Topic: Why I should get a scammer tag. - page 2. (Read 7283 times)

I think that first the whole scammer tag concept needs an overhaul.  It doesn't really act as much of a warning to avoid dealing with the large-scale scammers because they tend to leave this community when their scams collapse.  It's useless if people's real world identity isn't known because they can just resurface under a new user-name.  And it's currently applied on a very selective basis. You can owe people hundreds of thousands of dollars and make no effort to help users recover their funds and still not get the scammer tag. 

+1

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.797850

The scammer tag might be better applied by a tribunal or something resembling a "judicial court" of individuals who willingly disclose all their Bitcoin-related holdings on a monthly basis. The problem is, of course, the more people involved, the slower the results and an admin/mod is still involved. I like the idea that if I do research on someone and find overwhelming evidence of them beng a scammer I only have to send it to a handful of people.

I applaud you offering to turn in your VIP badge, that was the first ethical thing you have said so far this year. Well done.

As to ignoring me... your call Binky, but you will take a huge hit in post count if you ignore me, and you can't make my ignore button any more blood orange than it already is.

My standard of evidence is a little different that the going version, Goat. I don't "think" you are a scammer, I know you are a scammer. You operated a pirate pass-through operation. That was servicing the scam, ergo you are a scammer. You have not been honest about how you have offered assets for investment on the now-defunct GLBSE1.0 nd 2.0 and have taken the assets that your investors purchased for the operations and sold them off for your personal gain, that's a scammer. You constantly seek to deflect, dodge and dance around any subject to try and create a smokescreen and refuse to address issues at discussion (your responses here are a delightful example of this once again!) again, the actions of a scammer to keep the light off himself. You act stupid and beg for help, and then create mechanisms to have people send you investments into ventures which you consistently fail, losing that value- this is a scammer.

I don't need to create a separate thread for you, I'm not your personal integrity cop, I'm just yet another user that is sick of seeing lying, dishonest scammers permitted to continue to prey on this community. Our scammer tag is a joke, but a joke richly deserved by you and every other thieving clown in my list.

The partnership of GLBSE has the moral responsibility to stand behind and fix their mistakes. Clients of GLBSE do not even have to know who was responsible for what behind the scenes. The profits would have been shared between partners if things would have turned out okay. Logically the same goes for debt, unless this exception was clear to their clients.

I respect honest people who admit their mistakes. But I am appalled by people with double standards and lack of integrity.

Theymos, you must admit your responsibility and act according to it or resign from your position on this forum until this situation is solved. If you choose to further deny any responsibility or choose not to act in this matter I have misjudged your integrity and I openly ask you to remove my Donator tag, because in that case I do not want to be associated as a supporter of this board.

I think the scammer tag needs a remake, if you get the tag you should be restricted from posting in the Marketplace. It would be great if this community was not so childish you could post poles to see if they really deserve it, but we know most of these people on here have sockpuppets that have sockpuppets.

Nefario is the agent of glbse and needs to take responsibility for his actions that cause a loss to other partners.  Theymos rushed here to make a thread about things even before the shareholder meeting had ended, not realising that in asking for a tag for Nefario he was also liable for one because abusing your position as administrator to get a tag applied to someone else in an effort to avoid responsibility for the actions of a private business  partnership is not cool. Let alone making a statement on behalf of glbse you had no right to do during a fucking shareholder meeting.

Adults dont try to save their own asses they stand up and say "We fucked up now how can we deal with it?"

Because that's the primary purpose of the contract. The purpose of the contract is to create an entity owned and managed by the shareholders that other people will extend financial trust to. Nobody could have entered into that contract and not understood that they were taking partial ownership and control over an entity that would hold other people's money and be responsible for that money. Limited liability, where an artificial person is created that is itself responsible for its own liabilities, is a special legal exception, not the default rule -- the default rule is that a principal is fully liable for damages done by the actions of its agent when acting within the scope of its agency.

(I am not saying, by the way, that scammer tags should work this way. The forum is totally free to disregard general principles of law in favor of fairness. But the general principle of law is that if you empower someone to act on your behalf and for your benefit, you are fully liable for any harms they do within the scope of that empowerment -- just as if you performed those actions yourself. And, by the way, your liability is *not* limited by your share. A 1% stockholder can be held 100% liable because "the defendants are in the best position to apportion damages amongst themselves. Once liability has been established and damages awarded, the defendants are free to litigate amongst themselves to better divide liability. The plaintiff no longer needs to be involved in the litigation and can avoid the cost of continuing litigation." Those harmed don't care who pays them back and there's no reason they should have to litigate that issue.)

If these scams keeps up though, bitcoin will end up like All My Children.

I don't know what's worse - that I still remember some 40 year old storylines or that the show is still on air.  As in DOOL, I suspect we'll see lots of Bitcoin characters return from the dead.

As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".

I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.

Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.

Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.

Bitcoin drama goes a lot faster. It doesnt take 2 years to complete a storyline.

There's no drama like Bitcoin drama.  The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks.  It's like reality TV without the ads.  Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next?  Who should be voted off the libertarian island?

And by the logic expressed by theymos earlier, only Amir should be responsible for the actions of Intersango because he's a director and Donald and Patrick are "only" shareholders.

So you wont get a scammer tag if you use the government protection a corporation affords and it proceeds to lose everyones coins?

One wonders if bitcoinica would have the tag only if theymos was personally affected 

So it's OK not to make the community whole as long as you're "great people"?  It's just fine to walk away from your responsibility if you didn't lose people's funds on purpose, even if they got lost as a result of you failing to do something and you could actually do something to assist people to recover their funds but you refuse to do so because you're too busy covering your own ass to give a shit about the people who lost funds.

If that's the kind of "ethics" which are going to be applied to scammer tags around here, then they're absolutely meaningless because they're not going to be applied to people based on their actions but on the basis of shared ideologies and personal friendships.  Clearly, Nefario only got the tag because those who issued it feel personally betrayed and pissed off, not because of the impact its closure is having on users and asset issuers.