Topic: For how much money heroes and legends are willing to advertise fraud and scam? - page 4. (Read 1669 times)

Possibilities: you have some victims due to unmonitored scams because the forum doesn't do anything about it, or
Possibilities: you have some victims due to unmonitored scams because anything that isn't a "scam" seems like it was approved by the forum, or
Possibilities: you have some victims due to unmonitored scams because DT doesn't do anything about it, or
Possibilities: you have some victims due to unmonitored scams because the administrative system has not seen it.

---

Pick your poison.

Both are basically the same result (in terms of prospective command and consequences) but the DT system gives a wider scope and more power to forum users rather than hand-picked moderators.

I think that we had enough discussions about Livecoin issue, there is no need to make another topic. It's up to every person to decide, is it ethical to advertise services which have not ressolved scam accusations against them. And actually, here on Bitcointalk we saw plenty of worse and more shady websites advertised than Livecoin and there wasn't so much dram about that.
And I can rephrase your question - for how much money Newbies and Jr. Members are willing to advertise fraudand scam? Because often they are promoting things like scam ICO's basically for free. Is it something better?

Personally, about tree fiddy.


User A: OMG WHY IS NAZI BITCOINTALK CENSORING PEOPLE/BUSINESSES. MUH FREEDUMB OF SPEECH!
User B: WHY AREN'T BITCOINTALK DOING ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THESE SCAMS & SPAMS!!!! BAN THEM ALL!!!
Nazi mods: We can't win.

Staff don't get involved in potential scams and that's left up to the community to police. Sure, staff could remove scams, but who gets to decide on what is and isn't a scam. Has yobit been found guilt in a court of law? And what crimes should be cause for banishment? It's hard to police fairly so staff usually stay out of these things unless certain legal action is taken.

I know theymos is trying to avoid this, but he seems to be open to the idea of potentially disallowing signature campaigns, and lets be honest it would improve the forums signal to noise ratio by a whole lot, although we would be removing a rather interesting eco system which has developed because of it. Unfortunately, whenever you have something good, it is always abused by the masses until it eventually ends up being tossed out. 

I had messaged the participants about the scam accusation in the old campaign and I ended up receiving negative trust for doing so (the text of the rating was different however the reason was clear).

I don’t think anyone should advertise for LiveCoin until they can resolve the scam accusation against them. They appear to be preventing withdrawals by anyone critical of their business, which is unacceptable.

I will message anyone on the spreadsheet who is wearing their signature this evening.

Or we could end all signature campaigns for 60 days just to see if it helps.

Think of all the spam that would go by by.

Why not try it for a bit just to see.

If staff members were to moderate scams, there would undoubtedly be a lot of headaches where something is removed, and complaints come flying in. Plus, lets be honest the more "successful" scam attempts are usually not immediately obvious, and would need to be thoroughly investigated, and verified. Sure, we could potentially investigate these cases, but verifying it could be difficult. In the world of business people are willing to damage their competitors, and try, and accuse each other of all sorts. Every so often we have report wars with several allegations from competitors on different projects, but investigating that would be a massive headache. This is why the trust system is in place, and it might not be perfect, but it should be good enough as a warning, then users can decide whether they are willing to accept that risk or not.

Just imagine for a second if we were to remove all the scams in the altcoin section. although this would be a grey area, as some of them are obvious cash grabs, but might not exactly be scams we would be there all day investigating, verifying, and removing that we wouldn't have time to eat or sleep. Moderating scams is opening a can of worms that no one wants to deal with. At least with the trust system, and now the flag system we can place up flags, and see if others agree with your viewpoint, because scams are largely subjective if they are caught before an actual scam attempt.

Anyone can bring up an accusation and if it's valid it has "opportunities" to be supported by DT members using flags and red trust ratings. That's what happened to LiveCoin recently.

The system is not perfect but expecting forum staff to moderate scams - while it may seem like the right thing to do - would likely end up with a lot of issues too. For one, you can't expect them to find every scam so you would still need to sort of community reporting/policing option, which is essentially what DT does.

It is just useless. My account does not have enough opportunities to blame everyone for cheating. And the majority of newbies will go over the signature of respected participants and plunge into shit. This forum has millions of dollars in cryptocurrency and a lot of opportunities, but it is more profitable for them to cover fraud.

Some are willing to scam you for one dollar, if you do not believe me you can visit this section ----> {Digital goods & Invites & Accounts} and know some of them.
Unfortunately, many accounts with a negative trust are willing to do anything for some money.
If you are interested in fighting scam promoting, track those accounts and report any mistakes they made.

Well, there's a good reason for that; most of the time it's quite hard to determine whether something is a scam, or not.
It might be unethical, there might be a lawsuit going on, but doesn't necessarily imply guilt in unlawful behavior.

With the project you mentioned it might be a bit more obvious that they're doing something wrong, still, the forum doesn't want to set a precedent. There's no court case, or a verdict, and if there was, perhaps it still wouldn't be enough to even consider banning it, because where do you draw the line then, or which jurisdiction determines what's legal and what isn't? Do you prohibit services from advertising if they have a single accusation next? Or a rogue guy suing them?

And if the forum bans one service from having signatures just because their operations are controversial, before you know it they'll need to review 100s of different companies who perhaps operate shadily. I don't think theymos wants nor has the resources to do that.

But that doesn't mean that people can't be found to be untrustworthy if they promote such schemes. You can tag and open scam accusations against them for all you want.

I do not understand the policy of the forum administration. They do not prohibit the advertising of dubious and fraudulent services or companies against which criminal proceedings are instituted in different countries of the world (for example, YoBit Exchange).

It is just reasonable if this happens for the first time and you are a part of it but it seems that this people did not even care looking at the trust rating of the said manager of the campaign.

I think if they are aware of the current status then it really boils down to money > than reputation (they will not even getting punished by the forum rules if they participated on it.) So why would they even care. Unless the authorities here will pursue punishing them which i think is never going to happen.

Hero & Legendary accounts that were hero & legendary before the merit update shouldn't be regarded as something unique.

It's no surprise these accounts which generally ranked due to low level posts would engage in behavior that would, above all morals & ethics, fill their pockets. They're in a sense just junior members with a bigger signature and title. (Most of them.)



But.. What's your point?

Signature Campaign
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/open-livecoinnet-signature-campaign-herolegendary-weekly-up-to-01btc-5166711

reviews about this company
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2650265



Here is the list of participants
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tv7tkG6SSwrSOyz8PlBpUNxslh7dTxKCcgXiu0sKu3A/edit#gid=0



The answer is simple. From $ 100 a week, dear participants are willing to advertise projects with a dubious reputation and a lot of negative reviews.