Scammer Tags- Pirate Pass Through operators ? - page 5.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 10, 2012, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 10, 2012, 01:44:39 PM

Quote from: n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU on September 10, 2012, 07:50:17 AM

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

I bolded the portion that explains that, which you seem to have quoted without reading. The pass through operation is scamming Pirate's other victims by hiring Pirate to take money from them and give it to the PPT's customers. If I help a woman hire a hitman to kill her husband, I am as responsible for the murder as the hitman is. This is true even if I was completely honest with the woman and got her a trustworthy and reliable hitman.

Quote from: Atlas on September 10, 2012, 02:02:29 PM

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

Really? So if someone wants someone killed and they pay me to hire a hitman for them, I'm not responsible for the actions I paid the hitman to take because I'm just "reselling" his product?

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 10, 2012, 01:44:39 PM

Quote from: n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU on September 10, 2012, 07:50:17 AM

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU on September 10, 2012, 07:50:17 AM

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

Dalkore

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1026

Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012

I agree that if they are listed on the GBLSE AND that DISCLAIMED the possibility of complete loss then they SHOULD NOT be labeled a SCAMMER. This is along the lines of if the risk section of the prospectus. The investors are responsible for due diligence and if this was disclaimed then they deserve to bare the risk associated with that type of investment. I read through some offering statements on the exchange and some did outright state this in clear English.

Dalkore

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: bitlane on September 10, 2012, 07:17:56 AM

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

This is just a slippery slope once set upon.... and each 'judgment' should be handled with care.

I agree with this. A scammer should have done at least one of the following two things:

lied in the security's description or in some other provable context (e.g. posting deliberate misinformation on forum)
did not perform according to the security's terms

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

This is just a slippery slope once set upon.... and each 'judgment' should be handled with care.

Isokivi

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com

I also feel like some action is needed, a persons member-status in here should stand for something.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

I would like the forum administrators to make a decision on whether PPT operators actions contributed to the size of the BTCS&T collapse. Now that pirate has a scammer label should people who enabled his behaviour be given a tag as well ?

I think they should only have labels as long as pirate hasnt paid back his debt. Im in two minds about it and who is more or less responsible. Does the scammer label even matter ?

Topic: Scammer Tags- Pirate Pass Through operators ? - page 5. (Read 6891 times)