Whether the current owner/operator of the rby account is disruptive (or not) did not form my basis of the negative feedback. The rby account was behind the Rubycoin scam and for that reason the account should have been tagged when I created the scam accusation in 2019. When I noticed my error I decided to tag for that scam.
Just to clarify: after reading what I wrote about old tags and what you responded with about rby, I wasn't talking about the rby account or the negative trust you gave to it; I was just thinking in more general terms, e.g., seeking out people who might have been in the account trading game years ago. IMO that's unnecessary. But obviously you're distrusting rby for other reasons, which I don't have a problem with.
I understood that part because you were talking in a generic sense.
These are moments of a historical period being posted and shared therefore it is interesting to read about what was going on back there. I had no idea you were scammed back then but I do have recollections of reading some of your feedbacks for account buyers. Now I understand why you did it.
Yep, that was a nightmare--and bitcoin wasn't worth nearly as much as it is today. I'd love to have 0.3
BTC saved somewhere, anywhere, and though I probably still wouldn't even if TimSweat hadn't screwed me I like to torture myself with that fantasy from time to time. That incident taught me a whole lot about lending and forum trust, I'll say that much.
If it took that incident of the 0.3 BTC to re-evaluate forum trust then it seems you learned the hard way and I am sorry for your loss. Having said that your tag should have been sufficient enough to ensure he was unable to scam anyone again therefore through you loss if you managed to protect others at least something positive came from the event.
Where do you think we should draw the line with tagging accounts that have been purchased as far as amnesty is concerned? Some have cited the date of the introduction of the feedback system others have said other things. I would like to read your views.
I think they should be tagged when they're found to be up for sale or have just been sold. Aside from that, I wouldn't be in favor of any hard-and-fast rules--not that they could be enforced anyway, and tagging account sellers and/or sold accounts has always been a controversial subject anyhow. I understand that and don't expect everyone to agree with me. I never did. When I began my red-trust blitzkrieg offensive, I really thought I'd get a lot of blow-back from DT members or at least from a wide variety of members from the community--but I didn't. That's surely not because everyone agreed with what I was doing; I suspect that some feared any opposition would mean facing the wrath of The Cult of Lauda, which I was associated with:
~snip~
A lot of members of Lauda's gang supported tagging account dealers, and many of them had/have strong personalities that would make a less-hardened member not want to fuck with one. Peer pressure, man. It's a real thing, even on an internet forum where you can't get your ass kicked all black and blue.
Whether it was peer pressure or something else, I think things have changed since those days. People seem to be far more vocal about tagging accounts and it could be because of the amount of money involved with signature campaigns at the current BTC/USD rate.
Nowadays not only are the tagged accounts creating threads to draw attention to themselves, there are forum members with grudges getting involved in the hope of aggravating the situation (as a result of their vindictive nature) and most of this over neutral not negative tags.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if you want to hand out red trust to accounts you discover to have been sold, go for it. I still do it myself when I find them and if it's not a throwaway account. IMO, it's especially important to let the community know if a green-trusted member earned that trust themselves or if the account was sold to the current owner along with said trust, because that could be a scam in the making. That all goes back to the weight some people put on green-trusted accounts (like myself and TimSweat back in 2016). They can be dangerous when they're in the wrong hands because some people see that green and assume the member can be trusted with, say, a no-collateral loan or a trade with no escrow.
In many cases the green trusted accounts are the most dangerous because if they are traded there is a possibility they will ask for a loan with the intention of defaulting. To make matter worse, maybe they will take a series of small to medium sized loans and replay them only to then take multiple loans from multiple sources only to default.
And yes, I've done trades like that based on my reputation where other members have sent funds first. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that, but just imagine if I secretly sold my account yesterday and then it showed up in the Exchange section today looking to buy some BTC. You get the picture.
Yes I do. Keeping all this in mind it is somewhat sad that the community has been unable to find a solution that is widely acceptable. Some are genuinely searching for a solution seeking consensus therefore I hope we find it.