Topic: Why aren't obvious scammers banned? (Read 525 times)

I don't think self moderated threads should be allowed.  It encourages censorship and strong bias by the thread created.  I've seen this suggested a lot recently and hopefully Theymos can take a look at it.

Some years ago i do the same question to theymos, and he told me they never delete the frauds to save the evidence, other way of a person proceed with the legal way they will not have the right evidence. People in the forum is really smart and the scammers who have success are a real small amount. So is up to each one to avoid those traps. 

If you think they dont really care then why the hell they are always active in this forum, If you are in their position do you think their only job is just to check the scammer and ban them?

They have a lot of thing's to prioritize in this forum to make this forum better and clean again.

The user already has a red trust, I think that enough.

You have a very valid point about it being a good teaching source. Also I love history - censorship can kill some history.

Also google indexes bitcointalk.org quite well. So if you make a scam accusation or post in a thread that is not self moderated then it will get indexed on google. "XYZ ICO is a scam" indexes quite well on google and may warn people about it.

I sometimes warn on a self moderated thread that if they delete my genuine question I will open a specific thread about it and they won't be able to moderate it. Often that leads to either good dialogue or a scam accusation thread.

I've been here since 2014, and whenever there's a scam I'm always glad that the ANN threads are not deleted. They serve as a good teaching source. Sometimes I go back and go through the "Real Stack Coin," scam and read on how excited the people were until the dev announced that it was scam, rubbing it in with a party gif.

I don't see any need to ban a scammer, because then they'll create another account anyway. And I doubt anyone will trust them again. The guy that you talked about has a -241 rating.

I think they do care that is why we have trust system that is visible for everyone who are using this forum to check before doing a trade with other person. Upon checking that user trust system it is full of negative trust comments especially from well known users here in Bitcointalk regarding that 20 BTC that he stole, no company or individual will ever trust him again. Also i am betting that right now this person have an alternate account here so even if admin ban that account it is useless.

 I probably should open a scam accusation thread.  I guess I'm being a little bit lazy

 

the short and simple answer:  theymos and cyrus simply don't care.

Just open a scam accusation if there isn't one yet. Then post the link of the scam accusation as negative feedback on their profile and that of any of their sockpuppets.

A DT or several DTs will see it and tag them. That is how the system works with scammers.

You can either use the system how it currently works to your best ability or try to change it in a way that many others before you have suggested but is unlikely to get changed due to the reasons I outlined in the post above.

While it may be annoying when a scammer locks a thread on you - especially when they bait you like here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.39850569
Then locked the thread and then got perma banned for other reasons.

Al Capone got jailed for tax evasion. If you see a scammer. Study the forum rules. If they break them - BAM! Get your fly swatter out.



Crypto is largely unregulated and web scam activity hard to enforce by law enforcement. (Who has jurisdiction over a scammer running a scam in a country where the law is not enforced on what happens on the internet, on a website of a service supplier that is decentralized - scamming a user that lives in a country where crypto may be illega ?l)  In the crypto world there is an endless supply of scammers. The state of anarchy appears to bring out the best and the worst in people.

Those are all good points but I would like to rebut:

 The censorship "can of worms" has already been opened by allowing locked/self-moderated sales threads to proliferate.

 If mods cannot remove scammers' threads because it would appear as censorship, why is it that scammers can create locked/self-moderated threads to sell their scams?  That is censorship since in this case, the most direct feedback mechanism has been disabled for all other users.  Using this tactic, the OP is now able to utilize sock puppets which can post direct feedback in this otherwise locked thread in order to make himself appear legitimate.  Other members are left with secondary avenues to sound an alarm such as the trust system (which is also unmoderated and rather unreliable) or perhaps the scam accusations thread.  These methods are not nearly as effective as the direct method of posting within the alleged scammer's thread.  You've in effect allowed the OP to create a barrier around the offending activity while having free speech zones miles away_{metaphorically speaking} from the potential scam activity.

 Case in point -

Skeptical One has this locked thread in which they sell gift cards which may or may not be legitimate.  Within this locked thread, a couple of newbie members, using names to make them appear as forum moderators even, have somehow posted direct feedback vouching for Skeptical One's wares.  I use the secondary methods available to me to alert potential victims by tagging the OP and their sock puppets but it's clearly not effective as evidenced by the positive feedback I am given by Skeptical One who is obviously emboldened by the lack of moderation as well as his ability to easily censor naysayers as witnessed in the PM he also sent to me:

 

 I'm not asking to ban anyone, I'm simply saying that the playing field needs to be leveled to allow for direct and open discussion.  Censorship is a reality on this forum but it is skewed in favour of the scammers.

edit: BBcode repair

Once you start censorship it opens up a whole new can of worms.

If you censor some scams but not others it can provide a false sense of security.

Banning copy-pasting is not censoring because they have nothing unique to say.

It is also a matter of "proof" and "liability". Copy-pasting when caught is fairly clear cut.

Once you start censoring scams you are accepting some sort of responsibility for the safety of the users.

The whole bitcoin thing came from the Cypherpunk movement - which tends to have a free speech and libertarian viewpoint on life.

Once you start censoring it very quickly turns into over-reach.

The reality is that most users that get banned probably re-incarnate as another account anyway.

A known & tagged scammer is better than an unknown & untagged scammer.

Lawmakers often over-reach. The powers they give their "henchmen" often affect ordinary citizens. (I'm not only talking of developed democratic countries)

To make something illegal - lawmakers only have to declare it to be illegal. Lawmakers only pursue "crime" if it is in their self interest.


The average CEO salary is more than 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
Politicians get a regular pay rise  -but for other Government workers it is "not affordable".
Some wealthy executives pay less tax than a laborer.
Some drugs with minimal risk are illegal - while other drugs with high risks can be prescribed by your doctor.
Euthanasia, and suicide are illegal in most countries - but the death penalty or "shooting by police" is not illegal in some of those countries.
Some large corporations pay no taxes without breaking the law.
Some legal action can leave an innocent person broke.

That's always been my question, though I've heard many answers I don't totally agree with.  But ultimately it doesn't matter if I agree or not--it is what it is, and you really have to be skeptical of things that seem too good to be true and to do deals cautiously.  A lot of the folks I see getting scammed haven't even looked at people's feedback or ignored warning signs if they were visible, or they didn't use escrow.

Now, QS didn't steal that 20BTC, but he was involved in a pretty big scam accusation.  The bottom line is that there aren't going to be any consequences from the forum if people scam.  On the other hand, I do miss the old scammer tag.  That was before I registered here, and I don't even know how one went about earning it, but I think it sent a stronger message than the current under-the-avatar trust score.

If Theymos wanted to, he could come up with a list of things that are and aren't acceptable.  It might not be easy, and it might not please everyone, but he could do it instead of doing nothing.  I mean, that's what laws are--they're written rules describing behavior that isn't acceptable.  Lawmakers don't throw up their hands at the complexity of the legal system and decide to not prohibit certain things as a result.

Op is almost certainly just a throwaway alt account.


It still takes time to investigate and verify and would just be too much work. If someone gets scammed by someone who has negative feedback then that's probably their own fault. We really can't be expected to babysit every user here and each individual is responsible for their own money and what they do with it.

What is a scam and who decides it is a scam ?

Some scams are obvious but others are not. Once you start moderating scams it can quickly become extremely complex.

Some people call bitcoin a scam. Some people call bcash a scam - some people call it bitcoin cash.

Some people call Ripple a scam. Where do you draw the line ?

Cloud-mining contracts ? Short term mining contracts ? HYIP ? Pump and dump groups ? Crypto exchanges ? Tax collectors ?

The trust system - while not perfect - works fine in identifying and warning people of potential issues and scams.

The reality is that people need to educate themselves on how to spot scams, keep their crypto safe, use escrow and do their own research.

On the surface it seems easy enough; but after being here a while and seeing the elaborate lengths people will go to I can see why the forum would wash it's hands of it.

On the flip side of that they do not moderate anyone calling out scams. Everyone and anyone has the ability to shed light on anything that doesn't seem above board and a discussion can ensue.


It should. This is a bright red mark saying "look at me". The feedback should have a reference. If this isn't enough to make you want to deal elsewhere then I don't know what to say. Note there are usually many other options available...some of them even legit.

OP looks like trying to justify being a shit copy poster than an alleged scammer.

There had been tons of scam here in the forum but we can not say for sure whether its true. The only that can be proved is the connection between wallets as proof coins are being sent and received but the details between can be something to analyzed because it could only be a clown show.

Scam are not moderated by forum. But I don't know exactly why. There are many case that well proven scammer with solid evidence. Why they should not be ban from forum ? Is red tag from DT enough ? Scammer will take chance to scam other. Although it's very hard to prove scammer. But those case are clear & there is good evidence, I think they should be ban. So that he can't scam again by same account. I know scammer might be create an new account but it will not trustworthy.

People have to do their own research and not rely on moderators to do the job for them. Luckily we have DT to tag scammers but I wouldn't trust them either blindly. ICOs are 90% scam so following this logic all people promoting scammy ICOs in their signatures should be banned as well.

Well it's partly because scammers aren't entirely obvious. Though most have similar shit posts a large majority have taken the time to make the project as convincing as it possibly can be. I remember just last week a coin called EAZY coin had been reported a scam because the developer deleted the discord channel. A month or two before that another coin called ALMEX had it's developer leave for some odd reason even though the project was thriving in terms of trade volume and coin price. Then there was SPARKS coin. The developer also left most likely because of the price drop but a scam is a scam non the less. There is a new community taking that over though, which by the way, are doing a wonderful job of taking it to the next level.

Everything has its nuances and we are not legal experts or advisors in here. I think that no-one in the forum should be able of acting like one. Now, Scam accusations are useful to see what`s going on with a user before making any agreement, as well as the trust system. But, we are not lawyers, so, how can you determine if there is enough proof and maybe vanish an innocent guy? Who will throw the very first stone if we decide to stone someone?

This is not an Inquisitorial place, but a free one. I think the Trust system, as well as the Scam Accusation board, are fairly enough to help people to come to their very own conclusions. Now, it will be, no doubt, a personal interpretation.