Topic: Diverenge RE: anon trust verses anon moderation (Read 2007 times)

I got your point. It looks like I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. If anybody can post a point which supports banning scammers, then I may rethink about my stance. For now, I am for not banning scammers and I explain 'why' above.

You are so stubborn and you keep saying the same things, i explaned it clearly. There is 2 options.

Ban the scammer or dont ban the scammer

If you dont ban him he will still be able to use his account and he can create a new account whenever he wants

If you ban him he wont be able to use his account and he can create a new account whenever he wants to, why should we let scammers post on their main accounts here? Just look at KoS he has plenty of alt accounts and no one of them is banned, he can keep creating them, at least ban his alt accounts to clear the forum from trash.

A newbie account is better for scamming than higher ranked user with negative trust rating. There has been many circumstances where people are scammed by newbies.


We ban them, they create new accounts always.
We don't ban them, they probably create new accounts most times but not always.

So what is the real advantage here?


How can you actually punish them? Is ban a punishment?


Only sometimes, not always.

1) Ofcourse Yes. I have never heard about a thief getting a life imprisonment/death penalty.

Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Reference: http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1839

In Saudi Arabia, I guess they cut off the hands of the robber.

In all countries, there is a punishment for theft but on BCT, punishment is a red marking 

2) Banned users who evade ban are banned again.

When you ban an user you make it hard for him to scam again, as i said he would create a new account, yes but that account would be a newbie account (much more harder to scam with a newbie account)

What do you get by not banning them? You let them free here, they would still create a new account, so what are you doing exactly? nothing.

1. Do thieves get out of jail?
A) Rarely.

2. Do banned users evade ban?
A) Almost always!

@bold: Answer is no. But I wish to know if sending thieves to jail stops them from robbing again. I guess no as thieves again get out of jail and start robbing people. So does that mean they shouldn't be punished. I don't say that scammers should be banned but they should be warned before getting banned. They need to know that they need to leave this forum if they want to scam but as of now they are welcomed to open a new account and continue scamming.

Innocent people who are accused, thats happening already, whats your point with that one? Even in real life sometimes innocent people will go to jail but that doesnt mean we shouldng throw anyone to jail. If you ban the obvious scammers you are punishing them because they will have to create another account and wait several months to get a normal rank if they intend to scam again, also you are stopping thrm from posting in the forum, why shuld we let scammers post in the forum anyways? I always see people with -100 ratings posting here like nothing happened after they have stolen btc from people.

What an odd way of seeing things -- "Mastercard and Visa haven't been able to solve this problem yet." MasterCard and Visa don't let the carders keep using the stolen numbers once it's been established that carders are carders and stolen numbers are stolen numbers.  Yet that's exactly what happens here -- the scammer is free to continue scamming. We've even started a new section specifically for ponzis


When I discover a thief in my house, I throw him out. Call me crazy.

Again, back to my point... does banning them stop them? No, it barely slows them down, and it has side effects for other users who may use the same services as the scammer with no ill intent, not to mention innocent people who are accused and forced to prove their innocence to angry mobs. The real question is, what makes you think you can stop them? Why is it Mastercard and Visa haven't been able to solve this problem yet, but you think you have the solution?

Please tell me how you can really honestly say you are punishing or stopping scammers using these methods. Calling people out is one thing, but then when you enter into messing with the trust system and banning you are entering a whole new arena of vectors for additional abuse and obfuscation.

Indeed my point. Most of it happens because its allowed, you are allowed to post scams in the investor based games and no one will tell you anything, you can sell accounts etc etc.

The lending section as well its full of newbie scammers, easy solution, dont allow newbies and jr.members to post on the lending section. There are plenty of solutions for each problem but in the end nothing happens and the scammers still win.

I know what you mean. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that obsessively protecting oneself from germs doesn't allow the body to develop healthy immune system. Point taken.

But something tells me there must be a happy medium between eating antibiotics 24/7 and creating a cesspool/incubator, stocking it with every pathogenic germ known to mankind, and living in it. Because that's what this forum has become -- a fucking cesspool of scam.

But what about other type of disruptive people, extortionists, people that link malwares etc, shouldnt them be banned and punished? Yeah you can teach people not to download things on the internet randomly but they can still get infected with virus and what about extortionists for example, what do you do? Shouldnt them be banned? We cant just let every scammer, thief and bad person be free around the forum like nothing happened, there has to be something more than a red trust.

Banning scammers isn't going to fix anything. You know what that will do? All it will do is slowly result in all anonymizer services and IPs being banned from BCT. It isn't very hard to get a new IP.

You are all still hyper-focused on finding and punishing scammers (a losing battle), that you totally ignore teaching preventative measures that show people how to protect themselves. Ignore Bitcoin for a second and look at the world and how absolutely saturated it is with scams, all around us. How do you protect yourself from them in daily life? Do you expect the police to protect you? Most people don't. Most people rely on their own past experiences, or the advice of others to prevent being involved in such situations.

Furthermore the individuals that created Bitcoin did so to allow people an environment where 3rd parties were not dictating everything to two parties trading all the time. If you want police to protect you, then that also means you are subject to their potential over reach and abuse. There is no way around this, EXCEPT teaching yourself (and others) the best practices for preventing being scammed. The lazy and the ignorant will ALWAYS be robbed, it is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be like it or not. It is a persistent and inherent feature of technological progression.

Teaching people not to be victims is the only way to stop victimization and stop the supply of funds to thieves. Hacking away at scammers like this is about as efficient as playing whack-a-mole, and not every mole that pops its head out is bad.

Experienced/knowledgeable scammers will also avoid that taint.


We can't prevent all scams here or anywhere else but to some extend, it can.


Once the negative feedback is not appropriate but a warning should be left, then it is better to change negative feedback to neutral.


We don't need them to be in DF list to track scammers. They can investigate and open a thread in Scam Accusations. Other members will leave negative feedback if there is enough proof.



By your logic, we need to make someone who are experienced in analyzing taints a staff. But with the another logic of yours, "one DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?", it is not possible. SO...?

Scammers may not use the same IP but I guess it's possible to detect a member who has created an account using a proxy.


@bold: Then really it is impossible to stop scammers from scamming members here and it makes no sense for DT members to do that job which is not their responsibility.

DT members too keep changing their negative trust to neutral when they are under pressure to maintain their DT status which means they are abusing their power. One DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?

If common members of a forum are given a moderating job to track scammers when it should be a job of the admin/real mods, that's when we can see that the forum is not functioning properly and there is no proper law and order.

Bullshit, scammers would still create new accounts, like KoS which has what 20 different accounts? And who knows how many more, scammers will create new accounts, they are forced to create new accounts when they are marked with red trust, allowing them to keep talking in the forum with their high rank account its stupid, instead banning them its a better idea, you ban them, yes they will create a new account but they will be newbies, it takes quite a lot of time to reach a higher rank, so in a way you are punishing the scammers, right now you are not, you are letting them be free on the forum, look at meta, all the scammers that are red marked come here and complain about their trust ratings.

Known scammers' accounts are already marked with negative feedbacks. If they are banned, they will come with a new clean account and can easily scam others. When we ban them, they are *forced* to create new accounts but now, they are not and it chances are less for them to come under alts than when we ban them. This only decrease scams. Banning scammers also create a false sense in inexperienced users that "there are no scams here because they are moderated". Only way to reduce scammers is to enforce "1 account per person" rule which is impossible.

So your logic applies to spammers but suddenly with scammers not, so if you ban spammers they can create a new account but they will be banned again yet if you ban scammers they will create a new account and wont be banned? or whats the deal because i really dont see your point, scammers can create new accounts without being banned, probably most of them do so why not just ban their main account directly? What do they bring to the forum?

Spam mostly happen publicly and sometimes via PM which will be reported. It is not hard to know who is spammer and who is not unlike scammers. Banning spammers is good and they may change their way of posting or come under new account and if they continue spamming, it will also be deleted.

There is no point at banning scammers because they will come under new name and new address. If we don't ban them, they may still use their account and some of them maybe safe.


Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.