The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis...
JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.
Thank you for the comments Loyce
I think it is my persistence in posting many times to counter the scam post that maybe raised a few eyebrows of suspicion towards me.
As for those that know me, I do not get paid for bumping threads however I did receive two very kind donations from users who I helped during their fight when they were scammed. One fortunately receive all of his funds back and he made a donation to many people that helped in his thread, even after I declined to receive it he insisted to send it. The other, unfortunately is still waiting for his funds to be returned but insisted on sending me a donation and I accepted.
Apart from those two donations received which were as a thank you for helping in their fight, I have never been paid to do anything and if I was offered money to bump threads I would decline and report the user.
JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.
I don't want to speak for iasenko, but I don't think he is accusing JollyGood of being a participant in the bumping scheme. I think what iasenko is saying is that JollyGood's efforts might be counter productive by giving the scammers someone legit to argue with and instigate. I tend to agree; the best thing to do in situations like that is to report the offenders and post as infrequently as possible in the thread.
Many thanks for the comment DireWolfM14
I completely agree with you. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In future I would probably not post so often in a scam thread and rather post a few times here and there to highlight it as a scam (or potential scam) and just report it.
Maybe posting in the scam threads can be seen as counter-productive especially if sock-puppets pounce and start "conversations" and "debates" and try to legitimise their scam, therefore I will change my approach. I appreciate the comments.
The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis...
I talked privately with JollyGood last year and I can tell you that I am pretty sure that he is not doing that, although his methods are strange.
Btw, these fuckers are sending army of their shills when someone ask them legit questions, I remember one thread (I will have to find it, can't really remember which one it was), I asked them few questions and bunch of accounts start spamming thread, I was reporting them in real time to moderator (they posted some crap and I instantly reported them) and eventually I gave up (maybe I reported whole thread afterwards, can't remember, it was a year ago). It's just like a defensive mechanism, call them scam and they will "hide" your post, if you know what I mean...
Thank you for the post marlboroza
I was and still am grateful for the advice you gave me when I needed help. You have my total respect.
Yes my methods might be somewhat strange or unorthodox but I have taken on-board the comments in this thread and will change the way I try to expose scammers.
Regarding the army of shills episode you mentioned, the same technique is commonly applied by so many scammers. The forum is full of "projects" that claim to be genuine but have a team of sock-puppets.
In the case of coinsbit they ensured none of the sock-puppets posted in the p2pb2b thread because it would arouse suspicion of a connection even though they denied it, investigations showed enough evidence to give way beyond reasonable doubt that the two projects were owned by the same team. Both websites became super-active in this forum around December 2018 as soon as IEOs started being the chosen method of making money.
There are several other projects out there that have hired or own sock-puppets to attack anybody that asks questions, one example is in the Bankera/Spectrocoin threads.
The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis...
JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.
I do not accuse him because I didn't have time to look at his post history but referring to his positive trust ratings I assumed he was from the "good side". I didn't reported any oh his posts. But again 200+ posts in this thread is a bit suspicious even though he has a positive trust rating.
My other assumption was if the spammers/bumpers have one "good" account just to
fight with and make kind of legit bumps. This should not be the case with JollyGood just that's where I got the idea from.
Thank you for the post iasenko.
I can understand where the hypothesis would come from and I have decided to modify my approach from now on.
I think fighting the scammers with regular counter posting does inadvertently bump the thread and it is something that needs to stop.
The scammers and spammers will be reported as and when I see them, that is a far better approach to help clean up this forum and protect it from the modern day thieves that have infested it.
I gave up reporting this type of abuse a while ago. Sometimes I noticed that between making the report and it being actioned, pages of further crap had been posted.
On some threads where I think there is a risk of a very questionable scheme's bumping service actually succeeding in boosting credibility, I periodically post summaries of the spam and a warning about it, but rarely go to the lengths that JollyGood has on the basis that
Never wrestle with a pig.
You get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it.This is one of the things that should be looked into by an admin but it likely won't.
This.
If the senior management of the forum doesn't consider the thousands upon thousands of spam posts being made (solely to distort visitors' perception of the popularity of usually dubious schemes) to be a threat to the forum's credibility, then this conclusion seems inevitable
theymos wont stop these spammers because they are the reasons why bitcointalk.org has a lot o traffics.
Thank you for the comments tmfp
This made me laugh. Your advice seems to be a cross between something Master Yoda would say and a Chinese proverb spoken by an old wise man
I think it is important to expose the scams and scammers but there is a way to do it and I certainly will not wrestle with those scammers again. I will report them and see what happens.
As for the perceived lack of action by the forum owners/moderators - if it is as simple as allowing spammers and scammers to operate here with almost impunity just because of the traffic flow then that would be a very sad conclusion to the situation. I feel there may be more to it than that.
I prefer to believe the forum will put a stop to the spammers and scammers because those thousands of spam posts being made on a weekly basis which are clearly designed for the sole purpose to fool (investors, newbies and gullible) people - must be stopped otherwise it is true the credibility of this forum will be on the line and community cannot allow that to happen.
Just nuke the thread and be done with it.
The good news about coinsbit is that the thread has been
removed from the forum but their other scam thread (p2pb2b) is still there.
Hopefully that too will be shut down soon.
