Cause it's a community oriented forum with no central authority. The users are allowed to give their suggestions on what could be or not be a scam, offering their evidence to that effect; Everyone else is allowed to make up their mind using the suggestions of others as pointers.
Some things are not moderated like scam, trust system, merit system but there are many things that are moderated because forum have admin, staff and moderator who carry out their respective function. Do they deserve to be called a central authority where they can do several things for the forum community such as moving thread, deleting post, merging posts to ban users? If I misunderstood the central authority you mean, please clarify. 
Topic: Forum ads auction rules (Read 388 times)
There's also the case in which you suspect a user of scam, but have no proof of it, who decides on such cases and where would the line be drawn?
Speaking purely from my pov, ban should be reserved for well documented scammers like 1xbit (and for exactly that reason their banner bid was refused) and not just anyone with a negative tag given by a couple of DT members when they suspect someone might be a scammer, or something along those lines. So, I don't think it would be good to go completely wild and remove anyone suspicious (like they are often doing on some other forums) but should be reserved for those rare cases.I understand the argument that moderating scams would help in the very least to prevent proven scammers from posting on the forum, but the can easily create new accounts and continue with a new identity or shift their focus to other social platforms by attracting their victims to telegram or discord.
So let scammers go there. Telegram is a known cesspool, bitcointalk doesn't have to be.edit:
Some things are not moderated like scam, trust system, merit system but there are many things that are moderated because forum have admin, staff and moderator who carry out their respective function. Do they deserve to be called a central authority where they can do several things for the forum community such as moving thread, deleting post, merging posts to ban users? If I misunderstood the central authority you mean, please clarify.
He probably referred to trust system when saying that its without central authority, I also misunderstood that part of his post at first.
Beg to disagree. Police and justice system tends to be quite ineffective. Should we abandon it, so we don't get false sense of safety?
The forum is quite different from an actual justice system, but, why should the forum adopt a system which would be largely ineffective in solving the problem?I understand the argument that moderating scams would help in the very least to prevent proven scammers from posting on the forum, but the can easily create new accounts and continue with a new identity or shift their focus to other social platforms by attracting their victims to telegram or discord.
There's also the case in which you suspect a user of scam, but have no proof of it, who decides on such cases and where would the line be drawn?
if we are all responsible for our own security. Why should we tag someone promoting ponzi that promises 200% daily profit, people should use their own head and know that something like that is not possible. Yet we do it all the time, myself included.
Cause it's a community oriented forum with no central authority. The users are allowed to give their suggestions on what could be or not be a scam, offering their evidence to that effect; Everyone else is allowed to make up their mind using the suggestions of others as pointers. The forum is incapable of effectively moderating scams, attempting to handle something you can't effectively do would create lots of loop holes that would be easily exploited and the unsuspecting members who expect to be protected would fall victim.
Beg to disagree. Police and justice system tends to be quite ineffective. Should we abandon it, so we don't get false sense of safety? On the other hand, maybe open carry is a right solution. Secondly, Bitcoin is a decentralized network and each person involved in it act as their own banks. This forum which is for bitcoin discussions should ideally be designed the same way, you are responsible for your security.
We might as well abandon trust system all together (or at least for everything beside trading), if we are all responsible for our own security. Why should we tag someone promoting ponzi that promises 200% daily profit, people should use their own head and know that something like that is not possible. Yet we do it all the time, myself included.That reminds me of one interesting post made by eddie13, which I shortened a little bit as it was quite lengthy.
Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
...
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
...
Some people are complaining that bitcointalk forum is dead and finished, but desperation of 1xbit and other websites to make promotion in this forum is showing something else.
Bitcointalk is dying the same way like bitcoin died so many times
maybe it is devolving, and changing skin like a snake.
I saw that theymos accepted ads for some altcoins not long ago, so I don't see why 1xbit would be any different, even if I don't like 1xbit.
Bitcointalk is dying the same way like bitcoin died so many times
maybe it is devolving, and changing skin like a snake.I saw that theymos accepted ads for some altcoins not long ago, so I don't see why 1xbit would be any different, even if I don't like 1xbit.
Imagine being able to promote scams anywhere on the forum except the banners 
That's the reality of the forum and I still believe it's the best approach for 2 reasons• The forum is incapable of effectively moderating scams, attempting to handle something you can't effectively do would create lots of loop holes that would be easily exploited and the unsuspecting members who expect to be protected would fall victim.
Consider the 1xbit auction bid, theymos would normally not allow a scam campaign to be posted in banners, but was not aware of it and accepted their bid.
Better to put up warnings for members of possible scams, than giving a faux sense of security.
• Secondly, Bitcoin is a decentralized network and each person involved in it act as their own banks. This forum which is for bitcoin discussions should ideally be designed the same way, you are responsible for your security.
This is probably why a lot of the scam warnings are newbie directed as they are still getting acquainted with how the network/forum works.
Since the scam isn't moderated by the forum so most likely that's why it hasn't been added to the auction rules. I can't recall exactly, a long time ago I have seen a few auctions was rejected due to a bad reputation on the forum. And if I can remember correctly theymos point it out there. That means if theymos aware of a proven scam then he has been denied auction. And as we have seen they even reject 1xbit ads previously due to many scam accusations though the ad was approved. So the auction is open for everyone, but approval depends on theymos.
But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once
Yobit's signatures got wiped, 129 users wearing them banned for 14 days, and the signature itself banned for 60 days. This was because of the spam they caused. That's why they hired a campaign manager, after which the scam could continue but without spamming the forum.This won't happen to 1xbit's signature, they're not spamming.
This forum is kind of democratic, even if we are doing something wrong like promoting scams they will not get banned since the forum rules are not against it which is "scams are not moderated here", so the users are enjoying their freedom and getting paid for advertising a scam service here.
But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once which is temporary ban if I am not wrong.
But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once which is temporary ban if I am not wrong.
Imagine being able to promote scams anywhere on the forum except the banners
On the other hand, the forum's we don't moderate scams policy prevents him from meddling into what other people are advertising.
Yeah I'm well aware of that, but in both cases (banners and sigs) the end result is the same, forum has been used to advertise and promote scam.I don't know how often people here talk about bitcointalk with other crypto enthusiasts (I do almost daily) and one of the popular answers I get when I ask why are they avoiding it is that it's scammers paradise where they can do whatever the fuck they want, which sucks but that's how part of crypto community perceives this forum.
But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once which is temporary ban if I am not wrong.
This really comes as no surprise. No matter how shady a website is, they will find users shady enough to advertise their scams, especially if the campaign protects them against the repercussions of thier actions. Some accounts are already too low in reputation to be accepted in most other campaigns, one which offers such high rates is a steal.
The review thread on the other hand has users honestly giving their own reviews, good or bad. No one would be red trusted for participating in that, except maybe 1xbit hires suck puppets to flood the thread and try to dry clean their image.
The review thread on the other hand has users honestly giving their own reviews, good or bad. No one would be red trusted for participating in that, except maybe 1xbit hires suck puppets to flood the thread and try to dry clean their image.
As much as I don't really fancy playing the devil's advocate, but when one's in a third-world country or in need of cash, these kind of deals are hard to pass. You know after converting Bitcoin into fiat, that could almost match half of the average salaries there.
About the review thread, I wondered if anyone that gave a bad/ scathing review actually got paid for their honesty.
It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too.
Theymos rejects much more than just known scams:It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too.
Theymos rejects much more than just known scams:I don't know how often people here talk about bitcointalk with other crypto enthusiasts
Never (because of privacy). On the other hand, the forum's we don't moderate scams policy prevents him from meddling into what other people are advertising.
Yeah I'm well aware of that, but in both cases (banners and sigs) the end result is the same, forum has been used to advertise and promote scam.I don't know how often people here talk about bitcointalk with other crypto enthusiasts (I do almost daily) and one of the popular answers I get when I ask why are they avoiding it is that it's scammers paradise where they can do whatever the fuck they want, which sucks but that's how part of crypto community perceives this forum.
It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too.
To say the least strange decision, because you forbid them to pay the forum to advertise them, but at the same time, you turn your head to the other side and pretend not to see the same people using the forum (completely free) for their advertising. Such actions are not very clear even to us who know the rules of the forum more or less, and it is hard for me to imagine how confused some other members are.
Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...
If they devoted some more time trying to run an honest operation they wouldn't have to spend that much on advertising. It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too. But as we can see their campaign goes on. Is there any explanation why that's not the case, what am I missing here? After all, those sigs are shown the forum.
Theymos makes the decision what gets advertised via forum banners, whereas anyone can advertise anything (unless it's against forum rules) through their own signature. If forum ads advertised scams, questions as to why that is would be directed to theymos and theymos only. On the other hand, the forum's we don't moderate scams policy prevents him from meddling into what other people are advertising.
It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too. But as we can see their campaign goes on. Is there any explanation why that's not the case, what am I missing here? After all, those sigs are shown the forum.
Their sig campaign and review threads seem to be doing "well" though. Members of all ranks sacrificing their ratings for them ka-ching
This really comes as no surprise. No matter how shady a website is, they will find users shady enough to advertise their scams, especially if the campaign protects them against the repercussions of thier actions. Some accounts are already too low in reputation to be accepted in most other campaigns, one which offers such high rates is a steal.The review thread on the other hand has users honestly giving their own reviews, good or bad. No one would be red trusted for participating in that, except maybe 1xbit hires suck puppets to flood the thread and try to dry clean their image.
And seems that 1xbit is still trying desperately to advertise here. Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...
Their sig campaign and review threads seem to be doing "well" though. Members of all ranks sacrificing their ratings for them ka-ching
There is no chance that theymos would accept 1xbit bid again:
And seems that 1xbit is still trying desperately to advertise here. Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...
Bids from 1xbit will not be accepted.
As said in auction rules, he reserves right to reject bids.And seems that 1xbit is still trying desperately to advertise here. Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...
I just have noticed that 1xbit has placed their bid for promoting them into bitcointalk ad space. Out of curiosity, I have tried to check whether their bid is valid or not. But I have not find any such rule where I can be sure that 1xbit bid is valid or not. Maybe I have missed?
Is 1xbit bid is valid? Or not? Any reference for that though I believe their bid is not valid.
Is 1xbit bid is valid? Or not? Any reference for that though I believe their bid is not valid.
it won't be the first time that theymos turned off someone's bid on forum ads auction. I don't follow that part in particular, but I've seen bids rejected by suspicious bidders.
For example, hex.win
9 @ 0.1
I will not accept advertising for hex.win.1@ 0.08
These bids may be rejected - I'm waiting for more info.Current auction status:Slots BTC/Slot Person1 0.08 cat_rush **TENTATIVE5 0.08 DogecoinMachine3 0.08 sportsbet.io1 0.08 Dsdaq **TENTATIVE1 0.07 BetBTC(More than 9 slots are included above due to the possibility of one or both tentative bids being rejected.)The auction continues.
I thought I remembered them from something, Theymos removed their ad last time so I imagine he'd do the same again.
It mightve been a good thing you brought this up though OP! Just in case Theymos forgot - might've stopped a few people getting scammed.
It mightve been a good thing you brought this up though OP! Just in case Theymos forgot - might've stopped a few people getting scammed.
@theymos wouldn't accept scam project and has valid negative trust account, 1 year ago he was mistakenly accept the bit and that's why we see the 1xbit banner if you still remember.
This the thread of that's case Question to theymos [Answered!]
This the thread of that's case Question to theymos [Answered!]
I don't think theymos will accept them:
Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 2100
Marketing Campaign Manager |Telegram ID- @LT_Mouse
I just have noticed that 1xbit has placed their bid for promoting them into bitcointalk ad space. Out of curiosity, I have tried to check whether their bid is valid or not. But I have not find any such rule where I can be sure that 1xbit bid is valid or not. Maybe I have missed?
Is 1xbit bid is valid? Or not? Any reference for that though I believe their bid is not valid.
Is 1xbit bid is valid? Or not? Any reference for that though I believe their bid is not valid.
Jump to: