Topic: Stop Neg-Tagging For Ponzi In a PAID Signature. - page 3. (Read 3189 times)

Disclaimer I didnt read most of the thread, but the amount of "fuck you" and the lack of even a single "thank you" I get makes me wonder if I shouldnt stop with this.


Dont tag ponzis anymore, find out for yourself.
Dont help in scam accusation, get the shit sorted yourself.
Dont PM me with your bullshit anymore, get the shit sorted yourself.

You wana be grown up? Fine with me, but dont you dare asking me for help. I have had enough of this whining and drama.

I don't give them the attention or value so that i have to go to the trust page and modify it for their sake.I expect a change and i believe in it.

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.

Who defines illegal and who cannot ? The whole point in this discussion is rating's from default which can result in people being unable to participate in sig' campaigns.
Let me make one thing clear to you ,more than 99% of the users don't care about the TRUST if the campaigns remove the neg rating rule.It means that the trust is given all this attention because of signatures and nothing else.The traffic is happy or is not affected with it because the rating of some mongoose on his profile couldn't stop him from participating and earning.You get the point.

I would rather warn them first that they are promoting a ponzi and if they continue to promote the site by not removing the signature then they deserve to get a negative. It's telling everyone "here's an illegal drug, it's fine take it as long as I get paid..."

tl;dr 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.

It hardly matters ,what you think is low might be the highest for someone somewhere,Perception.I know promoting something which (have not been proven to be a scam) might scam in future is weird and i would never do that but not because someone out of 7.6 billion population is gonna tag me a rating but because it has no benefit and is reflecting/encouraging the failure of the owner/admin who couldn't come up with some good projects or other Scams like PD & JD with the house edge and 100% chance to lose in the end.

But But when i am offered to do so with some really attractive pay or something closer to thousand dolla particularly in my free time then i might consider it cause the reason is the 3rd answer in the poll,everything is influencing and it depends on the person seeing/experiencing,
like they say 'True beauty lies in the eyes of a seeker'.


To be honest ,I don't see anybody's trust page but their posts, specifically in meta' and predict them to an extent.I have used escrows with people having 170 foot Green Tree (like master-p) under their avatar.Give me one reason to believe ,because it's green...lmao
what is the point in trusting close-minded power trips ? who cannot come up with some logical reasoning for their opinion or take a stand for their identity,just Copy-Paste.

With the time i have spent exploring ,working with different types of communities ,religions and people i don't think i would judge anyone with a single instance or something i can only see and don't know the reason.I wouldn't end up giving anyone a rating even if i spend my whole life on forums,it's so so childish unless i trade and is a complete different story.

Every man is the master of their own life and the creator of their own future,you cannot learn everything in your mother's closet like you cant see the world in her womb.

However, tagging someone when they are wearing the sig' is ok but judging on it and keeping the feedback's is judgmental behavior at insanity.

This is what,it takes a lifetime to know someone and to predict them clearly.A guy is a scammer and should not be trusted because he did one thing that you think is low is one terrible mindset.

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:
?

The question to give negative trust to those who are participating in a signature campaign of a ponzi is a very complex one.

On one hand, these people are advertising what is most likely going to turn out to be a scam. In other words they are advertising what is most likely a scam.

On the other hand, (AFAIK), most of the ponzis have not yet scammed as of when they are running their signature campaigns, so they would not be officially be advertising a scam. There are also a lot of other companies that run signature campaigns that are also very sketch (to say the least).

A number of people who are very trusted today even ran Pirate-pass-throughs that most likely did more damage then anyone participating in a signature campaign today would do.

While I would not personally advertise a ponzi myself, I don't think those that do should receive negative trust. I would not consider someone who knowingly advertised a ponzi to be a especially trustworthy, although I would not go as far to consider them to be a scammer either.

You can make a similar statement about those who promote a ponzi by reporting they have received payment. If someone makes the ill-advised decision to invest, say 0.01BTC and they happen to receive 0.02BTC a week later, I don't see anything wrong with them reporting their experience, and to an extent this will prevent a ponzi who has scammed from being able to continue to steal money because of both the lack of recent positive reports and because of the negative reports.

With the above being said, if someone is what appears to be "shilling" for a ponzi, then the fact that they are also advertising such ponzi in their signature should be taken into consideration when deciding to leave them negative trust. I believe that someone who claims that a particular ponzi will be able to sustain 150% returns forever, is someone who is making outright false statements and is untrustworthy.  

Kind Regards
Panthers52

In most cases they could be tagged as neutral or negative. You could check the 12dailycoin campaign thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322129.20, actually higher level members wouldn't risk their repution to join it. Beaides that, it is not recognized as proper sign campaign, without an escrow.

"Freedom of speech" seems quite the rage here, admins' decision to keep the board was likely based on that
I will not be removing the negative once he ignores all the warnings and stays for at least a week, then the rating wil be permanent, although edited slightly to inform anyone that he can swoop so low, and may engage in such behavior in the future. I don't know whether other will agree with me on this.
Lets be honest here for a minute, do you go to someone's trust page just because he has a paid signature? The neg stays as a clear warning about the person's behavior/morality

I dont see any reason to care bout that ,you got any ?

True ,this is what i want to speak bout.If the person is carrying the signature then it's fine to tag him but as he removes it then what impact does his payment has over your mindset ?

Neutral is what i am speaking for.

I know.

EDIT: Good to know trolls are playing with the Poll.

You do realize its the sig spammers, trying to make a dollar or two supporting the poll and that its "common sense" that will most likely have many alts? As for the votes, its less than 10 people voting, most likely due to the argument going on in the 12coins thread, who want to get back to the "good old rates".
And as for the poll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-people-who-promote-ponzis-in-their-signature-be-given-a-negative-trust-1183602

Edit: Until they come up with any valid reasoning, their votes should be disregarded.

Lmao...then the community is not happy with your post. 75% towards YES,Let the People decide.

Since many people seem to bring up this argument: If its an illegal thing then why is there a ponzi section here in the forum?
Admin's(BB) stand on the matter
^[1]
For the people who seem to question this(most likely for their personal gains, i.e getting away with advertising a ponzi , while earning a few bucks and not getting a neg for it) .
The staff do not get involved with deciding whether some service is a scam or not, its the community that has to decide that using the feedback system.
[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11094395

Edit: And just because a certain service is filling a board doesn't mean the board is solely dedicated to it, it would like saying because most of the services in Service ANN. are Exchanges, its a exchange board.
Along with that , some people do seem to like ponzis no matter the risk, the neg only serves as a "reminder" that the person is advertising something that will not be fulfilled, whether you decide to agree with it and no invest or ignore it(while knowing the risks) and invest, depends on you

I don't this think this is going to change anything but i think it should be discussed once more considering the increasing number of ponzi signature campaigns and their fucking high rates.

more than 95% people on forums are to make some extra bucks a month and spend some time with like minded fellows (Entertainment ,Fun etc..)
(But this fuck has become so political and discussing here is off-topic anyways)

Answers..