I'm really afraid that this discussion is pointless.
Of course we all don't want scammers here.
Problem is in practice impossible to resolve.
Perfect solution is ban all scammers - ok - how to recognize scammer? Sometimes it is obvious and quick ban is not a problem. What about this users that maybe are scammers or maybe not.
If we start giving bans only because "we think so", i'm sure that will be many mistakes and scandals. If we don't want problems we have to create a reliable system to recognize scammer/ponzi - and this is impossible..
I'm very close to solution like this:
1. Giving negative trust persons who after warning is continuing action (for example after 24h.) if this is first attempt. If second - direct tag. If third - ban.
2. However, in special cases (example - winspiral) if arguments are good enough time to clarify situation should be longer (for example 5 days)
3. If Ponzi announces very clear rules of operation - let it be.
I know that point 3 is a bit controversial, but if someone is clearly explaining how construction of bussines is working and warn people that are joining to very risky game - is it scamming?
Topic: Stop Neg-Tagging For Ponzi In a PAID Signature. - page 2. (Read 3189 times)
But newbies do not know that those investment schemes do not work and eventually end up scamming the people.
Yes, this is why the forum has an equal contribution as signatures for such scam attempts.The newbie doesn't know what it is and he doesn't even knows where to question it and what's the difference if he clicks on the signature or clicks on the link present on the thread.if they still promote after 1 week or so, change neutral to negative
lmao....well of course that's your opinion but don't you think judging a person on such a less time-consuming/informative event is appropriate ? Tagging or not tagging is all bullshit drama,I am talking bout the behavior.Don't you think it's non-sense if you call every guy a Muslim who wears a cap ? there are many reasons and not everyone is promoting Islam ? but on the other hand every guy wearing it is promoting Islam one way or the other.
So you cannot get to the righteous conclusion until you speak to him and get to know the reason for him wearing it.
your logic is twisted. you can't compare religious behaviors to supporting and advertising a crime/fraud.
How many casino's/dice are registered legally ? but they are promoting or advertising on Forum.I think except bitdice.me i haven't seen anyone with an actual legal license.If you dig deeper you will find a significant amount of fraud/crime going on around us on this forum but depending on the region and level.
But newbies do not know that those investment schemes do not work and eventually end up scamming the people.
Yes, this is why the forum has an equal contribution as signatures for such scam attempts.The newbie doesn't know what it is and he doesn't even knows where to question it and what's the difference if he clicks on the signature or clicks on the link present on the thread.if they still promote after 1 week or so, change neutral to negative
lmao....well of course that's your opinion but don't you think judging a person on such a less time-consuming/informative event is appropriate ? Tagging or not tagging is all bullshit drama,I am talking bout the behavior.Don't you think it's non-sense if you call every guy a Muslim who wears a cap ? there are many reasons and not everyone is promoting Islam ? but on the other hand every guy wearing it is promoting Islam one way or the other.
So you cannot get to the righteous conclusion until you speak to him and get to know the reason for him wearing it.
your logic is twisted. you can't compare religious behaviors to supporting and advertising a crime/fraud.
But newbies do not know that those investment schemes do not work and eventually end up scamming the people.
Yes, this is why the forum has an equal contribution as signatures for such scam attempts.The newbie doesn't know what it is and he doesn't even knows where to question it and what's the difference if he clicks on the signature or clicks on the link present on the thread.if they still promote after 1 week or so, change neutral to negative
lmao....well of course that's your opinion but don't you think judging a person on such a less time-consuming/informative event is appropriate ? Tagging or not tagging is all bullshit drama,I am talking bout the behavior.Don't you think it's non-sense if you call every guy a Muslim who wears a cap ? there are many reasons and not everyone is promoting Islam ? but on the other hand every guy wearing it is promoting Islam one way or the other.
So you cannot get to the righteous conclusion until you speak to him and get to know the reason for him wearing it.
not easy to answer.
I gave the OP of 12coin neg for running a ponzi and promoting it... but what about the participants?
I tend to support a neutral rating, and give them some time to overthink their participation. if they still promote after 1 week or so, change neutral to negative
I gave the OP of 12coin neg for running a ponzi and promoting it... but what about the participants?
I tend to support a neutral rating, and give them some time to overthink their participation. if they still promote after 1 week or so, change neutral to negative
But why people that wear signature of scammer are getting negative trust? I'm not sure if all of them know that behind some signature is scammer or not. Example is Ore-mine - there nobody get red trust, now 12dailycoin - everyone.
Because they are promoting a service that will eventually cause damage especially to new (inexperienced) users.Edit2: What i want to say is - we should to decide - or we let ponzis stay here, or we ban all of them.
If it was up to me, I would remove them from this forum this very second.If a complete newbie jumps into one of their threads and finds it interesting to invest enough then nobody is responsible ? but the user is responsible if the newbie clicks on their signature and does the same thing.
Your discussion is valid when they are disallowed completely.
But newbies do not know that those investment schemes do not work and eventually end up scamming the people. Your discussion is valid when they are disallowed completely.
QS was advising that person to remove the signature of the ponzi if their wish was to maintain a positive reputation. I do not believe that QS's statement contradicts with my previous statement as the lack of having a positive reputation and being a scammer are two different things.
Lets clear the argument later, but first, why are you talking to yourself in 3rd person?He's in full-on panther mode.
QS was advising that person to remove the signature of the ponzi if their wish was to maintain a positive reputation. I do not believe that QS's statement contradicts with my previous statement as the lack of having a positive reputation and being a scammer are two different things.
Lets clear the argument later, but first, why are you talking to yourself in 3rd person? 
-snip-
Geez QS, changing sides with an awesome argument , every account. I still wonder how your alts get figured(most of the times I guess they don't)Edit: What would you say to your own argument here:
You are promoting what is pretty clearly a ponzi that is being deceptive about how they make their money. Not only that but you still have the signature up that caused you to receive negative trust.
If you are really concerned about your reputation, then I would suggest that you stop promoting what is clearly a scam
?If you are really concerned about your reputation, then I would suggest that you stop promoting what is clearly a scam
I would say that the most effective way to stop people from advertising a ponzi would be to warn them that they are advertising something that you believe to be a scam, and the majority of the time people will take their paid signatures down.
QS was advising that person to remove the signature of the ponzi if their wish was to maintain a positive reputation. I do not believe that QS's statement contradicts with my previous statement as the lack of having a positive reputation and being a scammer are two different things.
Maybe people should stop whoring themselves out for a few bits and make the choice not to promote a (likely) scam?
It seems pretty simple to me, if you promote (likely) scams, then people may think you are untrustworthy and leave you negative trust.
It seems pretty simple to me, if you promote (likely) scams, then people may think you are untrustworthy and leave you negative trust.
This is why they should not be promoting ponzis.
Seconded!!!!!But why do i see a new scheme every other day i get on forum ? why do i see hundred pages long thread bout them ?
I agree that my earning's are not more important than the losses of innocent but i would like to ask why the need of Resistance/Ignorance ?
If a complete newbie jumps into one of their threads and finds it interesting to invest enough then nobody is responsible ? but the user is responsible if the newbie clicks on their signature and does the same thing.
Your discussion is valid when they are disallowed completely.
I disagree with the title. There is also another thread about this in Meta but this isn't a discussion about the forum. People on D&T have the right to give out negative as they see fit (unless they abuse it). The people who are promoting ponzis know what they are doing; actions have consequences.
People here don't care whether one of their community members get scammed through the ponzi ad they are having in their signature spot. They just care about the earnings.
They should care and that is the problem. In order to make the community better in general we should be working together in order to avoid scams and whatnot. This is why they should not be promoting ponzis. I agree with that!
But why people that wear signature of scammer are getting negative trust? I'm not sure if all of them know that behind some signature is scammer or not. Example is Ore-mine - there nobody get red trust, now 12dailycoin - everyone.
If everyone will have his own justice, it could end badly.
In my opinion - if there is obvious scam behind any thread/campaign - just report to administration should be enough, and this action should be banned.
Edit: CloudMining.Website have signature campaign around 9 months and nobody do nothing..
Edit2: What i want to say is - we should to decide - or we let ponzis stay here, or we ban all of them.
I disagree with the title. There is also another thread about this in Meta but this isn't a discussion about the forum. People on D&T have the right to give out negative as they see fit (unless they abuse it). The people who are promoting ponzis know what they are doing; actions have consequences.
People here don't care whether one of their community members get scammed through the ponzi ad they are having in their signature spot. They just care about the earnings.
They should care and that is the problem. In order to make the community better in general we should be working together in order to avoid scams and whatnot. This is why they should not be promoting ponzis. Who decides who is more evil and who is less evil? You?
Its opinion based, but anyone can see the rate 12coins is advertising is going to collapse, while oremine has a lower rate of ROI. It does however seems that it is going to collapse soon too. Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.
There is always something that you can do.If the campaign mangers agree to prohibit the proven scammers only and disregard the opinion based rating's (like luckyb.it signature campaign was) then it might solve most of the issues & complaint's bout abuse.What mean proven scammers?
Oremine is working almost 99% like a Ponzi but signature campaign was very succefull and nobody get negative trust.
Who decides who is more evil and who is less evil? You?
Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.
There is always something that you can do.If the campaign mangers agree to prohibit the proven scammers only and disregard the opinion based rating's (like luckyb.it signature campaign was) then it might solve most of the issues & complaint's bout abuse.
People here don't care whether one of their community members get scammed through the ponzi ad they are having in their signature spot. They just care about the earnings.
And those who don't join aren't any better. When you ask them what the reason is for not joining such a signature campaign. Answer. : I don't want to get negative trust. This once again shows no interest in the people that might potentially get scammed. They only care about themselfs.
Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.
And those who don't join aren't any better. When you ask them what the reason is for not joining such a signature campaign. Answer. : I don't want to get negative trust. This once again shows no interest in the people that might potentially get scammed. They only care about themselfs.
Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.
Illegal or legal?
In some countries gambling, marijuana are illegal in other are legal.
Banks operations - Iceland illegal, USA - legal.
anyone get negative trust if will get signature with gambling, marijuana or bank sign.. don't think so.
If Administration of this forum let ponzis officially exist here, we have to accept that. If someone don't accept administration law is free to find better place for him.
In some countries gambling, marijuana are illegal in other are legal.
Banks operations - Iceland illegal, USA - legal.
anyone get negative trust if will get signature with gambling, marijuana or bank sign.. don't think so.
If Administration of this forum let ponzis officially exist here, we have to accept that. If someone don't accept administration law is free to find better place for him.
lack of even a single "thank you" I get
I have experiences and proofs that i have always thanked people.I am happy to make them public if anyone questions and you are comfortable.You are giving "them" the attention by creating the thread in the first place, wouldn't it be easier to exclude me,Lutpin, Shorena, EcuaMobi and Sheild instead of making a lengthy discussion.
On the first place i am not giving attention cause this is necessary and should be discussed.You are not reading the whole post "I expect a change and i believe in it."tl;dr as in "Your point in a shorter text"(yes I know it means "too long didn't read")
was not my point.You are misleading. -snip-
you seem to forget that trust system is a "opinion-based"system, while some action may be untrustworthy but acceptable for you, it may be neg worthy for someone else. You can either follow the rating given or either exclude that person from your trust list so that you don't have to see feedbacks given by them or do see them but ignore them.I too don't consider some people's feedbacks not valid, hence have them excluded, I'd advise you to do the same.
tl;dr
I wonder why people even post in the thread if they cannot/don't read anything.I hope you answer the future questions with complete knowledge of the posts and the points being discussed in the thread & not like the one i have quoted.Anyway, you seem to repeat the same thing, as am I. I'll let other members come up with arguments.
Finally repeating once again, promoting a scam site is a neg worthy behavior in itself, be it shilling or paid promoting(shilling), if its not scam worthy in your eyes, either give them a positive as a border negative or exclude the person who has given the feedback as it seems you clearly don't trust that person's judgement.
Jump to: