Ponzi schemes & Investor Based Games - page 2.

savetheFORUM

full member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 140

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:56:49 AM

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 04:50:48 AM

I agree with that perception but it's like you build a pond for frogs then target and kill them, to me it doesn't make sense to build a section for a particular thing if you are not even going to let them announce themselves.

This is a bad analogy, as forum users that are promoting scam are not banned (killed in your analogy). If that was the case, then I would agree with you. But currently, when after promoting ponzi you can freely go to some other part of the forum and conduct the business, I don't think that is wrong to tag that user.

Tagging is about the trust, and I don't trust anyone who is willing to promote ponzi scheme, no matter at what part of the forum they are doing that.

I didn't mean that in tagging members but overall the situation is like that.

You made a section for Ponzis - Building a pond

You tag everyone who posts what in the section for what the section is technically made for - Killing a frog (killing doesn't denote literal killing but killing the business, that sense)

I see this situation like this, what is that section made for? To announce Ponzi

What is red trust meant for? Something wrong, but if posting in that section is wrong, why even created it. If people don't post in that section which is the basic aim of red trust I think, wouldn't the section become blank.

NOTE: I repeat, I am not supporting Ponzis but rather in the favor of either removing the section or just don't tag them.

Rikafip

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 5937

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 04:50:48 AM

I agree with that perception but it's like you build a pond for frogs then target and kill them, to me it doesn't make sense to build a section for a particular thing if you are not even going to let them announce themselves.

This is a bad analogy, as forum users that are promoting scam are not banned (killed in your analogy) and their threads are not deleted. If that was the case, then I would agree with you. But currently, when after promoting ponzi you can freely go to some other part of the forum and conduct the business, I don't think that is wrong to tag that user.

Tagging is about the trust, and I don't trust anyone who is willing to promote ponzi scheme, no matter at what part of the forum they are doing that.

savetheFORUM

full member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 140

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:15:09 AM

Then again, the member who promotes ponzi on Investor-based games child board might try to conduct the business in some other parts of the forum, so I think that other forum members should be aware of that, therefore tag & flag is warranted.

There can be a rule specifically added for such instances, something like.

- Anyone promoting their Ponzi sites outside this section will risk being tagged because the forum members don't approve of promoting a Ponzi by means of signature campaigns, bounties etc.

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:15:09 AM

I do not trust anyone who promotes ponzi scheme, as simple as that. And how else to express untrustworthiness other than leaving feedback? After all, that's what trust system is for.

I agree with that perception but it's like you build a pond for frogs then target and kill them, to me it doesn't make sense to build a section for a particular thing if you are not even going to let them announce themselves.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I doubt people who visit this section bother read it, even if it's pinned. But it's better than only having 4 sentence of warning on each thread.

The same happens when one joins a gambling site or even an exchange for that regard, no one bothers reading their TOS but that doesn't mean the website or the business should be nuked for that, just because the users are ignorant.

Quote from: NeuroticFish on May 21, 2021, 04:38:09 AM

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:35:47 AM

I think that there are at least few DT members who are actively watching that part of the forum (I was too, but not so much anymore) and regularly reporting findings in Scam Accustain board, so chances of some ponzi going unnoticed for more than a day are very slim.

Hats off for those. It's a work not really known, only the results may be seen by some now and then.

They are doing a thankless job and credit to them but I wonder if they even need to work so hard when we already have a separate section for them. You don't have to tag oranges when they are put into a separate basket and apples are put into a different one.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:35:47 AM

I think that there are at least few DT members who are actively watching that part of the forum (I was too, but not so much anymore) and regularly reporting findings in Scam Accustain board, so chances of some ponzi going unnoticed for more than a day are very slim.

Hats off for those. It's a work not really known, only the results may be seen by some now and then.

Rikafip

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 5937

Quote from: ?? on ??

I doubt people who visit this section bother read it, even if it's pinned. But it's better than only having 4 sentence of warning on each thread.

Hah yeah, quite often even tag and flag is not enough to save someone, let alone that little disclaimer.

Quote from: NeuroticFish on May 21, 2021, 04:30:09 AM

This is a good logic. Still, you would have to unignore that area and actively watch it. It would make sense a DT user do that if he wants to invest time in such a task.

I think that there are at least few DT members who are actively watching that part of the forum (I was too, but not so much anymore) and regularly reporting findings in Scam Accustain board, so chances of some ponzi going unnoticed for more than a day are very slim.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 03:40:11 AM

The thing is, people should be made aware that they are visiting a Ponzi section

I guess that you're right and it should be explained better there. I have it on ignore and I don't know why would somebody unignore it, but that's me.

Quote from: Rikafip on May 21, 2021, 04:15:09 AM

Then again, the member who promotes ponzi on Investor-based games child board might try to conduct the business in some other parts of the forum, so I think that other forum members should be aware of that, therefore tag & flag is warranted.

This is a good logic. Still, you would have to unignore that area and actively watch it. It would make sense a DT user do that if he wants to invest time in such a task.

Rikafip

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 5937

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 03:17:14 AM

Let me make it very clear, I am strictly against these schemes but if the admin has decided that there is space for Ponzi schemes, do we as members leaving trust on them is valid? Maybe we can rather make a topic inside the section that clarifies there is a certain risk involved in these Ponzis.

I asked myself the very same questions some time ago; from what's the purpose of having such board to why even bother to tag them in the first place since that board is made specifically for that reason.

Then again, the member who promotes ponzi on Investor-based games child board might try to conduct the business in some other parts of the forum, so I think that other forum members should be aware of that, therefore tag & flag is warranted.

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 03:40:11 AM

Being caring is good but we should not act like we kids are playing in the forum. Everyone who has BTC probably has some brain and is above 15 at least and if gambling is accessible for them, so should be Ponzis and risks that come with it.

I do not trust anyone who promotes ponzi scheme, as simple as that. And how else to express untrustworthiness other than leaving feedback? After all, that's what trust system is for.

savetheFORUM

full member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 140

Quote from: NeuroticFish on May 21, 2021, 03:29:49 AM

Strangely, I think that some do put money there willingly, probably in a hope that they will not be the last ones, the ones scammed, i.e. they'll receive others' money (which may become the ones scammed), in case it's a honest (LOL!) Ponzi. Well, not all human decisions make sense for me...

The thing is, people should be made aware that they are visiting a Ponzi section and if they still decide to throw money into that, I don't think we should stop them because it's very similar to how everyone loses in gambling but do we stop people from gambling? Hell, no! I think 50% of signatures are actually from gambling sites, which I have no problem with. But the same treatment should be given to Ponzis since they do have a separate space created by admins for them.

Tagging a Ponzi promoter who wears their signature is worth negative I agree but just creating a topic to make everyone aware of their existence should not be attacked.

Being caring is good but we should not act like we kids are playing in the forum. Everyone who has BTC probably has some brain and is above 15 at least and if gambling is accessible for them, so should be Ponzis and risks that come with it.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: savetheFORUM on May 21, 2021, 03:17:14 AM

I usually don't visit the Investor-Based-Games section at all but I was there today and I see something very interesting that has pushed me into asking this question.

I think the section is made for Ponzis exclusively which is what I understand from the section's sub-heading.

So if the section is only made for the Ponzis then is the negative trust feedback left on every Ponzi warranted?

Let me make it very clear, I am strictly against these schemes but if the admin has decided that there is space for Ponzi schemes, do we as members leaving trust on them is valid? Maybe we can rather make a topic inside the section that clarifies there is a certain risk involved in these Ponzis.

NOTE: I don't want to create any kind of controversy and the sole intention is to understand the forum better. I have myself reported a Ponzi recently but that is where I somehow felt it's wrong.

I'll also start with: I'm 100% agains Ponzi schemes. This should also put my views in the correct light.
Imho posting there should not warrant negative feedback and I'll tell you why.

At some point the forum got filled (stifled) by Ponzi advertising. Since the forum is completely for allowing the freedom of speech, those cannot/should not get removed, with or without negative feedback (which usually doesn't matter for throwaway 1-post new accounts). So the solution was to make a containment area for them: Investor-based games, which, if the memory serves me well, is meant to be ignored by default, hence the users will get to go there only if they know what they're doing.

Strangely, I think that some do put money there willingly, probably in a hope that they will not be the last ones, the ones scammed, i.e. they'll receive others' money (which may become the ones scammed), in case it's a honest (LOL!) Ponzi. Well, not all human decisions make sense for me...

savetheFORUM

full member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 140

I usually don't visit the Investor-Based-Games section at all but I was there today and I see something very interesting that has pushed me into asking this question.

I think the section is made for Ponzis exclusively which is what I understand from the section's sub-heading.

So if the section is only made for the Ponzis then is the negative trust feedback left on every Ponzi warranted?

Let me make it very clear, I am strictly against these schemes but if the admin has decided that there is space for Ponzi schemes, do we as members leaving trust on them is valid? Maybe we can rather make a topic inside the section that clarifies there is a certain risk involved in these Ponzis.

NOTE: I don't want to create any kind of controversy and the sole intention is to understand the forum better. I have myself reported a Ponzi recently but that is where I somehow felt it's wrong.

Topic: Ponzi schemes & Investor Based Games - page 2. (Read 363 times)