Topic: Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 18. (Read 23119 times)

Very good point. Thanks!

Not really. In that case, the victims that would come forward are those that were affected by the person's death, such as their family. Also, murder cannot be undone, so because there is no possible resolution, it is safe to not bother with waiting for a victim to come forward.

I'm liking where this discussion is going. I'd love to hear more.

No problems.

PMs are considered private information - and rightly so.  Yet you routinely ask people to send copies of PMs that an alleged scammer wrote so that they can be confirmed as existing.

If you'll confirm that a PM (which was NEVER intended to be public) is legitimate then what pathetic excuse is there for not confirming that a post made in public is genuine?  Your argument (giving it more credit than it deserves by even using that term) falls down because you are NOT being asked to release new information - just to confirm whether information that already exists in the public domain is genuine.

As, at best, that information reflects dishonest behaviour it's clearly in the interests of forum users to find the truth.  Remember that confirming (or otherwise) the existence of that information is NOT just about whether Garr had a sock-puppet or not.  It's also about clearing up whether or not Inaba tried to deceive when he posted that screen-shot.  At present there's a cloud hanging over TWO people's heads - and one of them, Inaba, has asked for the one over his to be cleared.

So you already HAVE a victim (if the post exists).  Inaba's reputation is being by damaged by Garr's mealy-mouthed attempt to give the impression that the post didn't exist - and that his statement of apology was forced and untrue.

At this rate everyone's going to have give negative rep to 3 people for this - not just one.  One for doing it and 2 for helping cover it up.

And we're back to the ludicrous position of a scam only being a scam if a victim comes forward.  As I've said before on this inane concept - there'd be no convicted murderers if that policy were applied more widely.  To be guilty of being a scammer doesn't require success on every occasion - incompetent scammers are also scammers, just not very good at it.  Provided there's an intended or potential victim then the perpetrator IS a scammer.  Even if the tag is only for successful scammers (so ones so bad noone will fall for it will never get a tag) then why does the victim need to complain?  The victims here have been identified (or at least some of them : we have no idea how many more sockies were out there).

I also disagree with the concept that a scammer who pays back ceases to be a scammer.  But at least on that point there's some general consistency - i.e. it doesn't only apply to people you're on good terms with.

Oh, LoL....  Shit...

That's wonderful news, John. Thank you for giving us an update!

Relax guys.  Theymos will respond here soon enough after checking stuff up, according to what I've heard from him some time ago.

Maged, we aren't asking for his deleted messages to be made public. (Or at least, I'm not.) If you and the rest of the staff wish to disclose them upon discovering there is truth to the accusation, that's fine.

We, the donators and people of this forum, just wish that Theymos would investigate the accusation. We all know Theymos is a busy guy. But since Garr255 is holding a portion of the forum's funds, I don't understand why this wouldn't merit a high priority for Theymos and bitcointalk's staff. If you would pass this information on to Theymos, that would awesome. That way we can close this thread and end the drama and speculation.

Thanks,
   -Mufa

I'm nit meaning to be insulting here or childish.

So yea I'm just gonna work off the assumption that Garr255 and Werner is in fact the same person. Yes the evidence is not 100% but it's enough for me to put them on my personal blacklist.

For example, if you look at Werner's posts you'll notice that about 90% of them happens between 2am and 7am German time. If he was actually German that would be some seriously weird hours to be posting to this forum!

I was being sarcastic starting from the second sentence if you couldn't tell  

The "stroke" is a moral dilemma. Grow up and join the adult conversation when you're ready to be an honest and self-governing adult. Now excuse this adult while I go back to calling Theymos a poopyhead.

 If you have ever sold on eBay.  You will find until something like this happens to you.  You really haven't had the full experience.  Countless times I've had someone bid on an auction and get pissed because they wher outbid. They bid and bid until the legitimate buyer stops.  Once this happens the price is so inflated they can't pay.  They will throw a sock puppet into the mix to cover some ass.   Ebays bid history will usually show a puppet wthin moments and or the time it would take to make a fake ass account.

Perhaps an auction system is in order.  Or hell just do away with auctions period.  Let bitmit handle it. I mean this is funny shit and all but Jesus Christ... it isn't worth the stroke some of you are in the throws of.

Yes, but I never said I wouldn't pay, I merely said I was paying a certain address that Theymos didn't agree with. Isn't that the point of communication and an "investigation"? No one even asked me, I just got a graphic from Theymos and a scammer tag. Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending that isn't reactionary. No matter how wrong I was for the prank, it was intended to be reactionary, I got exactly what I intended to get (and way way too much more I might add which I still feel stupid for), and that kind of reactionary attack from Theymos proves that he does what he wants, not what is just. When I ask him about removing a tag, he says "I will wait and see what the community thinks". That is a lack of integrity if I've ever seen one. Who gives a shit what the "community thinks"? I'm either a scammer or I'm not. I either scammed or I didn't. Doesn't Theymos have the ability to decide which one it is? Does he need to be babysat? If so, he really shouldn't be giving out scammer tags in the first place. Oh he doesn't anymore? Good! When is his given inappropriate and inaccurate "untrustworthy" tag going to be removed since he's no longer attempting to play god and just leaving it to the community to decide? Should we have a vote then so that busy Theymos isn't bothered?

It's either public or it's private. Is this post public or private? If I post it with the intention of people to see it, then later change my mind, does that change my intentions? You really are corrupted if you are even discussing this.

So what you're saying is, as long as you attempt to scam but don't succeed, it's okay? Oh well then, it seems that pirate bet for which I didn't accept a single bitcoin for anyone could be argued as just an attempted and failed scam, so it was okay since nothing of value was lost! You really must be corrupt if you're still arguing this.

Dear leader needs time to count forum money and cover tracks for Garr255 it appears. How many shares of his mining or stock operation do you and Theymos hold? Do I need to explain why such a conflict of interest needs to be transparently addressed right now or have you gone so far off the deep end of corruption and hypocrisy back there behind the curtains of money?

Doesn't matter. That case was extremely clear, especially because the contract even said that you would take a scammer tag if you didn't pay.

That's the question, isn't it. A situation like this really hasn't ever come up, so until we are convinced otherwise, it's best to take the most conservative position. In this case, that would be considering the information to be private. I would like to hear arguments for and against this position.
That would only be possible if he had won one of the auctions. However, since he didn't, that means that you would have been outbid regardless. Therefore, only the winners of the auctions can claim to have been scammed.

Theymos is very busy and can't really take the time right now to handle issues that don't already have a clear consensus. He's free to respond, of course, but I won't push him to.

How many seconds after my pirate bet ended did I get a scammer tag, and who contacted me to confirm things first? What "investigation" was there? Theymos doesn't have a very good record of being anything but reactionary. You on the other hand, I agree do a good job investigating in most cases.

Public information is considered private?

I believe I was scammed by Werner's shill bids as I was planning on bidding but didn't because Werner outbid my maximum bid. He robbed me of potential profit and he should pay me for that. Now that someone has come forward, it appears you need to step up your investigation to "get off the couch" mode.

Why would we be waiting on you to tell Theymos anything, is he too busy counting the 6000 BTC donated to him to do his job? (Yes, I appear to be trolling but I'm actually dead serious).

You're confusing several factors here. First off, we've never had someone who hasn't otherwise scammed people be reported for bid shilling. Thus, it's important to hear all sides on the matter. Second off, protecting the scammer is how we always start off an investigation. It's everyone else's job to convince us that we're wrong. That's just how this works.

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be), and private information can only be released when a scammer has been confirmed. In general, for someone to scam, there needs to be a victim. When there is a victim, a settlement can be made without ever declaring someone a scammer. That's why I'm not asking Theymos for the information yet. Also, there is enough evidence in the post history of Werner to not even need this information until a judgement is made. But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

Well it's settled then. The internet demands a song about this forum's corruption and hypocrisy, and ye best do as the internet demandeth.

No reason only one of you has to make a song on the topic.

I love how talented they are at taking existing songs and changing the lyrics, but I meant doing what I do, which is writing songs from scratch.