Topic: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team (Read 2136 times)

Flag type 1 is created:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=798632

Ups, flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=83

Is ignore this way out? Always so squealing questions?
 where did you get that I'm a troll? I do not want to waste time on you, but I had to. If the problem had been solved, you would not have heard me.

Just ignore the troll and his bakery nonsense; your time is better spent elsewhere.

Thank you for showing that I found not all messages to delete, I was sure of the opposite. This I learned only today from you. I think it would be simpler if you helped us, and did not ignore.

You have been tagged because you promoted exposed scam in social network after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.

---

Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

I agree that your side looks like this, but ......
I have a resource for which I select companies and this resource is used by a lot of people. Since January 25, we have not a single scam company. I myself have a bad attitude towards them. For 8 months, this is the first company that deceived my trust.
Yes, I did not see the message, but ......
I flipped through 5 pages in a branch before making a report, but the message turned out to be very far away. I always check companies with a red trust. Today I have only 2 companies with a negative trust and before all people take the report I check them every week.
Ok, I'm in trouble, but .....
Now it's not about this, but about the fact that I received a message from marlboroza what should I do so that I marlboroza  returned a neutral trust. I did it. Then he introduced me to the blacklist. I started writing to him in his branch on the return of the neutral trust. There, not explaining why I do not deserve to return the route, forbade me to write in the branch.
It turns out he directed me to action, but did not fulfill what he promised everyone.
Not only did he return the neutral trust, but for some reason he ignored me.
That's what I do not understand. Usually said - do it.
And I do not care much about the negative trust, since I do not make a pod. I'm worried that people like marlboroza  do not follow their words. They should not be at the helm.


Another time. If I were important, the rank or trust I gave would become Junior or Full. Yes, and I know that it is not difficult to buy them.
I'm against people who do not follow their words.

If you're known for tagging people for a particular thing, then people should *talk to you* (i.e. send reports your way). Similarly, account sellers should be sent my way (or to The Pharmacist).

Disclaimer: I have not looked into the specifics of this "platform" (website is dead anyways). You can make a "high return" project/coin without it being a ponzi by deploying POS (although 1-1.5% daily is too high for any sane POS). However, was it something with its own coin and POS then I wouldn't label it as 'obvious investment fraud'.
In this particular case: He should have known better given that there is a pattern.

---

This is an extreme example that tries to circumvent sane understanding of my initial argument as I told o_e_l_e_o earlier. The case being: BMs can protect themselves with disclaimers in most cases[1]; you can't expect a BM to come to the same conclusions about something as yourself in most/all cases; you can't expect a BM to find out proof of something being fake in the same time-frame as you.
[1] Meaning, you can't do that e.g. if you run a bounty for 'XYZ Ponzi Platform' and put a disclaimer on it.

You promoted scam which has been exposed, you ignored scam accusation thread, you ignored -ve feedbacks from 3 DT members and 2 non DT members, you ignored scam warning in that thread, you ignored their excuses in their topic in marketplace-->exchange, you ignored their lies in bounty topic, you ignored everything. And you keep following me around forum and posting lies:

I blocked your PM's after few times I've sent you what to do and after you lied couple of times. Besides, it was you who choose to promote exposed scam - so don't blame anyone else for your own actions.

---

Are you guys still talking about this account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1813710?


Talk to marlboroza? What's that suppose to mean?





Hashkon is ponzi

[BOUNTY] Hashkon- Only Staking Platform with Withdrawal Trust- 💲571k$ POOL💲

This wasn't example. Why is this extreme? They accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Should washib be tagged for running bounty for obvious investment fraud?

Your made-up-fantasy missed out the bit where someone comes in to the bakery, shows the seller with undeniable proof that the bread is non-consumable, puts up warnings in big red letters all over the bakery, but the seller ignores all this and continues to sell the bread.

You were not tagged for being part of the campaign. You were tagged for continuing with the campaign after it was proven to be a scam, exactly as marlboroza's post said you would be. The fact that you didn't bother to read it before posting your bounty hunting spam is no one's fault but your own.

Tell me. When the seller in the bakery sells bread. He must go to the factory and watch how bread is baked?
He should monitor the owner of the company to find out what kind of person he is? NO
And if the company was accused of selling non-consumable bread, the seller is not to blame for this.
He, as well as the buyers, was deceived by the company. He, as well as the buyers ate this bread.
Also, the seller has no competence in the study of companies.
Thanks to those who know how to do this, BUT, why the seller is guilty, and not the supplier, who also deceived the seller.
This is a standard form of prosecution. Blame the weakest and those who are the easiest to blame.
We are already paying time spent for work with a scam project, and then marlboroza deceives and we get negative trust instead of guilty.
marlboroza to this person a separate distrust. It's not right when a person says one thing, but does the opposite. And then ignores without explanation.

Seems about right.

I do not understand how marlboroza was allowed to perform or forgive.
And it's not about getting negative trust, but about deceiving us, and then ignoring.
He needs to paint trust. I will fight with him.

I'm not interested in tagging people for that; talk to marlboroza.

It is; user-decided (and *accepted*) forum policies. If it weren't, you'd fly out of DT tomorrow.

That doesn't even remotely apply. Please don't quote random things.

I have a couple of questions too.

If I help someone scam other people and get paid from the proceeds - can I legally keep the money ?

If I promote a scheme that turns out to be a fraud - should I be free to promote similar schemes without consequence ?

If I participate in promoting a scam but it gets stopped before anyone is scammed - am I trustworthy ?

If someone is part of a group when a crime is committed they can be tried as an accomplice - even if they didn't commit the crime.
People have been convicted of homicide for selling the gun to the gunman or driving them to the scene of the crime.

Fake team = investor fraud.

Investment decisions are made on the information provided. If you promote a fake team with the intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage then you have committed fraud.

Tagging isn't even about that person necessarily - it is a warning to others to be careful with dealing with them. A neutral simply does not give that warning.

It is also a message to others to be careful and not do the same.

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one)

Hello Mr. 2014, thanks for stopping by after 4 years of inactivity 

This is not true. Who said that?
It doesn't. Who said that?
If person A expose scam, persons B,C,D tag scam, persons E, F place warning inside bounty and person G choose to promote it after all that, person G shouldn't be trusted. Stop twisting facts. No one is tagging bounty hunters only because they are advertising ICO's.

To be honest accepting to promote obvious ponzi ICO's shouldn't be different than accepting to advertise any of these sites inside Investor-based games.

Why there is difference?

Why are you trolling?

Who will vote? Farming accounts who become senior/hero/legendary before merit was introduced[1]? Hacked S/H/L accounts[2]? How will you determine who earned rank?

I would go with KYC for AVC (anti-vote-cheating) because of MFA[1] and MHA[2] 

Think of any crime and imagine it on a billboard:




Nice straw man. Now lets try a full sentence:

"members are now considered not-trusted by some DT members for trying to make money from scam projects"

Nobody is forcing you to make money in scam ICO bounties.

So let me get this straight...members are now considered not-trusted for trying to make money? If they are getting paid by the bounty campaign, how does that make them a scammer? Are you saying the masses in the bounty section now have to risk the reputation of their account every time they participate in a campaign? That's absurd, imo.

If you want to label people for participating in suspicious campaigns, give them neutral trust as a warning that the user is participating in that campaign. This way people know where their moral compass stands. Just because you don't care about whether a project is a scam or not doesn't mean that you are a scammer, it just means the user doesn't care about whether other people perform their own due diligence or not. That's not anyones responsibility but the investor.

Soon 90% of the marketplace will have red trust, and the only ones without are the watchdogs calling everyone untrustworthy...eventually the trust rating will be meaningless in the future. You're shooting yourselves in the foot! I would recommend formulating a new strategy rather than the absurdity of negative trusting anyone participating in a campaign that may/may not be a scam.

This forum isn't a childcare centre, we don't need babysitters to sit the babies!

This is my alt account, as I believe my main account would quickly be negative trusted for having an opinion against the powerful players of this forum. I guess that is what this forum has come to.

So what are we to do, trust your power-hungry judgement?

Instead, fix that problem, set a ranking limit for polls that determine forum policy. Make a specific board accessible to those who earnt their rank. You can't censor and determine foreign policy based on yours and your common-minded friends. Because that is exactly what is going on here.

I highly doubt that your farming dilema will not be solved or you could continue using that excuse if you set a working ranking limit and beta tested with wide-member feedback over time.

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

Suspicion thing is deserve for prove. Those is confirmed there "prove" word is useless.


Obviously I didn't. But trust isn't moderate by forum or forum policies.

Obviously that's it accordingly activity.

How do we know? Of course they are involved, it is their "project":

Not sure about second project  

---

I don't think anyone here is robot.

Bad idea. Stay on topic.

I would go one step further to say - in some cases a disclaimer is a legal hindrance for those that rely on them. If the disclaimer is seen as breaching consumer law, securities law or any other law that specifically prohibits or restricts the use of certain disclaimers it could be illegal to have a particular disclaimer because it misleads the consumer of their legal rights under the particular law / statute.

In some cases a disclaimer could be used as proof of legal non-compliance.

Under UK law -the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - particular disclaimers could be deemed illegal

Most commonwealth countries have laws restricting the use of disclaimers.

Considering that a lot of ICOs now exclude USA residents from participating it is likely that prosecution would occur in the EU or a commonwealth country.