Topic: Any rules on ratings ? (Read 1362 times)

Yeah am in the process of reading the full thread now been made aware of it and also commented on it with updates

I'll save you the trouble, there is no way a legitimate company could afford to pay what they promise. They are a ponzi.



(See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11579422 for further explanation)

I was in that for less than 1 week I moved away from it because admin never responded and the OP closed it. So how is this a history. This and that one is a total of 2 since having my account from mid 2011 so hardly a history at all. I jumped on it and seeing it was a good paying one with admin then seen the type of site it was and moved away

Joined May 27 as quoted above https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11467402

Removed June 1 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11508724

So that is 7 days and within them days business was paying to its members and running fine up until around day 4 or 5 where admins had gone MIA So after this removed as shown above.

With everything else going on I am reading more into this one I am on and will see how things work out as I am in in process of setting a meeting up in person to see if really is legit company or just plain ponzi and scam.



Checking the section of campaigns linked and also now made aware of the cloudthink thread, going to have a good read though that tonight.

It's true that they're untrustworthy by doing that, but dropping negatives for it is running a little too far into guilt by association - which is a well-known fallacy. We shouldn't start dropping negatives for things like that, especially those on DefaultTrust. Let's try to keep it a bit more sensible than that.

OP has a history of promoting ponzis
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11467402

He knows the scam is about to end soon and is trying to cover himself.


You should do that. Dropping negatives on those running the scams are of no use as the warnings are not seen by all those being affected by signature.

At minimum, crazyearner and legendster should get negatives. They are the biggest offenders in terms of impact.

ahh just check this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/overview-of-bitcointalk-signature-ad-campaigns-last-update-01-jan-23-615953

rates are much lower, but at least you are promoting serious services and not bunch of scammers with bought accounts. are you even aware about this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cloudthinkio-removed-management-pictures-after-being-caught-with-stealing-1074272

Exactly this is how DefaultTrust people should judge and those who do not go by this norm, should be kicked out of Defaulttrust. DefaultTrust is to mark out proven scammers, not what they think in their imagination that might scam. In fact, using this disguise of 'they might scam' or 'scam should be stopped before it happens' people actually leave red trust to their competition and push their favor through green trust. Especially, it is ridiculous to see when some DefaultTrust people deny to leave red trust on certain profiles, which have shown the absolute same characteristics for which others were reded. Unfortunately, though DefaultTrust is moderated, when it is abused, they ward off their responsibility by saying 'trust is not moderated'.

Exactly...being in the trust network makes me think more about my ratings. Part of me says if people are dumb enough to invest they deserve what they end up with. So I think it is best I just not do anything with no proof.

In a way I can agree in what is being said. The rating was added at a time when I had a different signature on my profile and before that had another that has now since only moved to allowing staff on it.

The only business I was promoting was MULTICRYPTOS Multicryptos https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/multicryptos-x2-x10-x100-many-games-50-btc-invested-946814 that is still running and paying its members with a fairly honest and trusted admin of it and has since opened 2 or 3 more websites.. So for a rating that I 1 did not have a tag on and 2 didnt really promote I guess that is his view to trust or not. I do like a good gamble on sites and other games as I do  play on a fair few of them here and their and stay away from a lot of others.

With regards to the one am in now its very mixed views comments, ponzi gambling mining and full picture is not clear of what is going on with it. If it continues and pays then its to say its paying and not scamming. But with some of the moves as of late on some of the campaigns ran are seriously risky and is making me wonder to stick in it for much longer. As I am respectful to many on here and I don't want this to be thrown away over ratings and continue but again ratings are one thing based on a persons view. They in a way need to be monitored and measured and some of the spam ratings have seen on other profiles are shocking and nothings been done to remove or justifiable them.

Am also taking care of a few personal problems hence why am in a higher paying signature campaign to sort this out and work me way though other stuff at the same time. If Another signature campaign is good and not promoting gambling or such sites alike then feel free to post and I no doubtfully will join it.

Spam ratings are not removed but such spammers are banned as it's considered spamming (whether ratings or posts). I've not seen those ratings getting removed and yes, negative ratings are never removed by moderators but it is only removed by talking to the individual who left you a feedback. It's sad to see that when members get permanent banned, their ratings do stay.

I have gotten spam ratings removed from my profile before. I think Theymos has a pretty strict definition as what qualifies as "spam" for trust ratings purposes though.

Even with spam they're not removed. The person spamming will be punished but the ratings stay.

It's an attractive campaign to legendary members because they get paid in advance. This is probably why we're seeing more legendaries than usual promoting a scam like this.

want to be pissed even more? watch this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11585671

Pretty sad people will accept pay for an obvious ponzi like that. I was half temped to start dropping negatives on those people myself, but decided against it.

Did not know that, although it's probably a rare occurrence anyway. I suppose it is fair if blatant spam ratings are removed. Thanks for enlightening

As mentioned above, no the trust system is not moderated. The only reason why a rating would get removed is if you were to receive trust spam.

I don't think the rating is entirely inappropriate though, you are promoting an obvious scam. You should stop whoring out your signature space, otherwise someone might get scammed because they saw the level of respect that you have and did a lower amount of due diligence into the company you are advertising.

No, the only rule is against trust spamming which can be removed. That is, as far as I know, the only way in which the system is moderated (indeed, I don't believe it is completely unmoderated @master-P). Also, just my opinion, but his rating shows a valid concern. Your response to that, threatening to turn it into a trust war by leaving retaliatory negative feedback, makes you look less trustworthy in my eyes. Personally I would leave you a neutral (though that's probably because I'd prefer to be a little more conservative as I'm on DefaultTrust depth 2), but a negative doesn't seem entirely unjustified.

No, the trust system is completely unmoderated. Although I would assume a Legendary member would know this by now. The person who left you a negative is in the untrusted section so it won't directly affect your trust score anyway, but he's right about you promoting a very obvious ponzi. I feel that it's completely fine that he left you a negative rating because he doesn't trust you based on what you're promoting.

"Legendary member promoting ponzis ?? I would not do any business with this guy."

you are talking about this? sorry, but what exactly is unclear on this statement?

you are legendary member - yes
you are promoting ponzi/scam (with avatar/personal text/sig) - yes

correct me if I'm wrong please..