 or earlier? If we establish a start date then all past dealings in forum accounts have to be erased don't they?

In the interest of fairness, it is best to not punish someone for something they did, when as of when they did the action, the action was not against the rules.

Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Quote from: eaLiTy on April 28, 2019, 11:40:05 AM

Some of the prominent members have traded accounts in the past and they have accepted that in due course and refrained from that practice and the users who get tagged now cry about the double standards which is being shown,

This is one reason why I am suggesting one of the above two rules be implemented. In addition to forum sales being explicitly allowed, a user who does not follow forum politics may see a high ranking/high trust person trading a forum account and assume this is an acceptable practice.

Quote from: Coolcryptovator on April 28, 2019, 12:30:31 PM

If a newbie could gain a ranked account means he/don't know about forum lifestyle and don't like to contribute except spam. Others two point is clear.

As an FYI, some people can potentially learn about bitcoin outside of the forum. There are many resources that people can educate themselves.

Quote from: EcuaMobi on April 28, 2019, 02:34:38 PM

Being realistic, I don't think admins will ever explicitly forbid trading accounts and ban everyone who tries to sell or buy an account, for the same reasons scammers are not banned.

The punishment doesn't need to be a permaban for the first instance of someone breaking the rules. The only rule that will result in a permaban after a single violation is the spreading of malware. When someone breaks all other rules, they are given several warnings, and if warnings are ignored, they are issued a short temp ban, and if it continues, a longer temp ban is issued, and this continues until a permaban is eventually issued.

If there is clear evidence an account is sold, it can be locked, but not banned so that the buyer cannot use the purchased account but can use any other accounts they have.

Quote from: EcuaMobi on April 28, 2019, 02:34:38 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 28, 2019, 10:28:31 AM

for those that say "scamming is allowed" I would respond by saying it is not explicitly allowed per forum rules. The forum will not moderate scams, while forum account sales are explicitly allowed per forum rules.

The fact something is "allowed" on the forum just means a user will not be banned because of that. It doesn't mean it's OK to do it.
I don't see much difference between not mentioning something and "explicitly allowing" something else. What's not on the rules is generally allowed, unless it's so obvious it's forbidden that it's not worth mentioning.
Anyway, if admins won't ban scammers then it wouldn't make sense to ask them to ban account traders. If they change their minds about that then please do ban known scammers.

The administration has tagged alt accounts of some who have been clearly shown to be a scammer in the past. There are also forum features, such as the "trade with extreme caution" warning that make it difficult for a scammer to continue trading, while still being able to participate in discussions.

Quote from: Lauda on April 28, 2019, 03:47:21 PM

Tagging is how it should countinue to be handled.

Doing this can lead to curruption.

Quote from: bones261 on April 28, 2019, 04:37:09 PM

I think that a good solution would be to just not allow threads for account sales.

That would be one compromise.

Quote from: bones261 on April 28, 2019, 04:37:09 PM

I'm not certain that this forum should take the extra step of banning accounts suspected of being bought/sold. If it did, I would expect the level of certainty that the account is indeed bought/sold be rather high. I would hate to see an account banned erroneously.

Yes, the level of certainty should be very high, and I think the purchased account in question should be locked, not banned, so the person who bought the account can continue to participate in the forum. However after continuing to purchase accounts after given sufficient number of warnings, bans should be issued.

Quote from: TMAN on April 28, 2019, 05:33:56 PM

all we need is 1 post from Theymos "Account sales will not get you banned but DT members are against it and will red tag all buyers and sellers"

I would point out that it is a very small group of people who are currently tagging accounts.