Topic: EAL should be considered for demotion (Read 2381 times)

In general it wouldn't effect his ability to moderate, but if someone were to offer EAL 0.1BTC to lock/move a thread they didn't like would you trust that EAL would decline? What you're missing is the fact that EAL was a staff member I trusted on this forum and he abused my trust on two occasions and will continue to retain a staff position.

At the end of the day this comes down to whether or not you think trustworthiness is an important factor for forum staff, it's clear to me that he abused the forum giveaway and then told a very weak lie to cover it up.

I've left him neutral feedback noting the situation and will lock this thread as this honestly isn't worth further argument. I'm not trying to ruin his livelihood (staff get paid AFAIK), all I wanted was an apology rather than a lie.

Then why create a thread called "EAL should be considered for demotion" if you felt it didn't effect his ability to moderate?

You really don't feel that way.

What happened is you seen none of the powers that be gave a flying shit about your claims.

You're trying to keep from looking like you got it shoved right back in your face.

So why don't you own up to your "trivial matter" here.

You PWND yourself on EAL's behalf.



~BCX~

Does EAL claim to live in a student dorm or the like, though? If he does, then yes, all devices connected to his router will have the same external IP address...but if not, I don't think it is possible for two customers to an ISP with different routers to have the same IP address.

Edit: I am actually wrong here. It is. It's just unlikely and the system has a lot of flaws.

Yet the argument is "share the same IP", which makes me think that PD has nothing of the suggested solutions in place. At least not for now.

He can use tracking cookies and useragent string to try and differentiate between different browsers.

Lets assume the opposite for a second. Consider you would be accused of the above, that everyone or many users from your country/city/etc. are you and scam giveaways. What would your defense be?


It makes perfect sense if many people use the same VPN. I wonder what Stunna would do if lets say 10 people that live in the same student dorm sharing an IP would claim from a giveaway. Would the assumption be the same? Probably, because for some reason we expect that the same IP is the same person, but in reality many people share an IP address, many without knowing so. Be that in a student dorm or simply an ISP that has less IP4 addresses than customers.

Well someone will very rarely scam just one time. In my experience if someone scams once they will try to continue to scam. I also have been told that the accounts in question also tend to claim other giveaways in a similar manner. Don't you think that others should be warned if someone is scamming for small amounts (that very much add up after doing it multiple times)?

Do you think someone who has these kinds of ethics should be trusted to determine which posts can remain and which ones are deleted? I understand there to be a good amount of sensitive information in the staff sub as well.

Okay, let's assume for the purpose of this post that EAL did claim the giveaway multiple times like Stunna is saying and that his excuses are lies. Personally I think this is actually plausable as his excuse seems a little bit on-the-edge and iffy.

If the claim by Stunna is true, we shouldn't be worried about the fact EAL abused the giveaway at all. Whatever. The losses were tiny and it wasn't really a major "scam". Really, the main focus would need to be shifted to the lie and attempted cover-up. That's shady.

Note EAL might be telling the truth with his former statement (seems a little unlikely however). But in reality with the latter statement, an ISP having monopoly power will not result in people have duplicate IP addresses. That makes no sense at all, and should be impossible.

If he claimed the giveaway multiple times then he absolutely scammed Stunna.

When a company is giving away money to people, you need to look at the context of the goals of the giveaway (you need to make some assumptions to do this). If for example someone is literally giving money away then someone claiming through multiple alts is really not scamming, the person giving away money is simply giving money to the same person multiple times.

If on the other hand, someone is trying to promote their business then claiming multiple times is absolutely scamming. In this case, Stunna was giving money away to people in exchange for them to have an account, and visit his site. He is hoping that after visiting the site, players will decide to deposit Bitcoin and play at their casino. By claiming from multiple accounts, Stunna is being robbed of this opportunity because only one person is visiting his site verses the seven or eight or however many of EAL's alts claimed.

You can pretty much say that every scam is simply a violation of the TOS. Hell, even moreia had posted at one point that he wasn't scamming because one of his scam sites had something about gambling and risk in the TOS. If someone were to default on a loan, then they could argue that them not paying back is an TOS issue and they shouldn't receive negative trust.

The last time EAL was accused of being others who had done something they shouldn't, he claimed that he held Bitcoin for his friends. To the vast majority of people I would be quick to call BS on that, however being a representative of the forum (by having a staff title, you are assumed to be a representative of the entity you hold that title on), I think he deserves a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. With that being said, the question of if these accounts all belong to the same person should definitely be looked into.

He didn't scam 'stunna' but we can agree that he was not really honest at 100%.

I had this guy marked negative before over some other stuff (if anyone cares I could dig it up). I agree if he is a good mod then let him stay, but he is not someone I would trust at all. The whole IP story is kinda funny - hint it does not work like that. I do agree he did not scam though and my issue with him was resolved obviously.

Eh, I've had bad experiences with EAL before, but this isn't really something that someone should be demoted over. It's shady and it definitely isn't a "nice" thing to do, but it isn't really scamming in the truest sense of the word.

Here are the two Pm's I received from him.


I messaged him back and pointed out that the IP's were turkish IP addresses and not VPNs. And how he's basically arguing that he uses a popular VPN which is a turkish IP to bypass restrictions placed on turkish IP's. I asked him to own up to what he did and I would remove the trust placed on him and lock the thread which I thought was a super reasonable way to deal with this situation.

In response he replied with.


So basically, according to EAL everyone in Turkey has the same IP address as him and this is an issue with his ISP.


Feel free to form your own opinions based on this. I've left him neutral rather than negative trust. I'm disappointed he was unwilling to come clean over such a trivial and forgivable matter. This doesn't effect his ability to moderate this forum but I will never do business with him again. I'll lock this in a few days, I'm not upset about the minimal amount of money but rather the persistent dishonesty from him.

@OP aka "Rocket Scientist"

Yes the giveaway happened here.

Yes Stunna is citing evidence from Primedice.

Is it clear now?





@Blazr


Well I guess the bad news is your opinion doesn't count.

Long live EAL

 

~BCX~

There's a Turkish Topic about Bitcoin giveaways on Turkish Section; https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/forumdaki-btc-kazanma-frsatlar-292290
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11837668

Why are you assuming every user on Turkish section is EAL?

This accusation had nothing to do with EAL. You're just shitposting. (I know because I've repaid some amount of bitcoins because of marcotheminer's FAULT.)

xDeathwing's topic was quite something else.

Well, if Stunna cares, can't he appropriately note so in his trust and let other users know that he doesn't trust EAL?
If other users feel the same, they could care too and give EAL negative trust.


Well, wouldn't Stunna be justified to find someone abusing the ToS of PD untrustworthy?
Not saying that it is a scam, but if the trust system is about trust, wouldn't Stunna be justified to give negative trust?

I don't really agree with you and to me this is a form of scamming.

Many other people have have received negative trust for similar kinds of things. Tspacepilot comes to mind.

Is he going to pay you back at least? What was the total amount of BTC claimed by those alt accounts? If he did in fact do it and doesn't pay it back then he should definitely get negative trust IMO.

This.  If he is not guilty he would prove so and set the story straight.

That was I mean a stupid question, did you think police will reveal the name of the informant?