I personally am on the fence with this neg rep for advertising a ponzi. Yes we know its gonna collapse, and yes we know someone is gonna get fucked along the line, but we are all adults(or at least supposed to be). So i dont see anything wrong with someone advertising and getting paid. Just because someone has a signature that says im a ponzi doesnt mean ppl will click it or are not informed as to what a ponzi is. If you know what a ponzi is or are too stupid to use google and find out and you still invest its your own dumbass fault. I do not see the point IMO in ruining someones acct because they want to make a few dollars.
Just my opinion take it for what its worth
same view as mine. i dont exactly know why they are against it if users only want to earn bitcoins from posting here in the forum, its just a signature campaign why not give the oppurtunity to most of us to earn with bigger rates than others. some of us are from a third world country which only rely on bitcoins for their expenses :/
I see shorena and mexxers point of view. Theyre trying to keep members from getting scammed. I just believe if the forum allows the ponzis to be here then the only ppl whom should get the neg rep are the owners of the ponzi, not the guys trying to make a dollar or 2
yes ofcourse we are there but the forum itself allows it that is why there is a section for the ponzis and yeah thats right, only the OP or the manager deserves to get red trust and not the participants coz they only want to earn bitcoins.
if the money that theyll get is all that matters, and that;s your own point of view, why arent you signing up? because you dont want red trust on your profile. its a deterrent against potential advertisers that would promote an obvious scheme just because theres a few dollars in it. and in addition, if a few dollars is all it takes for them to
knowingly promote a ponzi that might lead to others losing more than just a few bucks, whats not to say that those advertisers arent willing to scam themselves? the negatives are completely deserved in my opinion, and your not joining the campaign after offering your stance on the argument (just wanting a few dollars) only serves EM / sho / mexxer / my stance.
on removing the trust rating, i think its fine to remove it once all forms of advertising are removed
and if the participant pulled out fast seeing the red ratings. however, if they take it on themselves to stick it through to the end, and completely 'sell out,' im for leaving the rating on there. if negative ratings werent enough of a deterrent at any point in time during the participant's activity in the campaign, clearly a 'few dollars' is way more important to that individual over the possible losses of others that may or may not sum up to a lot more than what they have to gain from advertising it.
i wont be posting again in here because i dont want to bump this thread.
and to yahoo, idk enough about what ore - mining is or what its about to make a stance on it.
