1.Considering the Trust system,all signature campaigns should completely remove "Trust" as one of their rules for users to participate in them.
2.Initially it was meant to spot out scammers who literally have ripped people off for dollars who don't deserve to be here but since then a lot has changed.
3.I see people with highest quality of posts with negative feebacks for silly reasons.I think investing in a Ponzi is a subject limited to one's personal choices ,you can't force him to not to.That being said, if you don't comply with his intentions,you're free to leave him a feedback and this should be understood by the campaign managers that it necessarily doesn't portray one is a spammer and he deserves to be kicked out of campaign if he still has the highest quality of posts .
4.Just my two cents.You don't exactly have to agree with it.
Topic: Someone give you negative trust for participating in a PONZI? - page 8. (Read 5955 times)
So do I now finally get my red tag? I already openly admitted I am a player and still no tag. Or do I need to play first and show my tx before I am eligible?
How many threads do we need on this topic anyway?
How many threads do we need on this topic anyway?
Lets give them negative trust FOR a reason
Feel free to do so, your feedback will just go to the troll-retaliation section of the trust page namely "Untrusted feedback".Anyway I'm "agnostic believer" in this situation, although I don't believe in the "cause" of cryptodevil I don't disagree with him either. You people keep going the wrong way, present a well-placed argument and you may change his opinion regarding the matter at hand. If you keep making ad hominem attacks and like the guy above, expect someone to invest in the ponzi themselves, it will lead nowhere.
i think they should never give a negative feedback on those who campaigned their own site.. they try it out first then if it's noy paying then give it a negative feedback. they so wretched if their site pays then their account in bitcointalk have so many negative feedback such as "promoting scam sites or ponzi sites" that's unfair to those have a good intention..
lmao wtf dude? So lose money first, tag later ? None of the admins intentions are good. They make no income running a clean ponzi. All those 2.5% fees and stuffs are shit. 99% of them run away with the pot.
i think they should never give a negative feedback on those who campaigned their own site.. they try it out first then if it's noy paying then give it a negative feedback. they so wretched if their site pays then their account in bitcointalk have so many negative feedback such as "promoting scam sites or ponzi sites" that's unfair to those have a good intention..
*Grabs the popcorn*
People will always fall for ponzis, whether they like it or not. Greed will get the better of all of us. People will just need to be educated of the risks, although there are plenty of threads in the games & rounds section telling people not to invest already.
People will always fall for ponzis, whether they like it or not. Greed will get the better of all of us. People will just need to be educated of the risks, although there are plenty of threads in the games & rounds section telling people not to invest already.
The ones who believe themselves to have the power to decide where you invest/gamble YOUR OWN MONEY
So far I haven't seen people who invest in ponzis getting tagged with a negative feedback so your argument of "people who decides what to do with their own money" doesn't make sense to me at all. 
What I see is that those people who openly advertise or in other form promotes the ponzi are the ones who get negged. Which they actually deserve since they are helping to promote a scam and at the same time they are openly robbing other people of their money jut to get a cents of commision and to save your own deposit.
At the moment i am -veing people that operate or promote ponzis. maybe you need to read those threads where people post like they are kids getting some candy from a pedo and start crying 20 pages later.
Like always i am willing to remove my -ve if i am proven wrong. fair deal.
Like always i am willing to remove my -ve if i am proven wrong. fair deal.
Quote
Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?
The innocent's who don't have complete knowledge of the Ponzi Racket.
Which is why a very clear PSA is posted and if a user messages me to ask why they have been tagged and that they didn't understand what the situation was, then chooses to delete the supporting post they made in the thread, I will delete the rating.
I've done it a few times today already.
The only people deserving the negative reps are the ponzi operators.
I think Tagging the Shills is not a bad idea ,who are a part of the team anyways. If you told me you wanted to send money to a ponzi scheme in the hope that you will be sent a greater number of coins in return, would this say to me that you care about where your 'profit' is coming from?
No one is telling you or me or to anyone, like i said they can say it all in the thread.Quote
Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.
Dont say users , say shills.Quote
Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?
The innocent's who don't have complete knowledge of the Ponzi Racket.
Quote
If there are no participants in a Ponzi there can be no Ponzi.
That is what, You cannot enforce your own judgments. Cryptodevil, I understand what you're doing with the "Get rid of ponzis altogether" thing, but don't you think -repping participants is a step too far? It's a free country, people have free will, and they can invest however much they want, as long as they understand the risks. The only people deserving the negative reps are the ponzi operators.
If you told me you wanted to send money to a ponzi scheme in the hope that you will be sent a greater number of coins in return, would this say to me that you care about where your 'profit' is coming from?
Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.
Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?
If there are no participants in a Ponzi there can be no Ponzi.
Cryptodevil, I understand what you're doing with the "Get rid of ponzis altogether" thing, but don't you think -repping participants is a step too far? It's a free country, people have free will, and they can invest however much they want, as long as they understand the risks.
I believe his argument is "I don't have a problem with people who invest in the ponzi. But if they publicly confirm/support it, they're participating in the fraud as it leads to more people getting scammed". Pretty much the same as Ponzi sig promoters
Cryptodevil, I understand what you're doing with the "Get rid of ponzis altogether" thing, but don't you think -repping participants is a step too far? It's a free country, people have free will, and they can invest however much they want, as long as they understand the risks. The only people deserving the negative reps are the ponzi operators.
Still ignoring the shredding you got from the other thread on this point?
Looks like you have Convincing Problems ? You don't need to convince that you are right or wrong every time, just get easy.Quote
It doesn't matter who is shill and who is 'investor'. Both participate in the ponzi scam in order to help it function and steal more coins.
Oh Wow..I never knew that participation in something you don't like is a scam ? care to elaborate ?Quote
They are both demonstrably untrustworthy.
So, according to your Logic the victim(innocent investor) and the criminal are equally dishonest and bad ? Nice knowledge you got devil. There is nothing that could clarify if the Person investing is an investor or a Shill.If there is something that proves then i will be thankful to that guy who did the hard work cause it might stop people from losing the money ,Like i lost hundreds of dollars when i was a newbie.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
Got to agree with Heutamos on this one. With the recent influx of account sales, we no longer know who are the shills.
There is nothing that could clarify if the Person investing is an investor or a Shill.If there is something that proves then i will be thankful to that guy who did the hard work cause it might stop people from losing the money ,Like i lost hundreds of dollars when i was a newbie.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
Still ignoring the shredding you got from the other thread on this point?
It doesn't matter who is shill and who is 'investor'. Both participate in the ponzi scam in order to help it function and steal more coins.
They are both demonstrably untrustworthy.
There is nothing that could clarify if the Person investing is an investor or a Shill.If there is something that proves then i will be thankful to that guy who did the hard work cause it might stop people from losing the money ,Like i lost hundreds of dollars when i was a newbie.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.
Are you struggling to understand the following, OP?
Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You can join in as many ponzis as you wish in the hope of reaping a share of the coins which are stolen from later investors. But don't think your demonstrably untrustworthy behaviour will go unnoticed.
If you don't care that your profit comes from theft then those who deal with you in future should be made aware of that fact. Tagging you with negative trust makes them aware of that fact.
LAWL! Just noticed
Quote from: cryptodevil
Those who choose to post of their participation
support or encouragement for this scam will
be tagged with negative trust for proving
they wish to help the scammers operate this
Ponzi in return for a share of the funds stolen
from other users. Thereby proving they are not
trustworthy forum members.
support or encouragement for this scam will
be tagged with negative trust for proving
they wish to help the scammers operate this
Ponzi in return for a share of the funds stolen
from other users. Thereby proving they are not
trustworthy forum members.
Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You can join in as many ponzis as you wish in the hope of reaping a share of the coins which are stolen from later investors. But don't think your demonstrably untrustworthy behaviour will go unnoticed.
If you don't care that your profit comes from theft then those who deal with you in future should be made aware of that fact. Tagging you with negative trust makes them aware of that fact.
LAWL! Just noticed
Quote from: TheInfidel
This is why I have started this thread,
in plain English, no one fucks with me and walks away without something to remember the encounter by.
That's sweet of you to make a gift of this thread for me. Thanks!in plain English, no one fucks with me and walks away without something to remember the encounter by.
Had enough of the self appointed
"Scam Police"
The ones who believe themselves to have the power to decide where you invest/gamble YOUR OWN MONEY
Handing out negative trust to members who have done nothing wrong
Find them, post their name and link to their profile
They give out negative trust WITHOUT the right to do so
Lets give them negative trust FOR a reason
How much money will these "people" cost innocent members before it's enough?
I myself will more than likely be kicked from the Betcoin sig campaign simply because what I do
with my own money does not please some self appointed delusional crusader. This is why I have started this thread,
in plain English, no one fucks with me and walks away without something to remember the encounter by.
"Scam Police"
The ones who believe themselves to have the power to decide where you invest/gamble YOUR OWN MONEY
Handing out negative trust to members who have done nothing wrong
Find them, post their name and link to their profile
They give out negative trust WITHOUT the right to do so
Lets give them negative trust FOR a reason
How much money will these "people" cost innocent members before it's enough?
I myself will more than likely be kicked from the Betcoin sig campaign simply because what I do
with my own money does not please some self appointed delusional crusader. This is why I have started this thread,
in plain English, no one fucks with me and walks away without something to remember the encounter by.
Now let me make this clear it's not the "people" that post "Scam" in every thread that I am after,
it's the ones who tag members with negative trust or the ones who threaten to do so that I want. But I you find
someone making lists or false accusations, that is also still much worse than simply participating.
Remember it's your money to do with as you please.
Being a participant is your right and you should NOT be punished for it
it's the ones who tag members with negative trust or the ones who threaten to do so that I want. But I you find
someone making lists or false accusations, that is also still much worse than simply participating.
Remember it's your money to do with as you please.
Being a participant is your right and you should NOT be punished for it
Lets start solving this problem together and maybe just maybe we can get the trust system back to actually meaning something.
Jump to: