Pages:
Author

Topic: Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 2. (Read 23084 times)

sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
June 22, 2013, 12:21:34 PM
Yeah it was wrong theymos even said it. But its not pirateatfourty or matthew wrong.

To get the tag here you have to be one of the lowest.

Garr will pay for this more than people think and for him to get the tag it fould be a fail. Just look at how bitcoinica was defended or why its ok mt gox wont give us our coins back.



E^This /close thread
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
June 22, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
5 BTC for victims (that weren't victims of theft) isn't punishment?

It was not forced. They want theymos to be totalitarian and will stop at nothing less.

They hate his libertairian freemarket idealz.



Sorry Goat, but libertarianism/anarchism has nothing in common with deception and unethical behavior. "free market" does not equals to "everything is allowed in the name of greed". In libertarian communities the members of that community debate in assemblies to reach consensus about rules, even if no one is forced to follow them at gunpoint.

The fact is here a lot of people call themselves "libertarians", but still we just see the typical hierarchical structures that have nothing to do with libertarian ideals. Did you see any kind of poll or public call for the people to debate and reach consensus about what to do?

Not a hint. We have a hierarchical structure represented by the mods on specifically theymos, that tell us what is "the forum policy". We either accept it or GTFO.

Yeah, libertarian my ass. Someone needs to read some books by Prudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin or Rudolf Rocker. Maybe the guys in here read a couple of texts by Rothbard and think they understand what the word "libertarianism" means, but they are very mistaken.


You miss the point. No one is say what garr did was good other than some shareholders.

To get the tag here you have to do x or y.

People fail to understand that the word scammer here is not the same as many think.

This is not a democrazy the is the land ruled by theymos.

Im been way more than an ass here than i care to be just cuz i know theymos cant do shit and i question his moral ideas but it is his fucking forum with his rules.

Garr did not break the rules but yea what he did was wrong.

Thanks for that reply, pretty honest and pretty clear. I have to say I agree with many of your points, especially on the fact this is no "democracy" and much less a "libertarian community".

Wr have the forums we have, "it is what it is", but let us all debate to try to improve them.

I also agree on what you said about what Garr255 did, in my book that's very wrong too.
legendary
Activity: 1630
Merit: 1000
June 22, 2013, 11:44:10 AM
5 BTC for victims (that weren't victims of theft) isn't punishment?

It was not forced. They want theymos to be totalitarian and will stop at nothing less.

They hate his libertairian freemarket idealz.



The people who think theymos needs to enforce the rules of ebay and the us govt on this private forum.

Who's 'they'?

Don't the local Randist-Anarchists default to lex mercatoria (yeah, i had to highlight & hit "search with google" too, it's medieval market law Roll Eyes ) in cases where Atlas Shrugged is open to interpretation? 
Or am i getting my factions mixed up Huh

The main issue is that what a scammer here means is differnt than what most think. After lurking for a year and then trolling for two i fully understand the local law.

I also understand why it is what it is.

There was no chance garr was going to get any sort of tag or other past actions would then have to be relooked at.

Yeah i do biz with garr but if you have been active in the last two years iv done biz with you.

I bet im the most scammed person here on the forum there is even a thread about the millions i have lost.

Oh well...

You guys just need to lurk moar.

Ive been here for over a year, so im expecting by my second year to have done business with you  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
June 22, 2013, 11:41:16 AM
5 BTC for victims (that weren't victims of theft) isn't punishment?

It was not forced. They want theymos to be totalitarian and will stop at nothing less.

They hate his libertairian freemarket idealz.



Sorry Goat, but libertarianism/anarchism has nothing in common with deception and unethical behavior. "free market" does not equals to "everything is allowed in the name of greed". In libertarian communities the members of that community debate in assemblies to reach consensus about rules, even if no one is forced to follow them at gunpoint.

The fact is here a lot of people call themselves "libertarians", but still we just see the typical hierarchical structures that have nothing to do with libertarian ideals. Did you see any kind of poll or public call for the people to debate and reach consensus about what to do?

Not a hint. We have a hierarchical structure represented by the mods and specifically theymos, that tell us what is "the forum policy". We either accept it or GTFO.

Yeah, libertarian my ass. Someone needs to read some books by Prudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin or Rudolf Rocker. Maybe the guys in here read a couple of texts by Rothbard and think they understand what the word "libertarianism" means, but they are very mistaken.

Edit: just wanted to add that until now I was pretty satisfied about how the conflicts were resolved on this forum. I had the impression that the mods followed "common sense", and that their resolutions satisfied the huge majority of the community. In this case I'm not so sure, I know I was disappointed, and it seems to me that the vast majority of the members dislike how this matter was handled. It's sad, but it seems that the ones defending Garr255 are either their friends or have common business with him, while all the others are not satisfied about the final outcome of this "shillgate affaire"
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 22, 2013, 11:15:45 AM
5 BTC for victims (that weren't victims of theft) isn't punishment?

It was not forced. They want theymos to be totalitarian and will stop at nothing less.

They hate his libertairian freemarket idealz.



The people who think theymos needs to enforce the rules of ebay and the us govt on this private forum.

Who's 'they'?

Don't the local Randist-Anarchists default to lex mercatoria (yeah, i had to highlight & hit "search with google" too, it's medieval market law Roll Eyes ) in cases where Atlas Shrugged is open to interpretation? 
Or am i getting my factions mixed up Huh
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
June 22, 2013, 10:23:10 AM
5 BTC for victims (that weren't victims of theft) isn't punishment?

It was not forced. They want theymos to be totalitarian and will stop at nothing less.

They hate his libertairian freemarket idealz.



Who's 'they'?
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
June 22, 2013, 10:17:51 AM
This is going to rumble on until some sort of tag is associated with garr255. If im reading it right, the majority of the people reading and considering this Shillgate shitstorm, either want a tag, or cant understand why some sort of meaningful sanction has not been metered out.

While we wait for the mod/s, should it be a time limited negative tag posted by theymos/mod with "The community has found garr255 to be untrustworthy. Pending re-occurrence, this tag will be removed in 6 months"?

It draws a line in the sand, it allows garr255 something to 'work to/achieve', and it allows theymos not to infringe his own ideas/agenda.

OR, we carry on trying to fill this void, and see who else gets dragged into this.

hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
June 22, 2013, 09:46:55 AM
No punishment and no negative rating will only cause the thieves to flourish.  If he wants to rebuild his trust, let it take longer than a few days. 

+1
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
What's a GPU?
June 22, 2013, 09:27:13 AM
I was recently contacted by Garr to remove my negative trust rating for him.  I declined, based on the "could have lost" clause.  I would recommend the original two highest bidders to consider this action.

That is false. I requested you to change the "btc risked" from 2 to zero, because you never had any btc at risk. I respect your decision not to change it despite the fact that I disagree with it.

I agree that trust takes a lifetime to build, and only a few posts to obliterate.
hero member
Activity: 557
Merit: 500
June 22, 2013, 09:15:39 AM
Let the trust system do its intended job.  I posted a question on Garrs auction, fully intending to bid (one of the reasons why I'm probably more pissed off than others). The trust system allows for BTC that could have been lost.  If it weren't for Inaba, the two original high bidders would have lost 2BTC.  Even though they were compensated, it's only because Inaba caught them and the rest of the community aggressively pursued it.  Please remember Garr confessed only when his feet were held to the fire.

I was recently contacted by Garr to remove my negative trust rating for him.  I declined, based on the "could have lost" clause.  I would recommend the original two highest bidders to consider this action.

No punishment and no negative rating will only cause the thieves to flourish.  If he wants to rebuild his trust, let it take longer than a few days. 
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
June 22, 2013, 03:44:28 AM
Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

I think this should be stockied in order for everybody to know forums policy.

No gun to head, no scam.

Shill bidding is allowed.

Auctions mean nothing unless everything is agreed on beforehand, including the fact that the auctioneer will honor the winner.

I don't know if you realize that new members see the auction subforums and might think its a serious business. There are business transactions conducted in here that are based on trust, and it has been demostrated that this trust is not broken if a long time member uses deceiving tactics and blatantly lies to the community and/or his business counterparts to pursue personal gain.

If what Garr255 did does not deserve an "untrustworthy" tag, then what does? Serious question: please mods let us the regular folks know what kind of behavior is needed for an untrustworthy tag to be applied. Money and ethics are at stake in here.

And please consider that this shitstorm was triggered by a decision that a huge part of this community doesn't understand.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
June 22, 2013, 03:33:46 AM
fyi, shill bidding is a felony in the United states, so there again, whether or not it was a real scam is subject to conjecture/opinion.
sources: My uncle runs an auction house in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Aha! That's what's your beef, I get it now. My prediction on your location also was correct, without even looking in your profile.

ok
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 500
FREE $50 BONUS - STAKE - [click signature]
June 22, 2013, 03:22:24 AM
fyi, shill bidding is a felony in the United states, so there again, whether or not it was a real scam is subject to conjecture/opinion.
sources: My uncle runs an auction house in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Aha! That's what's your beef, I get it now. My prediction on your location also was correct, without even looking in your profile.
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
June 22, 2013, 02:59:27 AM
Auction schilling is just dumb and bad business.  I don't think I want to know how much it happens do I?

^^ This

With the prices mining equipment goes for around here it makes you wonder.
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 500
Dolphins Finance TRUSTED FINANCE
June 22, 2013, 02:56:42 AM
...

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

I know.

What really disappointed me is John K. is taking theymos' coin as a mod.  His reputation was unblemished but now he is answering to theymos.

When (not if) John K. has to either obey his boss, or do the correct and ethical thing, what will he do?  I want to believe he will do the correct and ethical thing but we won't know if he doesn't. Unless of course, Garr is involved with a sock puppet and screws it up.

Until that day, John K. is no longer as clean as he was.  There will always be the doubt that he will put theymos' interests ahead of _anyone_ who employs him for escrow, etc.

yeah, this shit storm is getting worse

Well, as a moderator here, my personal responsibility and power here is solely limited to moderating posts/threads, and more recently, the banning of spammers. We (moderators) cannot check IPs (hence sockies), read PM's, query the database, give out scammer tags, and everything else.

That said, I do not have any meatspace ties with either of the other moderating team, and Garr here, and have never met with them in person at all. I'm living in the other part of the world right now, and while I would like to meet many of those from this forum, my geographical location restricts me from doing so. I certainly won't, and will not act against my own beliefs otherwise, and it is downright illogical and wrong to assume that I will obey everything here if theymos is off his rocker.

Also, while I am against of the entire notion of having alts/sockies here, I can certainly understand it that it would be downright impossible to ban such accounts especially with the advent of VPN's and TOR. It's better to state clearly that the forum is not against and actively catching alt-account users, then to give newbies a false sense of security thinking that the alt account issue is under control here. (which it is not, of course)




* God, I'd like to sticky the first paragraph with all of the requests I've been getting.

I lol'd Smiley
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
June 22, 2013, 02:37:09 AM
Auction schilling is just dumb and bad business.  I don't think I want to know how much it happens do I?
legendary
Activity: 1789
Merit: 2535
Goonies never say die.
June 22, 2013, 02:35:21 AM
Well, as a moderator here, my personal responsibility and power here is solely limited to moderating posts/threads, and more recently, the banning of spammers. We (moderators) cannot check IPs (hence sockies), read PM's, query the database, give out scammer tags, and everything else.

That said, I do not have any meatspace ties with either of the other moderating team, and Garr here, and have never met with them in person at all. I'm living in the other part of the world right now, and while I would like to meet many of those from this forum, my geographical location restricts me from doing so. I certainly won't, and will not act against my own beliefs otherwise, and it is downright illogical and wrong to assume that I will obey everything here if theymos is off his rocker.

Also, while I am against of the entire notion of having alts/sockies here, I can certainly understand it that it would be downright impossible to ban such accounts especially with the advent of VPN's and TOR. It's better to state clearly that the forum is not against and actively catching alt-account users, then to give newbies a false sense of security thinking that the alt account issue is under control here. (which it is not, of course)


* God, I'd like to sticky the first paragraph with all of the requests I've been getting.

Alt accounts are useful in some cases, and they can't be effectively banned anyway. People can always use Tor to evade detection. So banning alt accounts outright would hurt good people more than bad people.

If I happen to see someone abusing alt accounts to break forum rules or scam, I will do something about it. BCB and others know that I am often helpful in these matters. But it's impossible to catch even a majority of abusive alt accounts (especially since very few people have access to IP logs for privacy reasons), so it's best for people to stay on their guard and assume that scammers using alt accounts won't be caught.


It would definitely be better to state clearly the forums policy on alt accounts... if I had never read this thread, I would have never believed this to be the policy. ( I would also have saved many hours of my life  Cheesy ). It really creates an entirely different environment in my mind and I would have handled myself a lot differently when using this forum.

I completely understand its impossible to stop/eliminate, but I just wish I could change theymos's quote above to say "If I happen to see someone abusing alt accounts, I will label the accounts with 'fake' or 'untrustworthy' or 'shady'." as opposed to just waiting for them to be caught doing something (if they are even caught)... I guess I am just not seeing the positive in not taking any action when discovering it. Deceitfulness may be 'useful', but it doesn't make it right.

That being said, it isn't my forum.  It is what it is.  Shocked
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
June 22, 2013, 02:10:19 AM
What the fuck.  Dude pays so we have to play this soap opera out by attacking john. Fuck ke dead some of you are pathetic.  LoL
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
June 22, 2013, 12:42:37 AM
...

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

I know.

What really disappointed me is John K. is taking theymos' coin as a mod.  His reputation was unblemished but now he is answering to theymos.

When (not if) John K. has to either obey his boss, or do the correct and ethical thing, what will he do?  I want to believe he will do the correct and ethical thing but we won't know if he doesn't. Unless of course, Garr is involved with a sock puppet and screws it up.

Until that day, John K. is no longer as clean as he was.  There will always be the doubt that he will put theymos' interests ahead of _anyone_ who employs him for escrow, etc.

yeah, this shit storm is getting worse

Seriously? John K. is IMO one of the most honest, fair and trustworthy people on this forum. I have delt with him on numerous occasions and HIGHLY recommend.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1227
Away on an extended break
June 22, 2013, 12:29:00 AM
...

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

I know.

What really disappointed me is John K. is taking theymos' coin as a mod.  His reputation was unblemished but now he is answering to theymos.

When (not if) John K. has to either obey his boss, or do the correct and ethical thing, what will he do?  I want to believe he will do the correct and ethical thing but we won't know if he doesn't. Unless of course, Garr is involved with a sock puppet and screws it up.

Until that day, John K. is no longer as clean as he was.  There will always be the doubt that he will put theymos' interests ahead of _anyone_ who employs him for escrow, etc.

yeah, this shit storm is getting worse

Well, as a moderator here, my personal responsibility and power here is solely limited to moderating posts/threads, and more recently, the banning of spammers. We (moderators) cannot check IPs (hence sockies), read PM's, query the database, give out scammer tags, and everything else.

That said, I do not have any meatspace ties with either of the other moderating team, and Garr here, and have never met with them in person at all. I'm living in the other part of the world right now, and while I would like to meet many of those from this forum, my geographical location restricts me from doing so. I certainly won't, and will not act against my own beliefs otherwise, and it is downright illogical and wrong to assume that I will obey everything here if theymos is off his rocker.

Also, while I am against of the entire notion of having alts/sockies here, I can certainly understand it that it would be downright impossible to ban such accounts especially with the advent of VPN's and TOR. It's better to state clearly that the forum is not against and actively catching alt-account users, then to give newbies a false sense of security thinking that the alt account issue is under control here. (which it is not, of course)


* God, I'd like to sticky the first paragraph with all of the requests I've been getting.
Pages:
Jump to: