Would you consider a payment confirmation as 'supporting' the ponzi site? I remember a legendary member, Blazed once doing so .
Along with that question do you consider answering for 'scam or legit' in ponzi, say someone says 'It is paying out for now' or such in a discussion thread?
Topic: Tagging both operators and participants of Ponzi schemes is extremely effective - page 4. (Read 2646 times)
February 29, 2016, 05:33:11 AM
February 29, 2016, 05:27:46 AM
I'm sure most of you decent human beings are sick of the plethora of HYIP/Ponzi scams being churned out on a regular basis in this forum.
I would like to propose a concerted effort by forum members who are on DT to tag with negative trust, not just the OP of these threads, but also anybody who participates in them and posts positive comments in their threads.
This may sound a little harsh, after all it can be argued that people who knowingly wish to 'play' in a ponzi 'game' should be able to do so. But while the, "We're all smart enough to take responsibility for our decisions" argument sounds like a powerful defence, it actually isn't. Firstly, no, not everybody understands what they are joining in with and how it works when it comes to ponzi schemes. This results in stolen coins and more pissed off newbie cryptocurrency users who will simply end up joining the mainstream chorus condemning cryptocurrency as being a criminal industry.
Secondly, and more importantly, while you might shrug your shoulders and think that naive users just have to suck it up and take their whuppin' so that those who do know how a ponzi works can continue to 'play' them, their desire to seek profit through fair means or foul results in these scams being able to function and encourages more scammers to join in with their own ponzis. Without participants, there can be no ponzi.
Imagine that. No more ponzi schemes in cryptocurrency. Well, those promoted through Bitcointalk, anyway.
Negative trust tagging doesn't actually stop anybody from participating, it merely discourages them from shilling for the ponzi they are involved in. Particularly bought accounts which, by way of being senior members of this forum, are very likely to make newbies believe that a particular scheme is worth joining. So their whining about being prevented from doing what they want is false, they are still free to participated, there will simply be the consequence that other users will be able to see what type of person they are, that is all.
If we tag these senior accounts it will also destroy the potential future resale value of them, thereby greatly reducing the demand for these accounts by the scammers as part of their sock-puppet shilling process. If they can't con newbies with 'experienced' members posting their support then they won't be buying them. Two birds, one stone.
It wouldn't have to be limited to just ponzis, either. 'Cloud Mining' is predominantly ponzi-by-another-name and it has its own socks and shills supporting it who encourage newbies to believe it isn't the scam most of us know it to be. Ruining the credibility of these accounts will dissuade naive users from believing their lies and will hopefully drive these toxic operations out of this space.
I propose a two-stage process to enforcement (after the initial tagging of the OP):
1. A red-letter PSA is posted in the scam thread advising users that it is a ponzi scam and their participation in it makes them guilty of being an accomplice to fraud and theft. That by making positive posts supporting a known scam they are demonstrably proving they wish to encourage others to send money in so that they might be rewarded by the scammers for having done so, by receiving a share in the stolen funds. Such behaviour being inconsistent with trustworthy characteristics, they will receive negative trust. That there exists plenty of legitimate gambling, gaming and investment services they can avail themselves of, so there is no excuse to be supporting scams.
2. Posts continuing to show participation, excuse or support for a scam should see that user's account being tagged with negative trust for the above reasons.
Thoughts?
[edit] Example cut-and-paste warning for people to insert into scam threads.
P.S. Any participation counts as support, including asking in thread for a giveaway
I suggest allowing users to request a negative tag be removed if they delete the post in question shortly after being negatively rated. This should avoid tears and tantrums from those who claim they didn't understand what was going on. But not if they do so days later as, by then, their tacit support will already potentially have encouraged other users to participate.
I would like to propose a concerted effort by forum members who are on DT to tag with negative trust, not just the OP of these threads, but also anybody who participates in them and posts positive comments in their threads.
This may sound a little harsh, after all it can be argued that people who knowingly wish to 'play' in a ponzi 'game' should be able to do so. But while the, "We're all smart enough to take responsibility for our decisions" argument sounds like a powerful defence, it actually isn't. Firstly, no, not everybody understands what they are joining in with and how it works when it comes to ponzi schemes. This results in stolen coins and more pissed off newbie cryptocurrency users who will simply end up joining the mainstream chorus condemning cryptocurrency as being a criminal industry.
Secondly, and more importantly, while you might shrug your shoulders and think that naive users just have to suck it up and take their whuppin' so that those who do know how a ponzi works can continue to 'play' them, their desire to seek profit through fair means or foul results in these scams being able to function and encourages more scammers to join in with their own ponzis. Without participants, there can be no ponzi.
Imagine that. No more ponzi schemes in cryptocurrency. Well, those promoted through Bitcointalk, anyway.
Negative trust tagging doesn't actually stop anybody from participating, it merely discourages them from shilling for the ponzi they are involved in. Particularly bought accounts which, by way of being senior members of this forum, are very likely to make newbies believe that a particular scheme is worth joining. So their whining about being prevented from doing what they want is false, they are still free to participated, there will simply be the consequence that other users will be able to see what type of person they are, that is all.
If we tag these senior accounts it will also destroy the potential future resale value of them, thereby greatly reducing the demand for these accounts by the scammers as part of their sock-puppet shilling process. If they can't con newbies with 'experienced' members posting their support then they won't be buying them. Two birds, one stone.
It wouldn't have to be limited to just ponzis, either. 'Cloud Mining' is predominantly ponzi-by-another-name and it has its own socks and shills supporting it who encourage newbies to believe it isn't the scam most of us know it to be. Ruining the credibility of these accounts will dissuade naive users from believing their lies and will hopefully drive these toxic operations out of this space.
I propose a two-stage process to enforcement (after the initial tagging of the OP):
1. A red-letter PSA is posted in the scam thread advising users that it is a ponzi scam and their participation in it makes them guilty of being an accomplice to fraud and theft. That by making positive posts supporting a known scam they are demonstrably proving they wish to encourage others to send money in so that they might be rewarded by the scammers for having done so, by receiving a share in the stolen funds. Such behaviour being inconsistent with trustworthy characteristics, they will receive negative trust. That there exists plenty of legitimate gambling, gaming and investment services they can avail themselves of, so there is no excuse to be supporting scams.
2. Posts continuing to show participation, excuse or support for a scam should see that user's account being tagged with negative trust for the above reasons.
Thoughts?
[edit] Example cut-and-paste warning for people to insert into scam threads.
P.S. Any participation counts as support, including asking in thread for a giveaway
Code:
[size=18pt][color=red]Public Service Announcement -
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![/color][/size]
I suggest allowing users to request a negative tag be removed if they delete the post in question shortly after being negatively rated. This should avoid tears and tantrums from those who claim they didn't understand what was going on. But not if they do so days later as, by then, their tacit support will already potentially have encouraged other users to participate.
Jump to: