Topic: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes (Read 3787 times)

1: Bitcointalk doesn't support, oppose or care. There are bitcointalk members who support ponzis, participate in ponzis, oppose ponzis.
2: He is free to.
3: Only those in the previous trust level who have added the person to their trust list can remove him. This is done at his/her own discretion same as just can edit your trust list. You can remove cruptodevil from your trust list if you don't want in him in your trust network,

This whole thread and topic is just filled with... wow. So much logic has been presented by... Well, everyone except for OP.

The way I look at it is this. If people choose to participate in any of the investor-based games after heeding the warning by cryptodevil and many other members of the forums, then they willingly understand the risks involved, and (in a nutshell) deserve to get screwed over when the ponzis collapse. They've had fair warnings before they opted into the game.

Now, imagine if cryptodevil chose not to take his time to brigade and warn users of these potential threats and dangers. I joined the forums late last year, and I was one of the ones that fell victim to two of these ponzis (Coinbooster and Coin-GNT). If I had someone like cryptodevil around, I would not have lost as much as I did with these sites. And there were HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of victims from these sites. Now, anytime a new site pops up that looks like it may have potential, imagine the thousands and thousands of dollars saved by cryptodevil's actions of warning people against the risks of joining and promoting these ponzis. Yes, it always seems a bit over the top at first. But if you think about it in the long run, I'm willing to bet that cryptodevil has saved users from losing a collective amount of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in the past few months. Hell, that number may be even more.

Now, OP, by you stating that bctalk supports illegal ponzi schemes... All I have to say about that, based on your logic and argument within this thread: you haven't convinced me that they support these sites, which should be your job to do so if you're going to start such an accusation. So many other people are defending the website's POV when they do not need to. YOU need to provide evidence and facts if you're to get the average forum member like myself to believe you.

The only possible explanation to your situation is bias (due to the rating that you've received). You're the only one (in this particular thread) who thinks that this is the case, even though many have argued that it isn't. Take a look again at:

(In this case): Neither does theymos agree with them, nor support their actions.

That is a bad example because the staff does remove illegal content when we find it.

No actually, bitcointalk does not in any way endorse or support ponzi schemes. That board is getting less and less attention as the days go pass, because people are starting to realise themselves that they are scams, and nowhere near a legitimate forex trading company.

There is a big warning above your screen when you enter the gambling board. That applies for the investors based games as well. There are also a lot of helpful members of the forum that has started to issue warnings to people who participate and run ponzis. It seems like you're one of them, too.

out of arguments, huh. you are too proud to accept fail? Anyway how come i wasn't on your ignore list already.

FFS, you're an idiot. I'm putting you on ignore.

ok guys so now prove me wrong:

if i had a file sharing website, i would include the common bullshit in TOS like i'm not responsible for the content uploaded by users, i'd still have to take an action and remove the illegal content, right?

bitcointalk hosts the ponzi and scam content.

 

yeah, bitcointalk tolerates the ponzis, i agree Dredd

edit. take it easy, this is just my opinion and i have no law knowledge, and no time to look up the law's point of view. chill

No they do not. Unless you have evidence to show that this forum is hosting ponzi operations on its server or within its domain stop repeating that incredibly shonky fallacious reasoning.

There are also some ultra-right-wing racist and homophobic threads on this forum. Does that mean this forum supports them? No, it means the community can choose to challenge or ignore the shit that is posted in them.

Same for ponzi threads.

blah blah blah...let's cut the shit
Does bitcointalk.org make the ponzi shemes available to public? YES (promotion)
so as long the 'ponzi' board exists, bitcointalk.org promotes the ponzies and scams.
the forum staff don't moderate it so there is not any action against ponzi and scams taken by bitcointalk.org

but they'll just show up in other sections if removed

I rephrase what you say in a real life scenario, I haven't posted anything unrelated or twisted your words in this thread.

And posting a ponzi where it isn't meant to be is charged by having the topic moved/deleted.
To try and make it completely clear, let me try to explain my scenario again. I'll even put the forum equivalent in italics for you.
A person drops a piece of trash on the street (a member posts about a HYIP scheme on the forum). If this person were to drop it randomly on the street (If this member were to post it outside of the Investor-Based Games Sub-board) they would be told to pick it up and move it (The post would be moved to the Investor-Based Games Sub-board (the rubbish bin)). If this person were to put their rubbish in the trash can (The member is to post it in the Investor-Based Games Sub-board) then no punishment would be given.
Let's say that there wasn't a trash can around (The Investor-Based Games Sub-board didn't exist) then everyone would probably throw their litter all over the ground (The forum would be spammed with HYIP scams).
Do you understand why the Investor-Based Games Sub-board exists yet (AKA why the forum 'endorses' Ponzis)?


Thanks for posting what we're all trying to say. Maybe you do understand.

twisting words and posting unrelated scenarios is what you do, littering is charged by fine btw.

while " 19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse). " on bitcointalk.org
source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657

Perhaps this thread isn't, however you clearly do not properly understand why the forum works how it does. Currently, it is obvious you are trying to run a smear campaign against the forum after you got negative consequences for your shady actions.

However, that is out of context. The quote "The government tolerates dropping litter on streets" sounds negative, until you learn that they tolerate it only if it is being dropped in a rubbish bin. Twisting people's words to try and stretch a valid point does not then make it the truth.

Personally I think this is a better quote, and I don't have to even take it out of context for it to be valid - "Bitcointalk User 'freedoge.co' condones pyramid scams". Perhaps you should promote that one a bit more; it would save you looking like even more of an ignorant idiot than you already do.

it's not about me understanding it ok so bitcointalk.org tolerates ponzi schemes, right?

does it sound positive to you?

Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)

Tolerating something (as in, creating a trash can for it to not litter the rest of the forum) != condoning it. I really don't see what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Nothing, as scams are not moderated (and hopefully never will be).

^how about this crap you posted? explain your logic there

Maybe you should stop posting tendentious crap and read the replies you get.


That doesn't mean they are condoned.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Nope. That is not the proof of anything. Just because the administration allows a place for ponzi threads to be opened/moved to, that does not mean that the administration supports a single ponzi within that section.

Exactly.

I'm pretty sure that scams aren't moderated.

my argument and proof is this subforum and the view statistics of each topic: Investor-based games

What exactly would be the argument here? BTCT is supporting X because BTCT allows it and has 'significant influence' while others don't? No, I'm not familiar with similar forums because they're mostly filled with conspiracy rubbish (e.g. HF fanatics). As far as Bitcoin forums go, BTCT is the most popular one, yes.

do you know of any other bitcoin forum/resource with such significant influence like bitcointalk allowing promotion of ponzi sites?  

Why would I have to provide proof of 'non-existing' support when you haven't provided proof of 'existing' support. Tolerating those 'games' is one thing, participating and supporting them is another.

Incorrect. I provided (or at least tried) to provide you with the correct information the whole time. Usually in trust-related cases (DT2) the options are:
1) Contact the person who left you the rating.
2) Contact the person from DT1 who has them in their list.
3) Try to get other DT1 members to exclude them.

About point 2: That would be dooglus; I've told you this already

---

---

Do you have any other requests/questions? Has this thread served its purpose or is it going to be continued with the "BTCT supporting ponzi's" stuff?

Just found interesting topic related to Bitcointalk's support of illegal activities:

"Suing Bitcointalk.org and Theymos for $20,000,000 for facilitating scams"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suing-bitcointalkorg-and-theymos-for-20000000-for-facilitating-scams-1466749

i probably should have already drawn it to you that i understood it.  

ok i don't accept the red trust from cryptodevil and i can do nothing about it, i don't like your attitude Lauda and can't do anything about it neither, instead of directly saying to me the facts and my possibilities you acted in other way posting unrelated off-topic non-sense  and accusing me of other actions. But ok let's move on.

I never said that it was impossible. What I did say is that there is no sign of clear/extensive abuse which would require the intervention of the administration. Just because you don't agree with someones ratings that does not mean that they're abusing something.

Example: Facebook also supports every single evil entity that shares anything that could be considered 'immoral'? Doubtful at best.

Again, you seem to fail to realize even how this forum works. You don't usually get negative rating for breaking the forum rules, you get punished (e.g. banned). You got negative ratings for things that are 'frowned upon' by the community, e.g. support ponzi's, scam and such.

Do I have to draw this out for you? Staff does not moderate trust ratings.

ok cryptodevil do what you want.

Just stop spamming this thread with off-topic posts, this topic is about: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

what is your opinion related to it?

If you actually bothered to read the link I gave you it is perfectly clear why negative ratings are the weapon of choice against scammers and those who support them.

That IBG is getting fewer new scam threads with much shorter lifespans is evidence enough that this community action works.

who asked to do so, the warning from forum staff above the investor-based games is clear and flashy enough. If you want to warn people just leave neutral feedback and let them decide on their own.

Your actions are abusing the trust system and you spam the the investor-based games board.

Freedoge, perhaps this will help you better understand that this is a community action, not a forum rule:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tagging-both-operators-and-participants-of-ponzi-schemes-is-extremely-effective-1381105

In that it is a community action you can quit demanding that staff attend to your displeasure and simply accept that you are being held to account for your actions by the community.

Ponzi schemes *need* people to post encouraging comments in order for them to function. This policy of marking users who help these scams function is extremely effective at limiting their propagation, particularly when it comes to the fact it is no longer worthwhile for scammers to buy senior forum accounts with which to fraudulently vouch for their operation.

That scammers are trying to hide in other forum sections isn't sufficient as most experienced users are quick to flag them as a likely ponzi and then they are moved into IBG and dealt with accordingly.

BTW, not all threads in IBG are scam operations, just most of them.

Well we were talking about the trust ratings here, right? And not the forum's rule. Maybe my statement wasn't that specific. It should be -- 'People posting about ponzi websites here are getting a negative trust not only from cryptodevil but also from other people who dislikes ponzi'. They are warning newbies to not fall victim into ponzi scams.


Actually even if anyone can promote ponzi in here, there are people who are always in the investor-based games section to put a warning for the newbies to not invest on that website.

The whole thread is based on you not being able to participate in signature campaigns. Apart from that, you have made no clear and valid arguments (which is why it is irrational). You're asking for:
1) Removal of the section.
2) Moderation of DT.
Both of which are extensive changes.

Is the thread about cryptodevil, "BTCT supporting ponzi's" or Lauda? Pick one; you can't have it all at once.

No, BTCT does not support everything that is present on it nor can it be held responsible for the actions of the users.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no rule against ponzi's as far as the forum's rules are concerned. When it comes to trust ratings, the the story seems to be different.

---

---

Again, you need to focus on what you really want to do here. If you want to get the ponzi section removed and ponzi's banned, then focus on building up the proper argumentation for your request.

where does it come from, your statement that "Ponzi sites aren't allowed in this forum" ? Please lead me to such rule, where is it written?

Do you see the staff doing something about it? NO. Anyone can promote ponzi schemes on bitcointalk and staff would do nothing about it.

Just try to post an affiliate link of any kind and your post is deleted in few minutes.
Start a ponzi, make topic and promote it here, no one is gonna delete it.

you just can't admit that what you do is nothing but spamming as the warning is above that subforum and you have no right to give red trust to people just based on your prejudgement, yeah I went trough your post history and the history of the feedbacks you gave to other people and i was amazed how much effort you put into it. And still don't understand why you doing this, you just got yourself on the many ignore lists.

Ponzi sites aren't allowed in this forum that's why you received a negative trust from cryptodevil. You were saying something about cryptodevil not responding to your messages, now that he responded in this thread, grab the chance and talk to him. Actually though, you still have a lot of negative trusts to get removed.

And for the record, I don't see it as something impossible. There's a possibility that theymos would have a lot of spare time and he check on this thread but that is unlikely to happen.

@Xenophoto you see it too as something impossible? I guess then he must be like a god to most of you then, this accusation about the support of ponzi schemes is serious enough in my opinion to take responsibility and make things clear.

There are 3 possible options:

#1 Ponzi sites are allowed on this forum, then my red trust is given unfair.
#2 Ponzi sites are not allowed on this forum, my red trust is valid and i take it.
#3 Administrator doesn't care, do what you want.

i don't care anymore about the red trust given by that funny guy.

As you can see the topic is that bitcointalk supports the illegal ponzi schemes, make your own opinion and let others to do so.

So to sum up all the arguments, basically this user thinks theymos will come and post a reply here saying "BCT does not support ponzi websites." and also he wants theymos to remove the investor-based games section.

The investor-based games section was not and is not going to be deleted because doing so will make all the people posting about ponzi scams there find another section to promote their sites. In other words, the investor-based games is there so that people will be able to see people promoting ponzi scams in here except if they go in that section.

Cryptodevil is just doing what he has always been doing. He puts a red trust on those people posting about ponzi sites, warn people about that site, and he puts a red trust on those that are saying the website did pay them or anything that is positive towards the said website.

I suggest that you go talk to Cryptodevil that you're deleting your post and will never post anything about ponzi again. I believe that would work based on Jezreel's story.

You *kindly* asked me to remove the rating?

So I can add liar to the description of your untrustworthy behaviour?

You responded in thread by giving an excuse for supporting ponzis which does not hold up to scrutiny, namely, that EVERYONE knows how ponzis work and that it is 'like gambling'. Neither of which are true statements. Ten minutes later you posted that I should be banned from the forum.



"Someone must stop this scam obsessed individual" - Stated as though it means something really profound. Pro-tip: It doesn't.

I think cryptodevil has no care about messages now. 

i kindly asked him to remove, got no response. But he is none to give such feedbacks. He is not the staff or moderator of this forum.

@Lauda

you accused me of being signature spammer out of nowhere, while you yourself have the jetwin signature which makes you hypocryte and prejudging person, plus it was totally off-topic and any solution to my request.
That's why i gave you feedback, it is neutral because i'm not going to judge you it's your shit.

Based on your 'logic' i'm saying that bitcointalk supports and spreads the illegal ponzi schemes allowing them to go to wide masses.

Did you PM cryptodevil? Previously I've got a red trust from cryptodevil and he said I'm supporting Ponzi. I talk to him and he said
" Every single one of your posts is about investing in a ponzi or buying your own ponzi script.

Either delete all of them and do not post in any more scam-related threads and I will remove the rating, or not.

It is your choice." I deleted all of my post  and cryptodevil remove the red trust. Bro try to talk him.
-I never supporting Ponzis

yeah i've read this many times, you don't understand the context here. I'm ok with that the ponzis are allowed here until someone can't get red trust because of promoting them. I got red trust because i made one post in that section which promoted the ponzi website, if ponzis are allowed there i demanded to delete the red trust by forum staff, because the red trust was given by some guy self-nominated to ponzi policeman and i was doing nothing against the forum rules. If it was against the rules my post just would have been deleted like the ref link posts, those are being deleted almost immediately.

please explain in which part i appeal to emotion and which demands of me are irrational other then the moderation of default trust which i understand now that it's not common here.

Did you read this? Just understand bro, they not ignoring it.

Warning: You are in the Gambling section. You are likely to eventually lose any money that you gamble/"invest". Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose.

He hasn't abused anything and red trust is not necessarily given out for only scamming.

I couldn't care less about the rules of that forum. The trust ratings here are not moderated and you should have known this by now.

I also want the forum administration to donate $1 Million to my BTC Address.

---

Comedy aside, you're appealing to emotion, and making irrational demands to complex problems. Making such a change is not as easy as it might seem in your world.

holy shh..what is your problem?

i wanted my red trust deleted because i believe it was not fairly given.
It was given by some silly guy acting here like police and abusing the trust system.
He gave me red trust for one post in investor-based thread.
I did not scam anyone!

We are on a forum, community of people with same interest, every forum has it own rules right?

For example hackforums has it's own rules and i don't think people get red trust for promoting ponzi sites there  see the difference?

So firstly i would like to know the official statement from the forum administrator that ponzi websites are not allowed here, then i wouldn't say anything more on this topic.

But i guess there is none of such statement that ponzi sites are forbidden, if it was i believe people would not get only red trust but direct bans or delete.

hold on your real life stories which are not related to this topic, keep your philosophy in your head please.

I respect the rules so i don't have problem to admit my mistake, so it's not about moving on. If rules were clear then there would not be such worthless discussion and many misunderstandings.

Your reason / logic is retarded.

If a government built fucking high security prisons to keep highly dangerous criminals to segregate them from other minor offenders and the public, using your logic, you are claiming that the government supports highly dangerous criminals and the things they do?

If a murder happens to a stranger in a building u rent out, you are an accomplice?

It isn't a misunderstanding at all. The subforum was made to wall off all potential scams. If something is gonna happen regardless of what you do, and you can do something, it makes perfect sense to keep the anomaly isolated. Removing the subforum (thrash bin), would simply result in trash everywhere else.

If I remembered correctly your initial argument was that cryptodevil was giving false trust, you requested to remove him and your neg not because you wanted to join in sig campaigns.  After losing the argument, you change your reasons and the whole point of the meta thread to you simply wanting to join sig campaign again and that bct endorses ponzis?

Just because reddit have hidden private subreddits with dubious uses doesn't mean they are endorsed. Your logic is that of a 1 year old. Your arguments are juvenile at best. Try harder and get better evidences and proof of your shitty reasons instead of trying to push your flawed logic to everyone else.

Edit: Nope you have NOT moved on, if you had you would have deleted /archive or requested to have it deleted. You are acting like a spoilt brat who requests for orange juice  just after dropping the milk you took from your sibling a second ago

yes, because this got me into this situation. I learned that it's worthless to try to get the feedback deleted so i'm moving on.

true i don't care, i only wanted my red trust deleted, but that's impossible no matter what my arguments or evidence are. There are so many points of view on this because of bad management of forum. If i would not want to have a ponzi links and keywords on my forum i would just delete them without warning. So as long as these games even have their own place on this forum, my statement is valid: bitcointalk.org supports the illegal ponzi schemes.

and this even makes my red trust irrelevant and indeed i'm not doing anything wrong according to bitcointalk policy.

isn't it a paradox or irony

"Interesting" turn of events. You've completely diverted the thread from the original and futile attempt at getting someone removed from DT to attacking the forum itself? Of course, the forum supports every single thing that happens on the forum. This is based on very sound logic

If someone comes to your backyard and does something bad, you were in support of his actions the whole time. Don't deny it!

You're wrong there, just because something isn't exactly banned doesn't mean it's being supported by the forum.
We could display all the reasons here once again, but that has been done over and over already, so there's little to no sense in doing so.
Also, I fear you might not even care for it.

This argument has always been written off as emotional or rhetoric when its addressed but I agree it has to play a factor into the forum. But without the ownership correcting the forum,we remain in that area that we currently have with people policing the forum,you can agree or disagree,it never changes the tact one way or another.

I find I usually get my posts dissected three ways to Sunday to the point I no longer recognize my own post due to my logic fails,so tread lightly in agreeing with anything I say.

and now i'm doing his job, trying to remove the investment-based section from this forum, what a lazy ass this cryptodevil.

1,2,4,5 are all correct.  But staff isn't going to do jack shit about him being on dt.  You're right, he shouldn't be on it but simply for the fact that he's a complete asshole, not because he neg reps ponzi people.  Not saying all his feedback is correct.

OK guys i give up on deleting my neg trust because it's all confusing here on bitcointalk, soon people will be afraid to even make a post because they will probably get red trust for spammning.

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

This is why people are confused by the stance of the mods and ownership. On one hand they have a sub forum that is set up by ownership for a reason and the other mods not wanting people to use the forum. There are many splinters off this issue that make you worry about agendas being driven a little to hard at times.
This is not a accusation against any one just a observation,really do not care if the forum goes or stays.

Edit:

@minifrij

I am simply stating how I perceive things here,its the same line mods take with signatures as well.
Think you are misunderstanding what I said about the trust,personal reflection encompasses all those aspects you are stating. The agenda tool aspect is when some one is doing nothing but attacking a certain aspect it becomes a agenda,otherwise they let it go after 3 or 4 members get dinged making their point.
So it usually goes down the road of why and people look into those aspects and find threads that do not look that great,but I think you can find a thread like that for anyone driving change.

Simply being a moderator doesn't mean you have to agree with everything your superior does, similar to how being a member here doesn't mean you have to agree with the staff.
Regardless, the reasoning behind the sub-forum has been made clear in this thread. If you were to read it there is really not much to be confused about.

A user does something untrustworthy. That user gets the consequences of doing something untrustworthy. User complains about consequences.
You would think after a while there would be no issues, as people could simply use their common sense and figure out that their actions have consequences. Sadly, and as this thread shows, this is not the case.

You don't have to trade with someone to distrust them. Promoting an eventual scam is extremely untrustworthy IMO.

If we went by your logic I could steal some bitcoin from a newbie and keep my reputation clean. Since I wouldn't have traded with a DT member they couldn't tag me as a scammer with negative trust. Do you think this is how it should work?

Mods are in support of flagging people for using a sub forum that ownership set up? I can see how people get confused here.
I know the line but you can see why these issues bubble up and it seems a member is pushing them to bubble up by leaving these trust ratings.
Thought trust was to be a personal reflection of your interaction with the person,rather than a agenda tool.

Just interesting to see this over and over and still a disconnect.

Because if they're not wall off in their own area they end up being spammed all over the place.

is it relevant to this topic anyway? i'm not selling it nor renewing. I keep this account and need the false red trust gone to join sig campaign, that simple.

As you are well aware, you're in a grace period, you can still renew the domain. You would have probably 25-30 days to do this, so it doesn't matter that you started this topic a day after it expired. You were still looking for offers as of yesterday (even though your auction apparently ended on the 15th). You would still have a reason to fight to remove the trust and sell the domain within the next 25-30 days. You might want to go ahead and end your auction if your not planning to sell the domain and are keeping the account.

you have some investigating skills, i must admit, but you are wrong i started this topic after the domain has expired so i'm keeping the account and want to join sig campaign.

i won't fight with you, enjoy your useless police work in your investor-based games playground.

I figure it's probably because the negative rating is harming his ability to sell his account 'package':

Funny thing, consequence.

This was explained above by Lauda. If the section was removed the Ponzi schemes would go back to being posted around the forum like previous and would need a lot of effort to clean up. It's easier just to have all of them in one cesspool than to have to clean them up from around the forum. See:

I don't think the administration (theymos and BadBear) really cares currently. The people in the Default Trust system do not represent the views of the administration, nor Lauda or any other staff member than theymos and BadBear.

Why the forum administration does not remove that forum is beyond me. Having the investor based forum here is actively supporting ponzi  schemes, If the administration is really serious about preventing ponzi scams why would they keep that forum alive which enables anyone to openly promote such schemes.

This is the reason you are not trustworthy. You create (or willingly participate) in fraudulent investment schemes, whether its a pyramid, a ponzi, or whatever you want to call it. Most people do not trust others that are knowingly involved with such schemes, I am one of them, and there are plenty of people that do not know what a ponzi or pyramid scheme is, and those are the people that need to be notified about your activities. I'm late on the feedback but I'm going to leave it as a warning to others in case he somehow gets this feedback removed.

If you don't have a compelling enough argument to send to the person keeping cryptodevil on their trust list, I guess that they don't deserve to be removed from DT. Dooglus doesn't keep people on his trust list because they're his 'good mates', else he wouldn't be on DT1.
So far your argument consists of 'he negative trusted me so I can't earn bitcoin from a signature campaign'. Considering that you can live without being in a signature campaign, your argument isn't really valid enough to warrant anyone else really caring.

My suggestion would be to stop posting support in shady services' threads, wait a few months and contact cryptodevil to ask nicely if he will remove the negative trust. This would probably work better than trying to start a witch hunt against him.

i guess i should say thank you now   but i don't believe it would solve anything, how should i convince him to remove cryptodevil from his list if they are probably good mates

So now you are trying to push the 'fault' away from yourself onto the forum staff? That's not how this works and this is definitely not the way to create support your 'cause'. If you had spent enough time reading in the right section(s), you would understand how the forum works. Removing that board is definitely problematic as it is going to push those games towards other sections; the only option is both removing the section and banning investor based games. Just because the administration does not remove the section entirely (or ban those games), that does not mean that staff members support them. As an example: I don't support them and I don't even visit that section unless I have to.

No.

The "staff" can't do anything; only the administration can. However, you should know that trust is very rarely moderated (only in extreme cases of abuse), so this is a futile attempt (trying to get the staff to remove him). You should be looking at the person in DT1 who has cryptodevil in their list; that would be dooglus (IIRC).

just to summarize this non-sense:

1: the bitcointalk.org forum supports the ponzi games because the gambling->investor-based games is full of hyip and ponzis, doublers etc
2: there is a guy "cryptodevil" giving negative feedback to people involved in ponzis, doublers, hyip games
3: i asked the forum staff to remove this guy from default trust because he has nothing to do there
4: i'm getting negative response from forum staff, my negative feedback is ok
5: this is unbelievable, confusing and ridiculous  

i don't think he is supposed to be removed, however you are not supposed to support ponzi's, and as well as being a ponzi sheriff is not helping at all.

we know you are gonna be the next victim of the ponzi, you should understand how ponzi works.

ok i was fine with that neg feedback because it's was a bullshit, but now i can't join any sig. campaign so i decided to try it here, but as i see no help here.

and about refbitcoin game, it's a game and it's under gambling->investment based games so yes i joined and tried it. If forum doesn't support such games, is it a big problem to wipe that board entirely? I think NO. So i understand it as the forum and stuff support ponzis TOO.

That's right.

So your evidence of many "false ratings" is the post that you've received a negative rating for? How did you not previously know that supporting ponzi's would most likely end up with you receiving a negative rating?

---

Also, why did you make this case now since you received your rating on: 2016-04-03 ?

thanks god, because i believe i see jetwin signature under your posts.

i gave evidence of my case: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/refbitcoincom-bitcoin-mlm-network-get-paid-32-btc-from-each-referral-1418002

this is the post i earned red trust from this cryptodevil guy:

Not really, no.

That's similar to me making a claim that X is a murdered, and telling you to investigate because "I'm right". You're supposed to provide this 'evidence' yourself (feedback, alts and whatnot).

There's nothing wrong with fighting ponzi's.

so this is your opinion on everyone involved in signature campaigns? they are all signature spammers?

just investigate or only look at those numbers of feedbacks he has given up to date, how many alts he has created to do the same thing.

he's given red trust to people who only replied in gambling, investment based games section

thats unbelievable you are ok with that.

Have you seriously just created a thread demanding someone's removal from DT due to a financial loss related to signature campaigns? You have just indirectly admitted that you're a signature spammer. This is not how you build up your case.

Stating this without evidence is pointless.

It's not like OP provided us with examples of "false ratings" either.

No.

for me it is the false red trust from cryptodevil, you don't need to defend him, in my opinion he is only naive victim of ponzi doing his revenge, got out of control. I can't believe someone is doing such thing in a free time, all he does is giving a red trust and spam the forum.

edit. And plus making alts and giving the same feedback from multiple accounts. Crazy.

In my book, mlm websites are all ponzis, there isn't a single mlm bitcoin site that isn't a ponzi. I wonder what else that site does other than simply referrals. Too bad you got a neg for that, many others have gotten negs for things more legit than that. Do you really think the site will last long? Support for potential ponzis warrant a neg from certain DT members, trust is not moderated. Next time if you want to try something that seems like a ponzi, simply do not reply,even if it might work for you, late members will not benefit, that itself is the very definition of a ponzi.
That wasn't an example of false trust at all. Look at my untrusted neg feedback from an actual ponzi owner, that is the real false trust

i got negative feedback only for this message: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/refbitcoincom-bitcoin-mlm-network-get-paid-32-btc-from-each-referral-1418002

please explain this to me, before you f out

What is a ponzi website?

Mind telling us the false trust rating? If you mean a ponzi owner vouching for another ponzi, kindly f off. I have never seen cryptodevil wrongly putting his big red psa

He is only fighting against the ponzi scammers, and that should be supported.

Ponzis will only take your bitcoins and you will be scammed when it collapse, so he his right about the negative feedbacks.

If the guys not like to get negged they should not post or support any ponzi website and all good!

Check the Investor-based games board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=207.0

it's full of ponzi schemes and bitcointalk.org is ignoring it.

Their lame explanation is that it would be more work for moderators to keep the whole forum clean, even that argument is a proof that this forum supports such illegal games.



old:
Hi, could someone remove cryptodevil https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptodevil-224980 from default trust, he has given many false red trust ratings, causing me and others money loss from signature campaigns.