Well, that is unavoidably logical.

From that perspective, more worrisome to me is that it gives an excuse to account sellers.  If nutildah or suchmoon tries to tag an account seller or a sold account, the person receiving negative trust feedback can point and say, “Why do I get negged when nutildah offered his own account for sale, and may actually have sold it, without any consequences?”

Of course, suchmoon would simply brush that off as “whataboutism”, i.e. a concept with a kernel of truth that gets abused as a liberal’s blank cheque for unlimited hypocrisy.


I reasonably disagree.  If the nutildah account was actually sold, that should be an enormous scandal.  A high-trust account with an established reputation passing into unknown hands undermines the whole concept of trust and reputation; and as a practical matter, it is dangerous to the community.  Who bought the account?  What were the motives of the buyer for purchasing an established account?  To what ends has the account been used since it was sold, leveraging the reputation of the person who created the account?

I am reasonably suspicious; and given the generally dishonest behaviour of the nutildah account, especially (but not limited to) its tendency to cover its tracks by scrubbing old posts, I am no longer willing to take at face value nutildah’s bare assertion that he changed his mind and never sold the account.  I want to know if there is more evidence (and I think there is).

Of course, that is my standard.  According to suchmoon’s standards, nutildah should already have at least a DT “neutral” tag stating that he probably sold his account to a well-known scammer, or something of that nature.

I want evidence.  Investigation is needed.  Well, you are apparently too busy enjoying a mountain of money; and for personal reasons, I have for the forum only limited time that I am not inclined to devote to chasing nutildah.  I have a months-long backlog of intended posts—technical, political, and for Reputation and Scam Accusations.  Why is nutildah so special?

---

The “drama” is not all contained in OP.  Anyway, argumentum ad hominem at OP does not prove that he has no point here; and much less does it obviate the subsequent discussion.  Say, doesn’t this get your scamfighting hackles up at least a little bit?


Password changed 10 times within 11 weeks, including several closely-spaced clusters of repeated password changes.  Of course, it does not prove that the account was sold or otherwise compromised.  Occam’s Leary’s Razor says that most likely explanation is that nutildah, an admitted LSD user, had a string of bad trips that made him even more paranoid than usual.

To be clear, that is sarcasm.  It would be a terrible excuse—and it would be funny if nutildah were actually to allege that as the explanation.

---

You have identified the apex of suchmoon’s vocabulary.  No wonder she accuses me of wordiness.


If you’re keeping score, and my opposition is at 0, then I, nullius, should aim to achieve ∞²/0².

Alas, that is mathematically undefined.  Perhaps I should borrow an acid tab from nutildah, and expand my mind so that I can invent some new maths and/or obsessively hurl unsupported alt accusations at forum members who make me paranoid.  Reality is for squares²!