Care to try and counter that?
I'm waiting for him to come up with another real life implication to derail the thread 
Topic: Tagging both operators and participants of Ponzi schemes is extremely effective - page 2. (Read 2676 times)
March 01, 2016, 02:28:12 AM
March 01, 2016, 02:26:27 AM
What is the difference between this and if i deposit some coins in a casino and make review for that (in their thread).
Let me make this *real* fucking simple for you. It appears you need it to be.
A Casino makes money by accepting bets based on games of chance and probability.
A Ponzi scheme does not make any money, it steals it from later users and shares it with the earlier collaborators as a reward for helping the scam function.
How could we ever know that the person is shilling or is an actual investor
It doesn't matter. Both play their part in helping the scam to work.The fact the 'investor' wishes to profit from the theft of money from later participants means he is provably untrustworthy.
Care to try and counter that?
March 01, 2016, 02:11:11 AM
What is the difference between this and if i deposit some coins in a casino and make review for that (in their thread).
How could we ever know that the person is shilling or is an actual investor unless they are continuously supporting it for months.However, I think you are doing this since years then why open up a thread now ? you,vod,Doo and some others are already doing this.
How could we ever know that the person is shilling or is an actual investor unless they are continuously supporting it for months.However, I think you are doing this since years then why open up a thread now ? you,vod,Doo and some others are already doing this.
March 01, 2016, 01:54:46 AM
From the looks of it, the OP's mindset is that he wishes to tell people that he is right no matter what and that negative trust should be given to anyone who does not agree with him.
Hi QS! I wondered how long it would be before you started whining and throwing your unique brand of fallacious reasoning into the mix. Just so everybody knows, QS has a dog in the fight as he sells forum accounts and scammers will not bother buying them if their rep is going to be destroyed when they are used for the purpose of providing sock-support for a scam.
So, you want to claim that I think negative trust should be given to anyone who doesn't agree with me? Care to actually provide proof for that bullshit claim? If you were being intellectually honest, and I know how hard that is for you, you'd concede that I have presented a cogent and objective argument for the proposed practice of clamping down on both scammers and supporters of scams.
If you want put forward a counter-argument, please do. As a person who values critical thinking I love to hear a convincing argument to prove that my position is not as sound as I believed it to be. But, just like all the other whining asshats in this thread (and all the other similar threads), you don't actually have a reasonable argument, you prefer your arguments to be chock full of fallacy.
Around a year ago when the ponzi situation was very bad here, I tried giving negative trust to those who were participating in ponzis and after having discussions with a few of them, I determined this is not a good idea. The participants who bothered to message me made the argument that they were merely reporting their experience with the ponzi.
Oh, you mean just like those scamming 'cloud mining monitor' websites do? Innocently reporting on whether a particular operation is paying, right up until it collapses and runs with the money. Which is of absolutely zero use to anybody.Without participants there can be no ponzi.
Try countering that.
March 01, 2016, 01:32:21 AM
The OP actually has a history of doing this to "investors"/customers of cloud mining sites.
From the looks of it, the OP's mindset is that he wishes to tell people that he is right no matter what and that negative trust should be given to anyone who does not agree with him.
The investor based games section was designed for ponzis, as it even describes ponzis as the type of "investment" that should be discussed in that section:
Around a year ago when the ponzi situation was very bad here, I tried giving negative trust to those who were participating in ponzis and after having discussions with a few of them, I determined this is not a good idea. The participants who bothered to message me made the argument that they were merely reporting their experience with the ponzi.
People have the right to "invest" (gamble) their money where/how they wish and they have the right to engage in business practices that have a high chance of them getting scammed if that is what they want. People have the right to express their opinion, to be naive and to tell others about their experience if that is what they want to do.
On the other hand if someone were to mislead others about their participation and/or the safety of the ponzi and/or were to receive, say 50BTC in exchange for encouraging people to invest thousands of BTC at a site that ended up being a scam, then I would say that negative trust is appropriate.
From the looks of it, the OP's mindset is that he wishes to tell people that he is right no matter what and that negative trust should be given to anyone who does not agree with him.
The investor based games section was designed for ponzis, as it even describes ponzis as the type of "investment" that should be discussed in that section:
Quote from: description of the Investor-based games section
Games where the main factor is whether or not new "investors" join the game.
Around a year ago when the ponzi situation was very bad here, I tried giving negative trust to those who were participating in ponzis and after having discussions with a few of them, I determined this is not a good idea. The participants who bothered to message me made the argument that they were merely reporting their experience with the ponzi.
People have the right to "invest" (gamble) their money where/how they wish and they have the right to engage in business practices that have a high chance of them getting scammed if that is what they want. People have the right to express their opinion, to be naive and to tell others about their experience if that is what they want to do.
On the other hand if someone were to mislead others about their participation and/or the safety of the ponzi and/or were to receive, say 50BTC in exchange for encouraging people to invest thousands of BTC at a site that ended up being a scam, then I would say that negative trust is appropriate.
February 29, 2016, 08:44:23 PM
I have changed my notice so it is a bit more educational:
Quote
PSA regarding Ponzis
Ponzi schemes are ‘get rich quick’ investment scams which pay returns to investors from their own money, or from money paid in by subsequent investors. There is no actual investment scheme as the fraudsters siphon off the money for themselves.
A fraudster places an advertisement for a non-existent investment that offers extraordinary returns in a short space of time. Most Ponzis running here do not hesitate to call out they are a Ponzi. After receiving the promised returns on their investment, the first investors start to spread the word to family and friends. In this way, the scheme gains credibility.Because the money isn’t invested in any kind of investment vehicle, there are no profits. Instead, the first investors are simply paid out from the money paid in by new investors.
Ponzi schemes are created for all levels of income, and have taken in investors in the top bracket as well as those on middle and low levels.
Typically, the fraudster will vanish with investors’ money, so the system eventually collapses with later investors receiving nothing - including their initial investment.
Because every Ponzi scheme makes no profit, they collapse sooner or later. You are very unlikely to recover any lost money.
Protect yourself against Ponzi schemes
- If you’re considering any type of investment, always remember: if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is.
- There’s no such thing as a ‘guaranteed risk-free’ investment - high returns can only be achieved with high risk.
- Ponzi fraudsters use vague technical jargon to describe their non-existent investments, such as ‘high yield investment program’ or ‘global currency arbitrage’. This language is most of the times designed to dazzle you.
- Using hard-sell techniques, fraudsters will try to pressure you into making rushed decisions, giving you no time to consider the nature of the investment. (Not so common here)
- As with many fraudulent schemes, you are encouraged to keep your investment secret to ensure you receive maximum returns. This allows the fraudsters to hide the real nature of their scheme.
Ponzi’s are illegal in some country’s. Because of the nature of things we have to deal with people crying they have lost their money sooner or later.
I decided to -ve the operator and supporters of this Ponzi that go on with their shady business after I have posted this.
In simple terms:
This is just another Ponzi Scam! Do Not Invest!
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.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
NOTE: This is a pre written Text taken from different websites and from here, it is used to bring the matter to your attention. I am aware that this Ponzi might has been running for some time, I just decided to not ignore it any longer. Basically I do so because I am sick of seeing people get burned and operator running away with other people’s money. If you start to hate me because I have chosen to tag people here, while Ponzi XYZ is still running, feel free to bring other Ponzi’s to my attention.
Thank you!
Ponzi schemes are ‘get rich quick’ investment scams which pay returns to investors from their own money, or from money paid in by subsequent investors. There is no actual investment scheme as the fraudsters siphon off the money for themselves.
A fraudster places an advertisement for a non-existent investment that offers extraordinary returns in a short space of time. Most Ponzis running here do not hesitate to call out they are a Ponzi. After receiving the promised returns on their investment, the first investors start to spread the word to family and friends. In this way, the scheme gains credibility.Because the money isn’t invested in any kind of investment vehicle, there are no profits. Instead, the first investors are simply paid out from the money paid in by new investors.
Ponzi schemes are created for all levels of income, and have taken in investors in the top bracket as well as those on middle and low levels.
Typically, the fraudster will vanish with investors’ money, so the system eventually collapses with later investors receiving nothing - including their initial investment.
Because every Ponzi scheme makes no profit, they collapse sooner or later. You are very unlikely to recover any lost money.
Protect yourself against Ponzi schemes
- If you’re considering any type of investment, always remember: if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is.
- There’s no such thing as a ‘guaranteed risk-free’ investment - high returns can only be achieved with high risk.
- Ponzi fraudsters use vague technical jargon to describe their non-existent investments, such as ‘high yield investment program’ or ‘global currency arbitrage’. This language is most of the times designed to dazzle you.
- Using hard-sell techniques, fraudsters will try to pressure you into making rushed decisions, giving you no time to consider the nature of the investment. (Not so common here)
- As with many fraudulent schemes, you are encouraged to keep your investment secret to ensure you receive maximum returns. This allows the fraudsters to hide the real nature of their scheme.
Ponzi’s are illegal in some country’s. Because of the nature of things we have to deal with people crying they have lost their money sooner or later.
I decided to -ve the operator and supporters of this Ponzi that go on with their shady business after I have posted this.
In simple terms:
This is just another Ponzi Scam! Do Not Invest!
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.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
NOTE: This is a pre written Text taken from different websites and from here, it is used to bring the matter to your attention. I am aware that this Ponzi might has been running for some time, I just decided to not ignore it any longer. Basically I do so because I am sick of seeing people get burned and operator running away with other people’s money. If you start to hate me because I have chosen to tag people here, while Ponzi XYZ is still running, feel free to bring other Ponzi’s to my attention.
Thank you!
February 29, 2016, 07:19:33 PM
Dont see why you would tag the participants, if the operator is tagged i think that will provide more than enough warning
There are chances that one of the participants is the operator's alt. That i think is possible and that he's giving a kick-start for his scamming campaign. tagging participants I think is reasonable enough to lessen these scamming frenzy.
February 29, 2016, 05:21:07 PM
Dont see why you would tag the participants, if the operator is tagged i think that will provide more than enough warning
February 29, 2016, 05:08:46 PM
I am a player too so where is my red tag? I admit freely here and now so refer to here.
It may be effective for noobs that don't know how that stuff works, so now they can concentrate again on the housewifes making $300 per day. Maybe they can go Timesharing. Those schemes were around long before crypto and most cash circulating in those schemes isn't crypto at all. There is too much money involved outside of crypto to just kill them with a negative trust rating.
Personally I think placing them in the sub investor-based games is sufficient although I wouldn't call it investing. Just rename it to "Ponzi's, Pyramids and HYIPs" and it will all be good.
So I get that you give negative trust to operators and I even get the negative rating for refspammers and signature spammers. But to give negative trust to participants makes the trust in my opinion pretty obsolete. Ok I got to admit I read trust, I like the mudthrowing but does it give me the sense it is important? hell no. Regular players will just open a Ponzi account here if they care about the trust system. Noobs will get negative trust for their learning process given by the ones having their own agenda they call "for the community". But then they will never learn, experience is the best way of learning and what are the noobs investing here? 0.002 to 0.01? That is a whole different level then taking a second mortgage for a good deal. I would definitely prefer they learn here losing their giveaways and faucets then being held off by the community and the fall for it eyes wide open with a much bigger pile of coins to lose. The subforum where they gather now is small in the sense of what people put into it. Ok some regulars play bigger but I never seen life savings being thrown around in that subforum "investor-based games". Now cloudmining is a different story though
In my opnion as long as they haven't proven they are actually mining they should be placed in "Ponzi's, Pyramids and HYIPs"
So what is next, first kill the obvious Ponzi's and then getting bored? Maybe pick up gambling, ok it is legitimate but it ruins a lot of people. Everywhere in life, in every community there is always a shady gutter. There is always something in the closet, there is always a darkroom. In my opinion it is best to keep that open and clear nicely tuck away in a subforum.
It may be effective for noobs that don't know how that stuff works, so now they can concentrate again on the housewifes making $300 per day. Maybe they can go Timesharing. Those schemes were around long before crypto and most cash circulating in those schemes isn't crypto at all. There is too much money involved outside of crypto to just kill them with a negative trust rating.
Personally I think placing them in the sub investor-based games is sufficient although I wouldn't call it investing. Just rename it to "Ponzi's, Pyramids and HYIPs" and it will all be good.
So I get that you give negative trust to operators and I even get the negative rating for refspammers and signature spammers. But to give negative trust to participants makes the trust in my opinion pretty obsolete. Ok I got to admit I read trust, I like the mudthrowing but does it give me the sense it is important? hell no. Regular players will just open a Ponzi account here if they care about the trust system. Noobs will get negative trust for their learning process given by the ones having their own agenda they call "for the community". But then they will never learn, experience is the best way of learning and what are the noobs investing here? 0.002 to 0.01? That is a whole different level then taking a second mortgage for a good deal. I would definitely prefer they learn here losing their giveaways and faucets then being held off by the community and the fall for it eyes wide open with a much bigger pile of coins to lose. The subforum where they gather now is small in the sense of what people put into it. Ok some regulars play bigger but I never seen life savings being thrown around in that subforum "investor-based games". Now cloudmining is a different story though
In my opnion as long as they haven't proven they are actually mining they should be placed in "Ponzi's, Pyramids and HYIPs"
So what is next, first kill the obvious Ponzi's and then getting bored? Maybe pick up gambling, ok it is legitimate but it ruins a lot of people. Everywhere in life, in every community there is always a shady gutter. There is always something in the closet, there is always a darkroom. In my opinion it is best to keep that open and clear nicely tuck away in a subforum.
February 29, 2016, 01:42:44 PM
Not sure I understand.
1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum
No, there isn't a ponzi sub on this forum. There is a sub where a number of threads exist concerning services which may or may not be ponzi schemes, but it isn't for the forum staff to dictate whether those threads should exist or not.1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum
Could you explain to me what an investment-based game is?
2. Either the user is off-topic, in which case you should ask user/mods to move the post, or it is in the correct sub, in which case you tag the user with negative trust.
Correct?
Correct?
Again, no. What I am proposing isn't about forum administration, it is about community communication. People can still support ponzi scams as much as they want, but not without consequence.
Sticking with my assumption that "Investment-based games" is a euphemism for Ponzis, I find it difficult to understand why people offering Ponzis in a Ponzi sub are negatively rated.
Do you think that the majority of users participating in Ponzis are unaware of them being Ponzis, and need someone to point it out? Have you asked around? Or just, you know, assumed?
Quote
There are more than enough legitimate investment, gambling and gaming services for them to use that there is absolutely no justification for actively participating in and, by doing so, supporting those operations that are clearly ponzi scams.
So wait, the marks that are playing those Ponzis, they get the scarlet letter too? I like it, nail drug dealers AND drug users. Time 2 clean up this bad neighborhood
Quote
I know that if I want to best determine whether a user is trustworthy or not, the fact they are marked as being the kind of person who doesn't care that they support these toxic schemes in return for a share of the loot, is an objective indicator that they are not trustworthy. So the choice is theirs, they can continue to help these scammers and, as a result, be marked as such, or they can concede that it is morally bankrupt to collaborate with fraudsters and conmen and cease their involvement.
Meh. My understanding that most openly admit to running Ponzis, going as far as putting Ponzi in the name. You don't like Ponzis, so are taking it upon yourself to do what most here rage against when NannyState does it.
February 29, 2016, 01:15:53 PM
The flag means less and less when you have most of the forum flagged. But you guys got the green light, so enjoy.
Maybe we are tired of seeing people get scammed and complaining about it even it was obvious and screamed SCAM all over the place? Think about it... oh wait, your thinking will change once they scammed YOU
Presuming to know how someone will think and act is the exact issue I have with these cowboy antics.
You act as if I support scamming, its the tact. When you go looking for problems eventually you see them everywhere. Looking at this from a bigger bubble you may see how being gungho may turn people off.
Blaze says everyone supports you, so go ahead!
But he also is the one that brought you into the fold, so I guess that doesnt murk the waters much either.
Carry on
as far as i have seen you were against -veing people because of "thoughts" in the other topics we are currently enjoying. This makes it looks like you are more into the "benefit of doubt" thing, which i am not in.
my pov could be wrong on this. I have wrote this before, being –ved on here is not the end of your life and more worse: most newbies don’t care about it but some do. If it stops one newbie from getting owned: great thing. All others are free to proof I am wrong. I really like to get my mind changed, by arguments or proof.
So far no one has done, except from stopping selling accounts. That’s why I changed my loan terms.a
February 29, 2016, 01:03:16 PM
I'm OK with operators and participants (promoters) to be tagged. That way newbies will not fall as a victim on those easy earning scheme. I hope there will be a pinned post of a ponzi site list as a reference as part of PSA.
February 29, 2016, 12:59:49 PM
Not sure I understand.
1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum
No, there isn't a ponzi sub on this forum. There is a sub where a number of threads exist concerning services which may or may not be ponzi schemes, but it isn't for the forum staff to dictate whether those threads should exist or not.1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum
2. Either the user is off-topic, in which case you should ask user/mods to move the post, or it is in the correct sub, in which case you tag the user with negative trust.
Correct?
Correct?
Again, no. What I am proposing isn't about forum administration, it is about community communication. People can still support ponzi scams as much as they want, but not without consequence.
There are more than enough legitimate investment, gambling and gaming services for them to use that there is absolutely no justification for actively participating in and, by doing so, supporting those operations that are clearly ponzi scams.
I know that if I want to best determine whether a user is trustworthy or not, the fact they are marked as being the kind of person who doesn't care that they support these toxic schemes in return for a share of the loot, is an objective indicator that they are not trustworthy. So the choice is theirs, they can continue to help these scammers and, as a result, be marked as such, or they can concede that it is morally bankrupt to collaborate with fraudsters and conmen and cease their involvement.
February 29, 2016, 12:31:40 PM
Ponzi operators afre very creative. To my mind, cloud mining has become ponzi territory.
February 29, 2016, 12:16:36 PM
Ofc, they're probably 100% bull, with no proof of actual mining. Link?
Of course you can check if they are mining, by simply looking up the pool they are pointing their hash power at.
So ask OP/mods to move to correct sub. Problem solved.
Would be sort of funny to tag people for being on-topic in a forum [Ponzi] sub, no?
They aren't being tagged for being on-topic, they are being tagged for being provably untrustworthy people who do not care where their profit comes from or that they are supporting a fraudulent scam.
Not sure I understand.
1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum
2. Either the user is off-topic, in which case you should ask user/mods to move the post, or it is in the correct sub, in which case you tag the user with negative trust.
Correct?
February 29, 2016, 11:51:22 AM
It is extremely effective so far. Asides from the scammers and their socks laying out plenty of smack-talk, which you just ignore, it is already making people think twice about continuing to support these schemes.
Effective not doubt it is, but to stop the plague you got to kill them all if you know what i mean. In the end of the day, it's gonna be a never ending endeavour.
Which in the end will be the issue.
Say it over and over because it seems to be falling on blind eyes(
..sounds funny) that friendly fire is unexceptable when you are trying to fix a problem. Rounding up a posse also worries me because it makes it look like everyone else is in agreement or guilty. It has taken how long for a group of members to extend the group of people they want gone from scammers,altaccounts and now we are eventually going to go after gamblers as well because they could eventually scam because they are sinners! I stretch but is it that far off?
See little voting going on either,just a group of like minds that agree with one another and that always works out for the better.
February 29, 2016, 11:38:22 AM
It is extremely effective so far. Asides from the scammers and their socks laying out plenty of smack-talk, which you just ignore, it is already making people think twice about continuing to support these schemes.
Effective not doubt it is, but to stop the plague you got to kill them all if you know what i mean. In the end of the day, it's gonna be a never ending endeavour.
February 29, 2016, 11:30:41 AM
It is extremely effective so far. Asides from the scammers and their socks laying out plenty of smack-talk, which you just ignore, it is already making people think twice about continuing to support these schemes.
February 29, 2016, 11:28:17 AM
Its effective 
i got a first hand experience of getting negative trust from posting a HYIP sites. i choose to stay on the clean side of this forum. and never post hyips ever again
i got a first hand experience of getting negative trust from posting a HYIP sites. i choose to stay on the clean side of this forum. and never post hyips ever again 
February 29, 2016, 11:25:18 AM
As the khaleesi would have said :
Burn them all
Snow approves.Burn them all
Jump to: