Topic: Douglus should remove cryptodevil from DT due to conflict of interest - page 3. (Read 9065 times)

I love how you're trying to drag another type of gambling into the comparison without answering the question.

Are you trying to say that (1) the odds of a dice roll or a roulette spin are unknown, or (2) ponzi outcomes are determined by chance/luck comparable to dice/roulette?

The odds of gambling are not always known before hand for the public to view.  An example, I bet you .01 BTC that Cryptodevil removes the red trust, there is no public algorithm for what will happen, it is a game of chance just as poker is just as a physical game of dice, just as roulette.  Investing in a ponzi does require increased risk for this lack of knowledge and so if you win the reward is much greater especially with things like compounding interest.   However, I will say there are ways to lessen your risk, by looking at the hot wallets of said ponzi's and by seeing what monitoring sites are saying and the people are saying on forums like moneymakergroup(if they are paying or not). 

Anyway, I am not defending Ponzi schemes or scam from the start sites I just am saying that they are another form of gambling and they follow the risk/reward formula just as any other investment would. 

My account is now ruined as the result of CryptoDevil, all I have done is post in the investor based games section to tell people a certain site does not look good and will most likely fall apart soon and to stay away from said site.  In a few instances I have said that the site looks like it may last a bit but will eventually collapse.  The investor based games section is part of the gambling section, any user that enters this section is gambling whether it be a ponzi, lottery or dice game.  They all allow you to win or lose. 

When playing the lottery, millions may buy a ticket and no one wins, should that be deemed a scam? Because the state did not declare a winner so effectively the state took the money.  Eventually a winner may arise after some time.  This is equivalent to a user investing in a ponzi early on and making a profit, winning money as the result of another person losing money; it is the principal of ALL GAMBLING. 

When playing a dice game a user may win or lose.  If the user loses the admin gets the money and the user loses, should this be deemed a scam?  Oh but these dice games are provably fair right?  So it is the computers fault that a user lost his money and suddenly it is alright.  A dice game always has a house edge, should this unfair advantage be deemed a scam because the owner of the dice site will be effectively taking money from its users?

When a user enters the gambling section, it is obvious that the user can win or lose.  If an investor puts money in a obvious scam run by a newbie with no website, they lose.  If a investor puts money in a well put together website that lasts 2 months, they win.  If an investor puts money in early in the game they may win, if an investor puts money in late in the game they may lose.  Just as a investor may put money in the stock market too late and lose their money. 

How do you say one type of gambling is okay and the other is not ?  Who makes these rules ?  This politically correct thinking that you are driving is so sick, that a person may lose his money for not doing the research and not being aware of the risk and suddenly all posters who made a post on any thread in the investor based games section have their accounts destroyed !   

My posts were for the most part warning others not to invest in clear scams.  Take a look at my post history if you don't believe me.  I even wrote a story a while back of how I lost hundreds of dollars through investor based games.  But I did not threaten negative trust for users who enjoyed the game, I simply did my research and took caution in the future and warned of sites that I feel are outright give me your money and take off type deals.  I never once promoted one of those sites EVER!  My red trust has a reference to a page that has no content at all on it !!!! 

This is my red trust:

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
cryptodevil 0: -0 / +0   2016-03-17   0.00000000   Reference   Wants to help ponzi scammers steal from other people


This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defunct-1396008

The content of this page now reads
quickprofit.trade
Newbie
*


Activity: 4

Ignore trust - We haven't scam anyone


View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Ignore
   
defunct
March 12, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
 #1
defunct


There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.


I have private messaged CryptoDevil asking why he has done this to me, why he has destroyed my account with no evidence; telling him that I was warning newbies not to invest in obvious scam from the start programs which are still considered gambling I suppose, I have never promoted a ponzi scheme ever, all I have done is simply state you can either win or lose like any form of gambling out there. I have humbly asked Cryptodevil what I can do to get him to remove my red trust as Crypto is a hobby of mine I have been involved in for over a year now on this forum and off.  Now with this negative trust, I will never be taken seriously on this forum and my opinion is worthless.  Cryptodevil, I ask of you again, will you please remove my red trust? if the answer is no, what must I do for you to remove my red trust? 


Very truly yours.

When QS was trolling me as ACCTSeller, Panthers52, Quickseller, FunFunnyFan (etc ?), dooglus noticed a little quirk which he does that sorta ends up being like a signature.  I don't think he realizes that not many people do this.  dooglus suggested we not reveal it in case it comes in handy in the future to identify his alts. 

FWIW, that newton1 OP has the same quirk.

There, fixed it for ya.

The thread in question was posted a week after you left the negative trust rating. You left the negative rating because he was saying that a gambling site that would potentially compete with Just-Dice might be fun to play at.

When I checked the last time I posted here, more of your recent ponzi related negative ratings had invalid references then those that linked to an actual post.

You are not exactly an approachable person, so someone who should not be labeled a scammed, yet is labeled one anyway is going to think they are wasting their breath asking for the negative rating to be removed. Additionally many of the accounts that you left negative trust for are very new, and therefore have little reason to put in significant amounts of efforts to "fix" their reputation.

Most importantly is it up to the accuser to prove their claim (no I am not saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and no I am not saying that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, however there does need to be some basis for a claim that someone is a scammer).



It is no secret that the operators of pretty much all of the ponzis are going to scam eventually, and it is no secret that ponzis are not sustainable. Many of the posts that you included a reference to for you negative ratings even included comments pointing out that the ponzi is not going to last forever (eg that some people will eventually lose money).

One thing that the OP forgot to mention is that one aspect of gambling online is the social aspect. This is why reputable sites like Primedice and betking.io, and even sites run by people with questionable ethics like Just-Dice have chat features on their sites, and have threads in the gambling section so people can chat about how much they have recently won/lost, about their experiences, about their strategies, ect.. By calling anyone who comments about a ponzi game, or any other site that could potentially compete with Just-Dice a scammer, you are essentially taking away one part of what gamblers consider to be fun about this kind of gambling.

What you are describing is not someone that is a scammer, especially when there are comments in the review that acknowledge that the ponzi will eventually collapse, and especially when the person making the comments has little reputation and when few/no people will take their word as written.

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

All these ISIS and Gestapo analogies are beyond idiotic. When was the last time you lived under a truly authoritarian regime? Was it really as bad as this forum?

Wrong again. First, please don't use real life examples while taking about unique situations in a private forum, just makes you sound stupid and may piss off other people. Also, you had to bring religion into this didn't you?

Second, he's not telling you where to invest your BTC. Heck, go and invest it in the scrypt scam for all you like. He's just tagging users who post about their positive experience in a ponzi thread, or are directly promoting it. Thereby causing promotion of something that will lead to the other users(who might invest after seeing the huge amount of positive reviews) being ripped off.

If you want to make an intellectual argument , I'm fine with that. If you want to continue preaching or other unrelated bullcrap, ignore this post and I'll willingly ignore you

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

Oh QS, you are so predictable.

This is the rep I left for that user obvious-scammer-sock-is-obvious:
Yeah YourPointIsInvalid tried that one already. Firstly, if a user has deleted the post concerned then the rating will be removed if they contact me to let me know. If they don't contact me then they clearly don't care enough about it and neither should you. Secondly, 'A good number'? ORLY? How many would that actually be and, as I already said, why should you care if they haven't asked for the rating to be removed?

Uhuh, of course you don't disagree QS, we all know that. Both you and the sock-OP have a very very very similar approach to how you fail at this.

Nope, it makes them someone who wants to knowingly help scammers steal money from other users.

Fail.
Pay attention when you're busy switching between your puppets, QS, you might miss something.

If you look at the references of the negative ratings that CD has left, and the post history of those he has left negative ratings to, you will see that, in practice, CD is leaving negative trust for anyone who posts in these threads.

A better example:
CD left a negative rating for gustav911 with this post as a reference.
This person is report a problem with this site, you could even say that he is warning others that this site has scammed. Sure this person is posting about his participation, however it is a long stretch to say this person is helping in any way a scammer, yet alone is a scammer.

If you want a good example of CD leaving negative trust for someone who only posts in a thread in the ponzi section, then look to an example in the OP, Nohah83 has negative trust from CD with this post as a refrence
It would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to say that this post makes this person a scammer.

A good number of the references used for negative ratings are "broken links" in that they do not link back to any post that they made nor any post that has anything to do with the person that CD left negative trust against.

---

I think the OP makes an interesting point, and I can't say that I disagree with him. First and foremost participating in a ponzi does not make a person a scammer, posting about an action that you have taken, provided such action does not make you a scammer, does not make you a scammer (this may make your eyes cross), therefore posting that you participated in a ponzi does not make you a scammer. Secondly, I don't think that the above point matters because dooglus is financially benefiting from there being less competition in the gambling world, therefore it is unethical for dooglus have CD in his trust list, not that dooglus cares about ethics.

I believe this thread is more likely then not a waste of time, and I think writing the examples above are a waste of time because there is little to no chance that anything will be done about abuse by anyone in dooglus's trust list. Hell dooglus isn't even willing to read more then 3 posts in a thread about concerns, actually look at the ratings that CD has left, or even look at the first page of CD's post history to see the "warning" that he is posting in the ponzi threads.

Dooglus himself has posted that he participated in (played at and invested in) multiple scam sites, made posts supporting such scam sites, and made posts that a reasonable person could interpret as encouraging others to play/invest at/in such scam sites. It isn't any secret that the "investments" offered in the ponzi section are scams, however the sites that dooglus promoted were less clear to be a scam. 

Ah okay thanks for the hint. I expected some screenshot like we had before in this thread.

I dont see a problem with it either. You always have to think of someone might "leak" your pms.

Watch that door on your way out.


The bolded post above is a PM. Zeke's expectation of privacy is misplaced though. I never asked or expected for this discussion to be taken into PMs, nor did Zeke say or imply it's a secret of some sort.

As I suspected. Zeke's misrepresenting the facts to try to make cryptodevil look bad.

It's usually a waste of time following up on reports from people who are butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam. Because in almost all cases they are just butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam.


Yes, there's no reason to post "receeved third paymunt" on a Ponzi thread other than to try to trick new people into thinking that it's not a scam. Otherwise why not just play the game quietly and not try to rope others into playing?

If anyone does have any valid concerns about cryptodevil's behaviour please PM me about them and I'll re-evaluate having him in my network. But I'm not going to remove him for highlighting people who promote scams.

Am i blind? Where was your PM posted?

Posting private messages just shows you need attention and do not know what private means.
You posting this is exactly where I was going when I said troll/railroad,but you could not help yourself.
Rest of what you say just confirms things for me,thank you. I reported this and will delete once they delete my private message.
From this point on any discussion will be one sided,go to town.

I'm not trolling or "railroading" you, whatever the fuck that means.

I'm just stating a fairly obvious fact that you are failing to support your statements. I even did most of the work for you and dug up cryptodevil's PSA and an example of a red tag. You then backpedaled from your statements with vague unsubstantiated (again) accusations of posts being deleted etc. I'm certainly interested in a real proof on cryptodevil's alleged wrongdoings as I have him/her in my own trust list but just throwing shit around isn't helping anyone. If anyone's trolling it's you.

And in case it's not obvious yet - don't PM me, not interested in your excuses. Posted something in public - be ready to discuss it in public.

Your phone seems to work fine to post walls of text just not on the topic being discussed. You can go to http://bitcointa.lk and find us some of those deleted posts that you're talking about but I have a feeling you won't be doing that.