Topic: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team - page 2. (Read 2136 times)

I don't need to prove wrong any suspicion. That is a weird question.


Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Point being: Polls are easily cheated and present a useless metric. You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies.

Exactly.


Obviously exposer already notified him on his OP by reply scam warning. Than why he shouldn't tag ?

 
I don't think it's necesarry.

Prove what wrong, your suspicion of guilt?

There is a huge difference between thread posters which act as soon as they are notified, those that delay acting as long as possible, and those that act upon reading. In this case, the user is guilty for not acting post exposure.

Step 1: Get 100 accounts.
Step 2: Win poll.

Question to Lauda,
User Mocoinaire posted 2 ANN lately with fake team.[1][2].
Please take a look on accusation.
 1. Debreco - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/debrecoio-scam-fake-team-5008893
 2. Giantnova - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/giantnova-scam-fake-team-5029777

No one tagged him/her for first project or not yet tag him still now. Recently we found another ANN with fake team.
If I say he is involved with both project how you will prove me wrong in fact he/she have own ICO LAUNCH SERVICES.
Can you prove me wrong ? Even though we know he/she isn't involved but question is why he/she posting ANN continuously with fake team and still never locked thread even exposed.

And what's your opinion about this kind of user? We should leave them to bring more scammer . We should believe them them who use fake team from stock or Google and who plagiarized content & whitpaper ?

---

Personally I think I should open poll on meta instead of argument, we should know others people opinion about corrupted BM or ANN poster. If similar case I mean multiple case they should tagged or not.

What do you mean with promoting criminal activities?

This is, in Lauda's words, an extreme example. A more appropriate one would be this: is it ok (or even legal) for an ad agency to put up highway billboards promoting criminal activities, and how should we react if someone chooses to publicly shame that ad agency for such actions?

Nobody's getting sentenced here. Marlboroza has expressed a strong opinion, which this forum sorely needs on the account of it drowning in this ICO sewage. And if bounty managers figure it's worth spending 30 minutes on due diligence to avoid getting tagged by marlboroza then more power to them. I also hope they would spend another 5 minutes posting negative findings publicly.

Last time I checked, bounty managers are not the ICO's partners and thus partnership law doesn't apply.



Disclaimers absolutely mean a lot. You just cherry-picked something that suited the argument. You can do the same with FTC regulations on endorsements to support the counter argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

Anyhow, this is just a lawsuit. The outcome is TBD.

https://www.silvermillerlaw.com/current-investigations/bitconnect/
https://www.silvermillerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-7-3-DE-48-THIRD-AMENDED-CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT.pdf

You will get to youtube part in second link(and people who advertised it on youtube)

According to youtube's ToS:


The same can apply to twitter promoters, facebook promoters - that is why social media is banning crypto advertising, they don't want to  face law suit because of actions of other people.

You see, when it comes to trial, disclaimer really means nothing.

---

Ok, I see your point about bounty managers don't have to do due diligence - you are right about this, they don't.

Ponzis are just a form of fraud. New investors are paid by the money of the old ones. The moment new investors stop coming in the chain breaks and the owners make a run for it. Bitcoinnect was literally the definition of a ponzi scheme and it wasn't at all hard to realize that since there are countless examples like it. 

I may have expressed myself wrong, a better way to say what I meant was stop being influenced by an opinion of a higher ranking member. If you were not influenced I apologize, although it seemed to me like you were and without a need for it since you are in the right while the other user is clearly in the wrong although they won't admit it.

Except I didn't. My first statement was (emphasis added):


My second statement was (emphasis added):


These two statements are entirely compatible. Allow me to elaborate.

Most scams are obvious. Some are ponzis, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their website. Some have fake teams, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of looking at LinkedIn. Some are plagiarized, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their whitepaper. If a scam is this obvious, then a disclaimer shouldn't be enough to absolve a manager of all responsibility. They should be doing a minimum level of research. If they promote such an obvious scam, they should be tagged.

Some scams are not obvious. Take Bitconnect for example. Bitconnect fooled a lot of people for a long time, and they made millions. I don't think you can blame a manager for being involved with a project they didn't know was a scam when no one else knew either or it couldn't be reasonably exposed. In those cases, provided they break off all ties once the scam is exposed, a disclaimer is fine and they shouldn't be tagged.

I would echo that disagreement does not equal bullying

Scam agents? If you mean auditors, they helped build the case and got a reduced sentence. You can also bet they got a hefty fine and can't do business in the branch anymore.

Still, it's beyond me how you can use Madoff as an example and how you can compare a business that operated for decades before being exposed to these scam ICOs. Also, one important thing you fail to realise, we are talking about the reputation of a member, not about banning him from the forum. All of the Madoff employees and partners(since you're using them as an example) do have a bad reputation after the scandal, wouldn't you say so? Would you hire someone that worked with them? Would you like to know whether a person worked for Madoff before hiring him? Would you like a warning before conducting business with that person? If the answer is yes, then congratulations, you see my point.

Nobody is holding you back, you can work with Woshib all you like, but other users deserve a warning in the form of red trust and reference.

Regarding your question, a project with "a page or two on social media" shouldn't be launching an ICO now, should it? There is no need to check the "whole marketing" as you put it, just check the team behind it and whether the project lies on their website(which it often does), simple as that. They should protect themselves by doing the research since it would be the best course of action for both their reputation and the well-being of the investors.

Thank you actually for elaborating my point.

The scammer was sentenced for over a century in jail, yeah.
What about the scam agents ? And this is state justice, not some internet board with "wanna-be ICOs", like you say.
Which one is the most "critical" ? Were there consequences for the agents ?

Now that you repeated that, in your view, managers have responsability, can you please address my first point ?
What do you recommend to do this ? Let's find practical solutions that BMs can use.
How can managers protect themselves from a team that appears legit at first glance, with only a page on 2 different social networks at start.
Only then, they add more and more bullshit, make Linkedin plagiarised profiles, and update the project OP (that has been accepted by the manager) since they can do that.

Except from checking the whole marketing of every project that is managed on a daily basis to prevent scams, which would take forever, what do you recommend ?

I have no better solution to provide, this is why I think they shouldn't be held responsible. But meh.. difference in points of view etc ...
Since you think otherwise, what do you recommend, practically ?

The example was a clear appeal to extremes. Get a hold of yourself; the above conjecture is just pure silliness.

They are not[1][2], the same way that no hunter nor investor is required to do this. Whether they should or should not do it is another thing.

Correct, because nobody sane would go after a subset of the victim pool.

"Disagreeing with someone's opinion == bullying someone" is your classic liberal, whiny bullshit. There are plenty of disagreements among DT members (including child-and-parent DT positions), and that is fine.

---

[1] They might be if we collectively go on a power-trip.
[2] This doesn't mean you should promote this as a valid project. <- another example of appealing to extremes.

First of all, my recommendation has been the same from the start of this thread. Bounty Managers have to accept responsibility for their actions. They are getting paid to manage bounty campaigns and they should do their due diligence on who they are working for.  Projects that don't pass the test can manage their own bounty from their own account(which is usually new, low ranking, no rep - since they don't deserve to have the reputation of an established bounty manager tied to their project.

Secondly, I won't even address the fact that you compare a 65 billion dollar scam to wanna-be ICO scams. Madoff managed to scam auditors who do checks for scams, false records, manipulation for a living, as well as the SEC. Compare that to barely literate ICO scams with fake teams behind them and yeah... you get the point.

Can you please explain how to prevent an edit function from being used by the team running the project ?
Other than, having to check every other social media page they advertise, on a daily basis, consistently, during the whole life of the bounty ?
And make sure this is still legit. Can you just estimate the time this would take ?

As far as I'm concerned, BM aren't responsible for the teams actions.
Were the agencies used by Madoff to advertise sentenced to anything ? No.
These topics weren't even brought on during trials.
Hey hey heeeyy.. what about Carlos ?

We take all your criticism, but what are you recommend ?
Of course, a disclaimer isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, but there must be a right balance between immunity and blatant thievery. Where is it, in your opinion ?

OK Boss, Since you had met most time in the threads.
Please make decision for Bounty managers and Scam Managers. I will be waiting for your answer after 5 days.

Discuss more with BM's

I was talking about o_e_l_e_o changing his statement after Lauda's post.

I don't think marlboroza is being bullied and I for one respect his decisions, even if I don't agree wholeheartedly with them.  I don't think anyone is screaming at him to reverse his feedback, simply disagreeing with him.  Members here are on both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue, and I think both sides need to be heard.  

I wouldn't suggest marlboroza remove any feedback he left, nor would I counter it in a case like this.  Not all DT members agree with one another.  Oftentimes there are issues nobody can reach a consensus on, but it's not bullying to express an opinion.

My bad.  He's not getting bullied either, though.  He's just being polite.

What are you even talking about here? Obviously, he didn't take the job knowing it's a scam(I hope). Disclaimers are not enough, in no line of business is working with scam projects legal, knowingly or unknowingly. Everybody should do their own due diligence if they are putting their name and reputation on the thread. Disclaimers mean shit when you're getting paid for it.


Here you're back on track. Most of the scams are obvious to people who do the research and especially to experienced bounty managers.

By the way, stop being bullied into an opinion by higher ranking members. You were right and there was no need to apologize, extreme or not, your example was spot on. Scams are scams, be they elaborate or simple.

I don't.

Why is this extreme?

Someone accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Why is this different than anything else with disclaimer?

Crossposting:

Are they required to do due diligence or not?