Scammer tag == "Untrustworthy person: beware". It's supposed to prevent clueless people (who don't do research) from trading with people who have previously done something very unethical while trading.
Other than warning clueless people about known scammers, I don't want to get the forum involved in disputes between traders.
Topic: What's in a scammer tag? (Read 2855 times)
Yeah, so perhaps there should be a disputes forum (we have already the scammer accusation forum, so perhaps that'll do), then users could have a tag called 'disputes', and by clicking on that tag, one could get a list of the disputes the user is involved in.
A scammer tag is very definitive and stigmatizing and an explicit form of punishment.
Precisely!! Which is why I'm wondering why admins and mods all seem to have varying definitions. To permanently label a member of the bitcoin community...to stigmatize them with the lowest of low...requires a set of conditions that can easily be applied to various situations. You can't be like "oh that guy was a dumbass, looks like he gets the Scammer tag". You have to show that the individual not only stole from someone else, but that their actions on the whole imitated that of deceit and refusal to cooperate.
Can someone who thinks differently argue their side? In all seriousness, I want to see if there's something I'm missing from the discussion that would maybe change my mind.
A scammer tag is very definitive and stigmatizing and an explicit form of punishment.
Another option would be to maintain a list of members that have a record of disputes.
That way you could remain neutral as to who's to blame for a dispute (e.g. gullibility vs. deceit) and still help protect sensible users from making bad decisions.
I.e. "Fair warning has been given".
Such a list could even be stickied in the newbie section.
Another option would be to maintain a list of members that have a record of disputes.
That way you could remain neutral as to who's to blame for a dispute (e.g. gullibility vs. deceit) and still help protect sensible users from making bad decisions.
I.e. "Fair warning has been given".
Such a list could even be stickied in the newbie section.
I'm not quite sure how people seem to be defining 'Scammer' in this thread. It seems to be by their own definition, or anything that may break a law in society.
I'll help you guys out. Scam, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as:
Now, in which of the original four scenarios does this definition fit...which of the four results in the original poster gaining more than they had before? The first 2 are nothing, they break even. The third they lose money. And the fourth is unclear.
More likely, it would be better to associate the Scammer tag with someone who's fraudulent, noted as:
In this case, you don't necessarily have to make a gain from your actions in order to receive the tag. Arguably scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could fit under this definition as the person wasn't honoring their end of the deal, intentional or not. I'm assuming this is how the majority of people are thinking during these scenarios.
If anything, the 'Scammer' tag should be changed to 'Fraudster' as the definition encompasses both the definitions noted above. Though it makes it a bit unclear as to what the person could have done to warrant the tag, it can be applied to a variety of situations. Scammer just implies that the person took money from someone else in one way or another. That's what I think when I see the tag on a user's profile.
Am I the only one that thinks this way?
Definitions are fuzzy. I define "to scam" as to "to deprive of by deceit". But the forum evidently has its own definition, which includes "to fail to meet a liability". I'll help you guys out. Scam, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as:
Quote
scam [skam] noun, verb; scammed, scam·ming.
noun
1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
verb (used with object)
2.
to cheat or defraud with a scam.
noun
1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
verb (used with object)
2.
to cheat or defraud with a scam.
Now, in which of the original four scenarios does this definition fit...which of the four results in the original poster gaining more than they had before? The first 2 are nothing, they break even. The third they lose money. And the fourth is unclear.
More likely, it would be better to associate the Scammer tag with someone who's fraudulent, noted as:
Quote
fraud·u·lent [fraw-juh-luhnt]
adjective
1.
characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains: a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes.
2.
given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
adjective
1.
characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains: a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes.
2.
given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
In this case, you don't necessarily have to make a gain from your actions in order to receive the tag. Arguably scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could fit under this definition as the person wasn't honoring their end of the deal, intentional or not. I'm assuming this is how the majority of people are thinking during these scenarios.
If anything, the 'Scammer' tag should be changed to 'Fraudster' as the definition encompasses both the definitions noted above. Though it makes it a bit unclear as to what the person could have done to warrant the tag, it can be applied to a variety of situations. Scammer just implies that the person took money from someone else in one way or another. That's what I think when I see the tag on a user's profile.
Am I the only one that thinks this way?
I'm not quite sure how people seem to be defining 'Scammer' in this thread. It seems to be by their own definition, or anything that may break a law in society.
I'll help you guys out. Scam, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as:
Now, in which of the original four scenarios does this definition fit...which of the four results in the original poster gaining more than they had before? The first 2 are nothing, they break even. The third they lose money. And the fourth is unclear.
More likely, it would be better to associate the Scammer tag with someone who's fraudulent, noted as:
In this case, you don't necessarily have to make a gain from your actions in order to receive the tag. Arguably scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could fit under this definition as the person wasn't honoring their end of the deal, intentional or not. I'm assuming this is how the majority of people are thinking during these scenarios.
If anything, the 'Scammer' tag should be changed to 'Fraudster' as the definition encompasses both the definitions noted above. Though it makes it a bit unclear as to what the person could have done to warrant the tag, it can be applied to a variety of situations. Scammer just implies that the person took money from someone else in one way or another. That's what I think when I see the tag on a user's profile.
Am I the only one that thinks this way?
I'll help you guys out. Scam, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as:
Quote
scam [skam] noun, verb; scammed, scam·ming.
noun
1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
verb (used with object)
2.
to cheat or defraud with a scam.
noun
1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
verb (used with object)
2.
to cheat or defraud with a scam.
Now, in which of the original four scenarios does this definition fit...which of the four results in the original poster gaining more than they had before? The first 2 are nothing, they break even. The third they lose money. And the fourth is unclear.
More likely, it would be better to associate the Scammer tag with someone who's fraudulent, noted as:
Quote
fraud·u·lent [fraw-juh-luhnt]
adjective
1.
characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains: a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes.
2.
given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
adjective
1.
characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains: a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes.
2.
given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
In this case, you don't necessarily have to make a gain from your actions in order to receive the tag. Arguably scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could fit under this definition as the person wasn't honoring their end of the deal, intentional or not. I'm assuming this is how the majority of people are thinking during these scenarios.
If anything, the 'Scammer' tag should be changed to 'Fraudster' as the definition encompasses both the definitions noted above. Though it makes it a bit unclear as to what the person could have done to warrant the tag, it can be applied to a variety of situations. Scammer just implies that the person took money from someone else in one way or another. That's what I think when I see the tag on a user's profile.
Am I the only one that thinks this way?
I've come to the conclusion that scammer tags are a huge waste of everyone's time. We should do away with them on this forum. The original intent of the tagswas to warn newcomers to be careful in general. Right? To inform everyone that scammers exist and are on the prowl. Scammer tags are never useful for actually avoiding scams, as we all know.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
I agree. Scammer tags are waste of time. This isn't a trading forum.
I'm not defending him, but just letting you know that I never had a problem with him.
I still don't have a problem with him, he just chose to take actions that were bad for Bitcoin. It would not surprise me if he was honest. Up until the incident, he was just like the rest of us. I'm not sure what changed, but I have every reason to hope improvement continues. But that goes for everyone on the forums. I get the impression (from almost everyone that actually posts on the forums regularly and doesn't just make accounts to instantly raise post count then scam) that most people actually believe Bitcoin could replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. If anything, I hold on to the belief that, with enough of those people, we'll see changes for the better.
If there was a poor kid and a rich kid and the poor kid stole or tricked the rich kid into giving him money because the poor kid refused to be the rich kid's servant to secure his economic survival and because the rich kid failed to go into an economic mutuality with the poor kid, i.e. failing to recognize the poor kid's right to prosperity, either due to segregational beliefs or ignorance.
Simple, the poor kid should go into an economic mutuality with another rich kid. That first rich kid will quickly discover that his money/resources are useless if he isn't willing to use them.Of course, if there is only one rich kid (i.e. a monopoly) or just a few rich kids (an oligopoly), that's a whole different matter.
...
Yes he does have a scammer tag. And people being dumb or careless with their money doesn't make it right to steal or lie. There's no excuse that justifies that. And if you think there is then you're morally bankrupt and should stay away from society in general.
I just saw that he has the scammer tag. I had double checked but still overlooked it. My apologies.
I would have replied to your moral stand point and offered a more investigative perspective on social dynamics, but honestly, the fact that I got one of my facts wrong renders everything else mute as well.
But allow me to give it a humble shot nonetheless:
If there was a poor kid and a rich kid and the poor kid stole or tricked the rich kid into giving him money because the poor kid refused to be the rich kid's servant to secure his economic survival and because the rich kid failed to go into an economic mutuality with the poor kid, i.e. failing to recognize the poor kid's right to prosperity, either due to segregational beliefs or ignorance. If you were god, how would you decide who was right or wrong?
TL;DR: If your only chance of escaping servitude or death was to steal or lie, how could it be immoral?
(this is fairly off-topic so I don't mind if you don't reply.)
...
Yes he does have a scammer tag. And people being dumb or careless with their money doesn't make it right to steal or lie. There's no excuse that justifies that. And if you think there is then you're morally bankrupt and should stay away from society in general.
I just saw that he has the scammer tag. I had double checked but still overlooked it. My apologies.
I would have replied to your moral stand point and offered a more investigative perspective on social dynamics, but honestly, the fact that I got one of my facts wrong renders everything else mute as well.
But allow me to give it a humble shot nonetheless:
If there was a poor kid and a rich kid and the poor kid stole or tricked the rich kid into giving him money because the poor kid refused to be the rich kid's servant to secure his economic survival and because the rich kid failed to go into an economic mutuality with the poor kid, i.e. failing to recognize the poor kid's right to prosperity, either due to segregational beliefs or ignorance. If you were god, how would you decide who was right or wrong?
TL;DR: If your only chance of escaping servitude or death was to steal or lie, how could it be immoral?
(this is fairly off-topic so I don't mind if you don't reply.)
None. Because:
1. Somebody giving out btc for free may choose whether or not he wants to keep on doing it.
2. Obvious risk and fraud potential, no guarantees, nothing. Why would you even send him money? (He apparently paid back when he ran out, so he possibly fulfilled the ROI promise for the rest)
3. If money returned, not a scammer.
4. Obvious asshole. But not a scammer.
Listen folks, there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a real scam which deliberately tricks people into a loss of money by providing fake documentation, orchestrated acting and/or a complex system of psychological and legal tricks and a bunch of kids on an internet forum saying "Give me your money and I'll give it back, promise!"
Pirate's scam was a scam, and a fucking good one at that.
The above are casual exploitations of naive stupidity.
There's a fucking difference alright?!
And you know what's the best part? Ironically, pirateat40 doesn't even have the scammer tag.
1. Somebody giving out btc for free may choose whether or not he wants to keep on doing it.
2. Obvious risk and fraud potential, no guarantees, nothing. Why would you even send him money? (He apparently paid back when he ran out, so he possibly fulfilled the ROI promise for the rest)
3. If money returned, not a scammer.
4. Obvious asshole. But not a scammer.
Listen folks, there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a real scam which deliberately tricks people into a loss of money by providing fake documentation, orchestrated acting and/or a complex system of psychological and legal tricks and a bunch of kids on an internet forum saying "Give me your money and I'll give it back, promise!"
Pirate's scam was a scam, and a fucking good one at that.
The above are casual exploitations of naive stupidity.
There's a fucking difference alright?!
And you know what's the best part? Ironically, pirateat40 doesn't even have the scammer tag.
Yes he does have a scammer tag. And people being dumb or careless with their money doesn't make it right to steal or lie. There's no excuse that justifies that. And if you think there is then you're morally bankrupt and should stay away from society in general.
None. Because:
1. Somebody giving out btc for free may choose whether or not he wants to keep on doing it.
2. Obvious risk and fraud potential, no guarantees, nothing. Why would you even send him money? (He apparently paid back when he ran out, so he possibly fulfilled the ROI promise for the rest)
3. If money returned, not a scammer.
4. Obvious asshole. But not a scammer.
Listen folks, there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a real scam which deliberately tricks people into a loss of money by providing fake documentation, orchestrated acting and/or a complex system of psychological and legal tricks and a bunch of kids on an internet forum saying "Give me your money and I'll give it back, promise!"
Pirate's scam was a scam, and a fucking good one at that.
The above are casual exploitations of naive stupidity.
There's a fucking difference alright?!
And you know what's the best part? Ironically, pirateat40 doesn't even have the scammer tag.
1. Somebody giving out btc for free may choose whether or not he wants to keep on doing it.
2. Obvious risk and fraud potential, no guarantees, nothing. Why would you even send him money? (He apparently paid back when he ran out, so he possibly fulfilled the ROI promise for the rest)
3. If money returned, not a scammer.
4. Obvious asshole. But not a scammer.
Listen folks, there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a real scam which deliberately tricks people into a loss of money by providing fake documentation, orchestrated acting and/or a complex system of psychological and legal tricks and a bunch of kids on an internet forum saying "Give me your money and I'll give it back, promise!"
Pirate's scam was a scam, and a fucking good one at that.
The above are casual exploitations of naive stupidity.
There's a fucking difference alright?!
And you know what's the best part? Ironically, pirateat40 doesn't even have the scammer tag.
The problem with just making them go away is that there are some of us that have bought debt in order to ensure these folks continue to have the scammer tag as long as they have paid absolutely nothing, and they aren't scammed individuals. Additionally, like bulanula, some don't actively try to fool people but are just dishonest in business and bad for Bitcoin.
There's years of history on the forums, and it's hard to take the advice of folks with accounts that have been here less than a year. Post count isn't even a real good indicator of who to trust anymore, either. Matthew seemed to be someone whose entire life was wrapped up in the forums and Bitcoin businesses, but he ended up just like Atlas, a forum addict and while he now says he's "an entertainer" I think that rationally he felt pirate was going to pay. We have to have some sort of system in place or else legitimate businesses won't touch Bitcoin with a 10 foot pole. Scammer tags have at least helped point out those who shame Bitcoin.
There's years of history on the forums, and it's hard to take the advice of folks with accounts that have been here less than a year. Post count isn't even a real good indicator of who to trust anymore, either. Matthew seemed to be someone whose entire life was wrapped up in the forums and Bitcoin businesses, but he ended up just like Atlas, a forum addict and while he now says he's "an entertainer" I think that rationally he felt pirate was going to pay. We have to have some sort of system in place or else legitimate businesses won't touch Bitcoin with a 10 foot pole. Scammer tags have at least helped point out those who shame Bitcoin.
Yeah, I think that someone that shows a behaviour of a scammer, does deserve a scammer tag. There will always be someone at each end of the scale. Some heavy scammers, and some persons it can be argued about whether deserve a scammer tag or not.
As for Bulanula, there's people that deserves the scammer tag more than him. I worked with him on a project a few months back, and he did all the work to the very best of his abilities, and I was very pleased with his effort. As for the flame fest surrounding his scammer tag, I've never participated in that ordeal. I would trust him again with project tasks, but I wouldn't get involved in a discussion about the details around the actions leading to his scammer tag being established. I'm not defending him, but just letting you know that I never had a problem with him.
The problem with just making them go away is that there are some of us that have bought debt in order to ensure these folks continue to have the scammer tag as long as they have paid absolutely nothing, and they aren't scammed individuals. Additionally, like bulanula, some don't actively try to fool people but are just dishonest in business and bad for Bitcoin.
There's years of history on the forums, and it's hard to take the advice of folks with accounts that have been here less than a year. Post count isn't even a real good indicator of who to trust anymore, either. Matthew seemed to be someone whose entire life was wrapped up in the forums and Bitcoin businesses, but he ended up just like Atlas, a forum addict and while he now says he's "an entertainer" I think that rationally he felt pirate was going to pay. We have to have some sort of system in place or else legitimate businesses won't touch Bitcoin with a 10 foot pole. Scammer tags have at least helped point out those who shame Bitcoin.
There's years of history on the forums, and it's hard to take the advice of folks with accounts that have been here less than a year. Post count isn't even a real good indicator of who to trust anymore, either. Matthew seemed to be someone whose entire life was wrapped up in the forums and Bitcoin businesses, but he ended up just like Atlas, a forum addict and while he now says he's "an entertainer" I think that rationally he felt pirate was going to pay. We have to have some sort of system in place or else legitimate businesses won't touch Bitcoin with a 10 foot pole. Scammer tags have at least helped point out those who shame Bitcoin.
I've come to the conclusion that scammer tags are a huge waste of everyone's time. We should do away with them on this forum. The original intent of the tagswas to warn newcomers to be careful in general. Right? To inform everyone that scammers exist and are on the prowl. Scammer tags are never useful for actually avoiding scams, as we all know.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
Somehow, I tend to agree.
Sometimes I think that people who are cheated deserve to lose their money, often it's down to just outright stupidity and lack of due dilligence.
Sometimes I think that for the bitcoin project to grow, there should be some individuals that issue guidelines and warnings, to make for an overall safer environment because if people see bitcoin as nothing else but a mad house of lunatics, how should they want to stay involved?
I've come to the conclusion that scammer tags are a huge waste of everyone's time. We should do away with them on this forum. The original intent of the tagswas to warn newcomers to be careful in general. Right? To inform everyone that scammers exist and are on the prowl. Scammer tags are never useful for actually avoiding scams, as we all know.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
I think doing away with the tags, and just posting a blanket warning that scams abound, would be a better move. We are all free to start polls on whether something is a scam, and that should be enough. It may be easy for a less vigilant newcomer to see a 500 post count user with gold coins instead of Xs and be reassured. Without that false safety net, there is more room to promote the ideal of due diligence.
Idk, just a rant. Carry on.
A scammer tag is randomly applied to someone on the forum that may or may not be a criminal.
"may or may not..." definitions for crime vary by jurisdiction / country. Figuring out how the politics of bitcoin work is all so bothersome. International consensus and whatnot. I feel almost worried that someone will brand me a troll for being among those asking serious questions about this policy / community politics stuff.
Scenario 2 is not a scam. Someone said he would double the money you send him and instead he just send back your money. How the hell is this a scam?
What if someone asked you for a loan, promised to pay interest, then once they repay the loan they only repay the principal and say "Sorry I don't have the interest"?
You seem to be stuck in a thought loop of promised returns=greed.
Scenario 2 is not a scam. Someone said he would double the money you send him and instead he just send back your money. How the hell is this a scam?
It's a scam because the scammer got use of someone else's money without paying the fee he agreed to pay for that use.Scenario 6
Account A is owned jointly by a husband/wife team that promises to deliver 100 Bitcoin over time, 5 Bitcoin per year to Account B. The husband and wife separate, and the husband decides he's not going to honor the deal, but he'll let the wife own the account. He takes his 50 Bitcoin and walks. Does Account A deserve a scammer tag now that it is owned by the wife? (What if it is revealed the husband/wife was actually made up and it was run by one account?)
You can't sell an obligation. If you could, I'd sell my $20,000 of credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer. The details might depend on whether the husband wife team has some kind of independent existence that can own the obligation and can become the sole property of the wife. But otherwise, they remain jointly responsible. Account A is owned jointly by a husband/wife team that promises to deliver 100 Bitcoin over time, 5 Bitcoin per year to Account B. The husband and wife separate, and the husband decides he's not going to honor the deal, but he'll let the wife own the account. He takes his 50 Bitcoin and walks. Does Account A deserve a scammer tag now that it is owned by the wife? (What if it is revealed the husband/wife was actually made up and it was run by one account?)
Jump to: