Quote from: rby on Today at 09:31:09 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on April 24, 2023, 11:47:42 PM

One thing that needs to be voiced though, is a possibility that the account is connected to several accounts, which leads to ban evasion. I've asked the individual in question about this matter and he's yet to reply me, but suppose that the final verdict is that he's indeed connected to those accounts and thus evading forum's ban, then the negative tag should be placed, but that's the only reason of the negative tag; ban evasion, not buying or receiving accounts.

If you critically re-examine the above statement, you will discover that some statements are augmenting the previous ones while some parts are contradictory.

If an account changed hands buy mutal understanding (account sales), neutral tag is OK for that.
But if the transferred account has issues with ban evasion, a negative tag is needed.
What if the person to whom the account was transferred to has never involved in ban evasion, but the account he/she bought has now brought evasion to them which may even affect their different innocent account. I believe someone understands what I meant.

I would beg to disagree. If you critically re-examine the whole post instead of one paragraph at a time --or if you may, that first part of the post as I talk about two interconnecting-but-separate topic-- the opinion on that paragraphs began with an assumption that the owner merely gifted an account --with or without the lies-- and then expanded into the second clause where there is a finding that his account is connected to several accounts.

It is not contradicting or augmenting each other, it was a situation of "if A then B, and if C then D"; if he simply gifted an account and made a good reputation from it, then he shouldn't be tagged, but if he abused forum rules by ban evasion then he should be tagged. How is this contradicting? The summary of the paragraphs even written on the last sentence of that part, "[...] then the negative tag should be placed, but that's the only reason of the negative tag; ban evasion, not buying or receiving accounts."

As for your second paragraph, I'll say that can be counted as "breach into a new topic based on previous one". My opinion on that situation is, "that's a risk someone has to willingly take when he consider buying accounts." If we may use the previous analogy I used, then the situation can be considered as a bad investment. The buyer bought from a wrong person, their misfortune.

But yes, I agree that if it's the case, then it should be tagged because if we get lenient on it, prolific ban evader will start using that excuses to get away from the situation, that they bought that connected account while factually the account never moves hand and he's just a prolific evader. So far, though, I have yet to meet an accusation of multi-account and ban evasion where the defendant said he's innocent because his account is bought.

Quote from: Plaguedeath on Today at 09:48:37 AM

Quote from: rby on Today at 09:31:09 AM

But if the transferred account has issues with ban evasion, a negative tag is needed.

Why ban evasion need to receive negative feedback? ban evasion has no business with scam.

Ban evasion and spam are moderators job, not DT job. DT members only help the moderators to expose account related with previous banned account and reporting spam posts. The punishment of ban evader account is banned, not negative feedback.
[...]

In a simple words, there are high chances that ban evasion is related to a scam attempt. Ban evasion, in more than several occasions than we cared to admit, happen because someone tries to cheat the system. Either they violated forum rules, bounty abusing, or they tried to scam someone, and the likes of it; be it a temporary ban or permaban. An honest person would wait for the tempo ban to over or plead over the meta section [this is allowed]. But a cheater or a known scammer, whose got their account banned for that reason, fully know that there is no way to reinstate their account will choose to create a new account --thus, ban evasion-- to continue their agenda. Should this not be tagged?

I am seriously curious and interested about this. I gave a quick stroll at other threads and saw that you're not the only one standing to this opinion. I am somewhat agreed that it's mod's job to ban them, but shouldn't --or couldn't-- the DT leave a tag on that user before mods can take action and nuked the account to prevent the account from doing further harm to the forum?