Topic: Stop Neg-Tagging For Ponzi In a PAID Signature. (Read 3239 times)

https://ore-mine.org/index.html

Waiting for comment from persons that let this camaign exist without negativ trust.

Edit:

Mostly from "shorena". Don't expect, but will be nice. Thanks.

Don't forget, that usually scammers don't stop on one ponzi project. They open new scam every week/month (same persons). They have to change script and website, but they can use same bitcointalk accounts everytime.. Just saying.

Yeah it actually surprises me that any ponzi would advertise via a sig campaign.   They're such scammy, fly-by-night organizations that advertising seems like total overkill.

Well they deserve to get tagged if they own a ponzi website. They are clearly Scammers who won't pay out.

The only people joining the campaign are mostly throwaway accounts, the Jr. member accounts that sell for 0.003 each. They'll most likely just take the advance payment never to return

No worries
The ponzies we neg-tag today won't live long enough to see any of their advertisers turn Full Member or higher.

It is correct, but I'm afraid that this is working only by now. With time there will be farm of Full, Senior accounts with negative trust and will rise red trust sig campaign plague.. Hopefully not.

I think it's working. You're right, they can create 10 new accounts and farm them to junior in almost no time.
And we will give those farmed junior accounts neg trust, not only for the reason that they have to be tagged accordingly, but also to keep higher value accounts from joining those campaigns.
We see very few Full/Senior Members, and absolutely none higher, to join those ponzi campaigns. That's one thing those neg-tags have achieved.
Those campaigns only get advertised with member signatures or lower, which are far less flashy than the signatures in higher groups.

For scammers is easy to make 10 or more accounts and spam around. Giving them negative trust changing nothing. But, what I know..

Yep
Accepting it, is the first step to avoid making unnecessary drama in bitcointalk

Do you still belive that warning users with negative trust that they will get negative trust will work?

They are getting tagged too, Ecua and sho have been informed of the thread

It looks like sh*t is in the fan:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/doublebot-signature-campaign-best-site-to-invest-1329156

This is a forum based on money, after all, so what do you expect?

I don't care either way if these Ponzi sig-promoters get negative trust or not.  People should be able to decide very quickly if something like that is a scam and I'd say most of them are very obvious just based on promised returns.  I'm not necessarily for the tagging of this sort of thing but I won't shed a tear either.

Having said this, if Yobit ever starts pulling a Gox I will most certainly ditch the campaign.

I'm pretty sure that only negative trust rating will not stop ponzi storm.. But.. We can't do nothing more.

I dint notice that campaign but thanks for letting me know. It's sad to see that so many members just don't care about scammers and just care about few bitcoins.

There is obvious proof that the site is a scam and if admins can't take a strict against against these ponzis, then it's best the members do get a negative trust only as they deserve it for knowingly helping scammers. Although, I don's see this working because Jr. Members don't care for their reputation and they must be having alt accounts which should be detected and negated as well.

Everything what you wrote is very nice but now check this thread and look what is going on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/12dailycoincom-signature-campaign-best-rates-jr-member-staff-open-1322129

People with negative trust are joining this campaign and they don't care.

What then? Only deleting thread by Admins can help. Why they don't do that? Because there is no proof of scam i guess..

I agree with the reasoning of the DT members who leave negative trust ratings for members who promote scam websites in their signatures. They also remove the ratings if the user/s stop promoting those websites and there should not be any reason except earning few bitcoins for wearing those signatures.

1. Promoting a website/company that's a fraud one is as good as being a part of their scam and agreeing with it.
2. The bitcoins one earns for promoting these websites is the money earned by scamming other users.
3. One is encouraging scams and by not participating in such campaigns, these campaigns would stop their scam on the forum.
4. Ponzi websites are 99% scam and they dont give the users the amount they have promised to give. If they manage to explain the DT member/s of how they promise to give the returns to the users, they wont be terms as scam then.


Also, it's high time the forum admins also try to stop the scamming on this forum. Though they have not implemented such rules, there is no need to let these KNOWN scam websites to operate on this forum. With the result, these scam websites would not be eligible to have campaigns here and users wont fall for their promotional benefits.

But when you start playing blackjack or slot machine you know the risk. You can win or you can lose. When you lose it means that dealer or machine run with your money? In some way yes, but before you start this game you know the rules.

until the second before they run ,it is a No.If they run with the coins, yes it is/was scam.

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?

I think every religion is fraud/crime,they ask help/money/goods from people/community and take millions and billions of donations to store them in trusts so they save taxes and do whatever shit they want cause no one is there to ask them.

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.

your logic is twisted. you can't compare religious behaviors to supporting and advertising a crime/fraud.

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.

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

Because they are promoting a service that will eventually cause damage especially to new (inexperienced) users.
If it was up to me, I would remove them from this forum this very second.

But newbies do not know that those investment schemes do not work and eventually end up scamming the people.

He's in full-on panther mode.

Lets clear the argument later, but first, why are you talking to yourself in 3rd person?

Someone that promotes a ponzi takes away from their reputation, and anyone that knowingly promotes a ponzi is not reputable in my eyes. As I said before, I would not personally advertise something that I had reason to believe is any kind of ponzi. Additionally, I do not think that others should be promoting a ponzi, however I do not believe that those that do promote ponzis are scammers.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

was not my point.You are misleading.

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.
tl;dr as in "Your point in a shorter text"(yes I know it means "too long didn't read")

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.

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..