Topic: Injustice while Tagging (Read 420 times)

So here are two biggest justices  which OP want
1: Any Member(BM) of this forum should be treated the same regardless of any reputation. The best suitable answer to this question has already been given by yahoo62278 that they give Extra exceptions to Reputed members before taking any action.

2: Royse77 and Mr crank have the same type of case which is not true because FatFork clear that Mrcrank issue was totally different because the project he was promoting was a fake humanitarian project Which is not tolerated in any case. Second Mrcrank has been given 10 Days before tagging while Royse777 stopped bounty immediately after Rikafip contact

I think it should be stopped now because already Plagiarized Whitepaper - MEMV MetaMallVerse is open in Scam accusation child board

It's a pity that tagging has been the order of the day for for some people abd they have finds it so interesting in using it against anyone they never feels ok with on the forum which shouldn't, i think the best way is to report accounts found with improper things to the moderators except on situations whereby it is obvious and evident to everyone an account can be tagged abd well referenced, to me i see tagging too much as not being disciplined enough to hold the law in our hands rather than allowing the moderators perform their responsibility by either deleting a post or moving them to off topic except for the scam accusation ones with enough evidence can be tagged.

Managers should be checking companies before accepting to work for them, but participants should also do their own due diligence and make sure they are not promoting a shady company.

Some managers may be blinded by money so it's always good if the participants also help look out for the forum and anyone who may visit.

That's what paid Campaign Managers are for.
Though I agree that participants can voluntarily check the contents if it's plagiarized, you cannot hold them liable when things turned out bad if they miss the red flags.

Before it comes to tagging of a CM, I think it's the responsibility of the participants as well to check if everything checks out from a project, if not they should be the first whistle blowers for such irregularities! Btw history as shown that even projects that have looked viable with their well written whitepapers have ended up scamming its marketing agents by not paying the bounties . IMO to protect campaign managers from any oversight and bounty participants from investing their time in such projects... Before a project is entered for a bounty some kind of whitelisting process should be introduced on the forum to ensure whitepaper is plagiarism free and to protect all parties interests which is also a huge ask tbh because end result might be a not successful project...So basically plagiarism can be brought toba minimal but bounty success isn't guaranteed!

I gave @MrCrank negative for promoting a fake humanitarian project. Exploiting human suffering and crisis in Ukraine for personal gain is one of the most unethical actions imaginable, and that's why I don't trust such a member. Anyone who disagrees with my judgment is free to remove me from their Trust list.

I recognized @Jawadu from a previous case where he accepted to promote a project that the previous manager had labeled as scam and refused to work with them. Here is the reference. After the QI Scam was exposed for plagiarism, he persisted in defending the project for his personal benefit, as you can see here. A few months later, the token's value to plummet from $0.4 to $0.02. So basically, I'm still waiting for him to prove me wrong. 

As for @Prasagta, I don't know who that guy is and I don't think I've ever tagged him.

I think  same exception should given to BM who distributed more than 20 bounty payment but did not recieved and trust from DT members because no DT member join Altcoin bounty signature. Participants of bounty are usually newbie and their trust has no value.

We do need to start treating everyone the same when it comes to tags. Members who have built a reputation do get a little exception, but if they do not stop the campaign then they are helping advertise a scam so to speak and should be tagged before people lose money.

It is already said by @Rikafip


But I doubt, this may likely be MrCrank supporter because I believe too well that every managers has their team of supporters, those who truly believes in them. Don't think Royse777 is aware of this because I know too well he might not promote that project if he knew they plagiarized whitepaper, with lot of happening around him he won't get involved in any.

I can guess for several reasons:

 - @Royse77 uses Telegram a lot, so he will not notice the negative of the team's trust.
 - @Royse77 runs several signature campaigns which makes the time spent checking fraud little.
 - Participants in bounty campaigns acts like bots, most of them are looking for profit, so much so that they do not bother to check ANN of the project.

There may be many reasons, but @Royse77 now knows and then, within 24 hours, we may hear a response from him and an explanation of what happened, because I do not think that he will lose his reputation because of such Bounty campaign.

I am not familiar with the specific cases you mentioned, however, you can likely find the reasons for the negative tags in the reference links. It is important that every negative tag is properly referenced.

From my observation, those who manage bounties and promote scams are tagged for a valid reason when they persist in promoting despite warnings and the concrete evidence of the scam. It is their responsibility to conduct basic due diligence and to be accountable for the projects that they promote.

Then Why Mr Crank,Jawadu,Prasagta has been tagged? Who will be responsible for their reputation?

Mr Crank had distributed Usdt to all participants

What kind of justice do you mean, what is warning: Trust which exists, not enough according to you, I often see several Bounty campaign managers who get warnings from DT, but are still running campaigns, but the bounty hunters still participate in the campaign, in fact they know the risks, is it not a problem, why don't the bounty hunters assess it.

In my opinion, in cases like this, those who should be blamed and warned are the owners of certain companies, which are banned because of plagiarism.
To be more fair, if managers don't pay tokens to bounty hunters, after tokens are distributed to managers they don't distribute to bounty hunters, maybe it's worth warning with red paint, because managers are cheating campaign participants.

I think if @Royse77 is responsible for bounty hunter in terms of token/distributing not one real justice to mark it, Who owns a company that must be tried in this case, besides they / the owner has been tried here.
Is I say fair enough in your opinion or vice versa.

---

I have said elsewhere, we here have different understandings of fraud and Reputation judgments.

In the case of @MrCrank, it is more severe on behalf of Ukraine's humanity, they make projects other than plagiarism, they also sell the name of assistance to Ukraine for personal gain.

And one more thing, @MrCrank distributes UKAN tokens to participants or not.

Absolutely not, I don't know who he is but I know that he created new account with the name of Onenuts and still managing compaign with new Account
Thanks it's already moved before my action. I think your report did work.



What will you say about your action against Mr Crank
You did not wait for one day. He clearly said that he will clarify everything tomorrow but you flagged him and here in this case you are bid silent .


I think it will not work. Here is another example if Qi Blockchain Project Which Whitepaper was Plagiarized. Even this project token is now listed in two big exchanges XT(No 2 in volume) and bitmart exchange and still project alive but compaign manager Jawadu has been tagged for running compaign
Here is the Qi Blockchain Pilgrized Detail


I am really sorry for Royse777. I wished that it was anybody other than Royse but we should do our work. I will be more happy if Mr crank  tagged change to neuterel because he had been also stopped bounty while Jawadu didn't.

Account created yesterday is already familiar with the happenings in the forum? Lol.! I am not surprise thou but the hate game is obvious in your post. Royse 777 is a reputable manager and he already announced the suspension of the ongoing round two bounty. I believe that perhaps he was not aware of the plagiarism accusation. I don't know what seeing him tagged will earn you.

Not only the whitepaper, but also the website (and most of the content in the ANN topic) is also plagiarized from various sources, but mostly from the Cypherdog project: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61635556

It's clear from a simple five-minute Google search that this project is nothing more than a simple copycat scheme. They take bits and pieces from other projects without any original ideas or concepts, just to deceive uninformed investors and make a quick buck before disappearing in a month or two.

Surprised to see that MetaMallverse are already tagged red by some DT members but nobody in the bounty noticed it since a month lol. Seems like Royse missed to see it as well.

He has haulted it already, just saw this on the top of the the round #2 campaign thread.
He also updated the same in the telegram channel.

Beside some other red flags like having anonymous team while conducting ICO and generally looking like very little effort and thought has been put into this project, you are right, the reason why MetaMallVerse account got tagged and flagged is due plagiarized whitepaper. Combine those two things and its pretty obvious how this is going to end up.


Its been a month since they got caught having plagiarized whitepaper, and so far they haven't done absolutely anything to sort that out. They didn't rewrite those parts, or maybe even included reference links for copied part and everything stayed as it was month ago. To me that tells that they absolutely don't care as they are here for a quick scam. I can't imagine a legit project that is here for the long not doing absolutely everything that they can to clear their reputation.because if


The right thing to do here is to stop the bounty campaign immediately and I hope he will do that.

So am I right in my understanding that the main wrongdoing here is the plagiarized whitepaper?  That's certainly wrong to do and doesn't reflect well on the integrity of whoever's behind the project, but that doesn't say much about how legit MetaMallVerse is or to what extent Royse777's reputation ought to be sullied.

I don't condone plagiarism by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: it's a thing that's accepted in certain parts of the world, something that people wouldn't think twice about and certainly wouldn't believe it would cause problems (especially if those people were young and/or naive).  We've seen it happen so many times with ICOs that I can't imagine project owners would continue plagiarizing if they knew they'd be held to task for it.

Anyway, we'll see if Royse777 knew about the whitepaper.  If he's doing the campaign manager job properly, I don't see why OP is making a fuss because he hasn't been tagged.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I had completely forgotten about this plagiarism case and wasn't familiar with their bounty campaign as I don't regularly check that board. I'll definitely take a look at it now. My thoughts are that any bounty manager should always do their own research before promoting a project. If they continue to actively promote a project despite clear indications that it's a scam, then they should be held accountable.