Re: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information
No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules.
Now you're just making shit up. Which rule is that?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
It literally says that scams are not moderated.
Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok
Then stop arguing that. Fraudulent (farmed, hacked, etc) accounts are not ok.
Ask any moderator or Theymos here if they tolerate openly illegal activity. Its the rule that people with common sense know, because knowingly allowing illegal activity here is a liability for Theymos and the forum. They say scams are not moderated not because they would tolerate it if it were proven, but because they couldn't possibly prevent all of it, they don't care to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in ambiguous scenarios, and as a result want the user base to know this and be on the defensive and do due diligence.
I literally never said hacked accounts are ok. Ever. "farmed" accounts is a totally ambiguous and arbitrary term defined by nothing, and even if you could define it, you still have no way of proving an account was "farmed" from the outside.
So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable?
Hmm, maybe those parents can use that as a defense when they basically bought their children the right to get into a particular college. Clearly their children didn't deserve it otherwise.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.
I think the more appropriate word to describe the amount of legitimate reasons is "few" not "plenty'"
The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in.
"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Also with the new trust system implemented, Theymos has rightfully made the preventative measures less punitive and the provable offenses more punitive. It truly is an "ounce" when our intention is to only warn, and a "pound" when damage has already been done.
If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud) to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other.
I really don't think bob123's actions warrants a red flag. It is very heavy handed. Unless we want to convey to the community that when is comes to account sales, "snitches get stiches." Perhaps exclusion from DT by his peers.
Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.
Everyone knows that analogies are never a perfect fit. However, account sales are somewhat equivalent to selling identity documents. Granted, someone buying an account on Bitcointalk is not going to allow them to get much of value in the meat world. However, in our forum, it gives them the opportunity to participate in signature campaigns that they would otherwise be excluded from, not to mention other benefits the established account history may bring. Once again, you are talking about criminal activity, making your comparison useless. Everyone knows spouting off cliche sayings is the highest form of truth possible. Can you imagine the hell that the USA would be in if that is the logic all of the police followed? Police are human beings. Wanna be internet police are human beings. Human beings are flawed and make mistakes and have biases, that is why systems of due process exist.
Oh now you care about heavy hands when you agree with some one's goals? The ends do not justify the means. That is the whole point. This is a precedent that will lead to even more abuse and should be checked. There is no danger of universal approval of account sales, and you know this. OH NOES! Some one might get paid for a signature they didn't "earn"! The sky is falling! I guess we should just round up anyone we suspect and just destroy all their property to make sure that never happens, if people who aren't doing that are wrapped up in that, oh well fuck them, I don't personally like account sales! Again, the ends do not justify the means. You people are just falling all over each other to ameliorate protections for individual rights just to get even with people you don't like or agree with. This is not a scenario where any one wins.