Quote from: jokers10 on June 29, 2023, 12:14:36 PM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on June 29, 2023, 11:55:35 AM

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig.

If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling.

Quote from: jokers10 on June 29, 2023, 12:14:36 PM

Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading.

But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved.

That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged.

Quote from: Timelord2067 on June 29, 2023, 12:15:32 PM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on June 29, 2023, 11:55:35 AM

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam.

With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with. You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process.

Quote from: rby on June 29, 2023, 12:27:03 PM

It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate.

If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying.

And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it.

Quote from: nutildah on June 29, 2023, 01:05:32 PM

Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter?

I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust.

And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 01:57:05 AM

Quote from: Poker Player on June 29, 2023, 03:06:52 PM

I think the case you make is too hypothetical.

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.