Bitcoin Forum

I usually don't visit the Investor-Based-Games section at all but I was there today and I see something very interesting that has pushed me into asking this question.

I think the section is made for Ponzis exclusively which is what I understand from the section's sub-heading.

https://i.imgur.com/2fDe8oI.png

So if the section is only made for the Ponzis then is the negative trust feedback left on every Ponzi warranted?

Let me make it very clear, I am strictly against these schemes but if the admin has decided that there is space for Ponzi schemes, do we as members leaving trust on them is valid? Maybe we can rather make a topic inside the section that clarifies there is a certain risk involved in these Ponzis.

NOTE: I don't want to create any kind of controversy and the sole intention is to understand the forum better. I have myself reported a Ponzi recently (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5338569.0) but that is where I somehow felt it's wrong.

I'll also start with: I'm 100% agains Ponzi schemes. This should also put my views in the correct light.
Imho posting there should not warrant negative feedback and I'll tell you why.

At some point the forum got filled (stifled) by Ponzi advertising. Since the forum is completely for allowing the freedom of speech, those cannot/should not get removed, with or without negative feedback (which usually doesn't matter for throwaway 1-post new accounts). So the solution was to make a containment area for them: Investor-based games, which, if the memory serves me well, is meant to be ignored by default, hence the users will get to go there only if they know what they're doing.

Strangely, I think that some do put money there willingly, probably in a hope that they will not be the last ones, the ones scammed, i.e. they'll receive others' money (which may become the ones scammed), in case it's a honest (LOL!) Ponzi. Well, not all human decisions make sense for me...

The thing is, people should be made aware that they are visiting a Ponzi section and if they still decide to throw money into that, I don't think we should stop them because it's very similar to how everyone loses in gambling but do we stop people from gambling? Hell, no! I think 50% of signatures are actually from gambling sites, which I have no problem with. But the same treatment should be given to Ponzis since they do have a separate space created by admins for them.

Tagging a Ponzi promoter who wears their signature is worth negative I agree but just creating a topic to make everyone aware of their existence should not be attacked.

Being caring is good but we should not act like we kids are playing in the forum. Everyone who has BTC probably has some brain and is above 15 at least and if gambling is accessible for them, so should be Ponzis and risks that come with it.

I asked myself the very same questions some time ago; from what's the purpose of having such board to why even bother to tag them in the first place since that board is made specifically for that reason.

Then again, the member who promotes  ponzi on Investor-based games child board might try to conduct the business in some other parts of the forum, so I think that other forum members should be aware of that, therefore tag & flag is warranted.


I do not trust anyone who promotes ponzi scheme, as simple as that. And how else to express untrustworthiness other than leaving feedback? After all, that's what trust system is for.

I guess that you're right and it should be explained better there. I have it on ignore and I don't know why would somebody unignore it, but that's me.


This is a good logic. Still, you would have to unignore that area and actively watch it. It would make sense a DT user do that if he wants to invest time in such a task.

Hah yeah, quite often even tag and flag is not enough to save someone, let alone that little disclaimer.


I think that there are at least few DT members who are actively watching that part of the forum (I was too, but not so much anymore) and regularly reporting findings in Scam Accustain board, so chances of some ponzi going unnoticed for more than a day are very slim.

Hats off for those. It's a work not really known, only the results may be seen by some now and then.

There can be a rule specifically added for such instances, something like.

- Anyone promoting their Ponzi sites outside this section will risk being tagged because the forum members don't approve of promoting a Ponzi by means of signature campaigns, bounties etc.


I agree with that perception but it's like you build a pond for frogs then target and kill them, to me it doesn't make sense to build a section for a particular thing if you are not even going to let them announce themselves.

---

The same happens when one joins a gambling site or even an exchange for that regard, no one bothers reading their TOS but that doesn't mean the website or the business should be nuked for that, just because the users are ignorant.

---

They are doing a thankless job and credit to them but I wonder if they even need to work so hard when we already have a separate section for them. You don't have to tag oranges when they are put into a separate basket and apples are put into a different one.

This is a bad analogy, as forum users that are promoting scam are not banned (killed in your analogy) and their threads are not deleted. If that was the case, then I would agree with you. But currently, when after promoting ponzi you can freely go to some other part of the forum and conduct the business, I don't think that is wrong to tag that user.

Tagging is about the trust, and I don't trust anyone who is willing to promote ponzi scheme, no matter at what part of the forum they are doing that.

I didn't mean that in tagging members but overall the situation is like that.

You made a section for Ponzis - Building a pond

You tag everyone who posts what in the section for what the section is technically made for - Killing a frog (killing doesn't denote literal killing but killing the business, that sense)

I see this situation like this, what is that section made for? To announce Ponzi

What is red trust meant for? Something wrong, but if posting in that section is wrong, why even created it. If people don't post in that section which is the basic aim of red trust I think, wouldn't the section become blank.

NOTE: I repeat, I am not supporting Ponzis but rather in the favor of either removing the section or just don't tag them.

And what's wrong with the fact that we tagged such a participant? If he is capable of cheating in the Investor-Based-Games section, do you think he will stop and only be there? The one who cheated once will cheat twice. Fraudsters need to be flagged, no matter where they write. It doesn't matter how ordinary users feel about it. The forum takes the main step, it warns, and to believe or not to believe the swindlers, this is where the freedom of choice comes in.
With the same analogy, we can say why there is a bounty program section? After all, there, bounty hunters also need to understand all the risks to participate in such programs.

There is nothing wrong in tagging them and hopefully one day they will start getting banned as well. But OP is questioning why have a section where such kind of crap can be posted only to have those who post there tagged?

I guess it's better to keep it the way it is than to have that sewer spill over to the normal parts of the forum. I look at the off-topic board the same way. I'd rather have users talk about what kind of jam is the best in off-topic than seeing that in Beginners & Help or Bitcoin Discussion.   

Exactly my point.

Imho, removing that section would be the best. Some would say "but it's better to have specific section just for those ponzies so they don't spread around" but why even encourage them when absolutely nothing good can come out of having that here. Its not like that board is busy anyway, there is no more than couple of threads each month.



That part has been explained to him, which he chooses to ignore. We tag users that are promoting those scams, and those that are ready to promote something like that can't be trusted. It's somewhat similar to account sale; it is allowed but trying to do that will get you tagged.

We would then be going back to the 'scams are not moderated on Bitcointalk' problem. If they are not moderated, such topics and their child board (created for whatever reason) can't be touched unless they are breaking any of the unofficial forum rules. Tagging and warning others is the only thing that can be done in that case.   

The reason Investor Based Games board was created was that most of the Ponzi related things were posted in gambling section which was irritating and most of the reputed members during that period were running these shady scams especially forum donators and many reputed members during that period used to vouch for these scams claiming that they are getting money even though those were shitty scams.

Many things that were normal during those time period are frowned upon now and many users changed their opinions and views in multiple things and some were even involved in those practices are now advocating against those shady things which is good.

We should not allow Ponzi and anyone promoting those should be warned and tagged.
 

You're looking at this in the wrong way: feedback is meant for things that are not dealt with by Mods. Ponzis (and scams in general) are allowed, but "punished" by the community.

I kinda like how this forum stands for it's mission "to be as free as possible". There are more than enough forums on the planet that ban all kinds of things already. That doesn't mean I like it, but I love the freedoms this forum gives. It's quite unique.

I'm sorry I never disagree or make opinions about anyone. I just felt that if a particular section is made for a particular thing, let them either post there or just delete the section. I'm flexible with my own opinion as you can see I reported a Ponzi and here I am sort of fighting arguing for their rights:)

I will try and explain you from a different angle.

According to me anyone who promotes gambling should be tagged, it's my personal opinion like you have yours about Ponzi. Does that mean I should leave negative feedback to all the gambling sites? Of course not. What I think doesn't matter, I believe, as long as the admin has created a space for something.



Agreed. But i remember a good quote from you or someone I remember "with great power comes great responsibility :)" and tagging people to post Ponzis in a section created just for the same purpose is not right.



I repeat, I don't want Ponzis to get promoted instead just want that section to be removed.

I like it too, it's one of the best things about this forum. I am very active on several other forums for about 20 years now, and they are very restricting and very trigger happy when it comes to banning people, sometimes over insignificant stuff so this approach is quite refreshing.

I say let them post anywhere, and forum members will handle that, as they do with any other scam found on any other board.



Thanks for shining some light on why that board was made. That makes sense, if Gambling Board was  overrun by them, but still kinda sucks to have specific board just for them.


If you think that anyone who promotes gambling can't be trusted, leave negative feedback. Investor Based games board is not meant to be a safe space for anything, it's just the place where those types of scams are posted and then its up to forum members to decide whether account posting that can/cannot be trusted.

You're wrong here: every tag matters: the Trust-system is decentralized, and if you believe someone deserves a tag, you should tag them:
If that means you tag users because they promote a casino, you'll probably get excluded by other users and your feedback won't ever reach DefaultTrust, but that's all part of the way the Trust system works.

It's from Spiderman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility) ;)
If you disagree with (most of) the feedback someone left: exclude them from your own Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust).

That won't work, not all boards show Trust-scores.

There has always been a big gap between what's allowed by the rules of the forum and what's acceptable by the community.  Consider that scams aren't moderated, i.e., even proven scammers won't be banned from bitcointalk.  Does that mean we shouldn't tag those idiots?  Nope. 

Same thing for account sellers and Ponzi promoters, although I have stronger feelings against the former category than I do against the latter.  Not that I support Ponzis, but since there's an entire section devoted to them and they're basically considered a form of gambling here, I suspect most members know what they're getting into.  In real life, that isn't true, but on this forum I think it's pretty much the case.

But if you're completely anti-Ponzi, there's nothing wrong with leaving members who promote them a negative trust.  In fact, I think it's a good thing to do, since it might be the only warning a naive member might see before participating in one. 

Don't mix gambling with Ponzi. Gambling doesn't guarantee any ROI and no one scamming you (scam gambling means scam) there. You are losing funds literally there. Losing funds and scams by fraud shouldn't consider the same way. In Ponzi scammer are promising you xx% in your investment, but during gambling, you are fully aware you would lose or win. If you think Ponzi also one kind of gambling, then it's just for you, not for all.

Why admin created this board? I don't know the exact reason, but Ponzi Scheme was most popular once a time and many users were involved with it. So most probably that's why admin creates an opportunity to take the risk and earn. Although I wasn't born in the forum during that time, but I was familiar with Ponzi. But believe me, I learned Ponzi word after joining this forum. Before that, I thought they are all legit and dishonest owners skip with funds (Lol).

Why tagging Ponzi promoter? I or a few DT members think Ponzi a kind of cheating. So who promoting Ponzi he could cheat any other way as well. So it's risky for forum users hence we are tagging. Before believing this user everyone would notice the red tag.

I get that, you are right. The problem is that we follow some rules of the forum while sometimes we would give the excuse that everyone have their own opinion and are free to tag other members based on their own judgement.

I have seen people being tagged as a troll and those who tagged them, they are part of DT, while Theymos clearly mentioned one should not use negative trust for trolls.

Note: The example I gave to tag gambling promoters doesn't mean I feel gambling is wrong, I myself gamble, it was just an example to show judgement one has can be different from others which implies that you may believe Ponzi are scam or you may not because they are being posted in the section which warns users about the potential risks.

---

I think that is the real problem, what the community believes should be the rules, methinks.



For reference, I am against account sales as well. But consider an example.

Imagine a new crypto enthusiast joins the forum and reads the rules, understands that account selling in allowed. He then buys an account and later gets tagged. Did the user made any mistake? I don't think so.

If the community believes something is wrong, Theymos/moderators should make a topic to at least aware others about it.


Anyone who promotes any scam should be tagged, agreed. But posting in the section made for them is't exactly promoting but rather announcing it.

---

Similarly a warning against Ponzi means people are aware that if they invest in a Ponzi they will lose money too.

Note: I never compared gambling with Ponzi, I just gave an example to express how opinions can differ.



You see how with time opinions can change :)


I am not against tagging Ponzi promoters. Announcing your website to a section meant for it, isn't exactly promoting rather announcing. Anyone who takes money/shares to promote them is wrong and should be tagged.

The DT system is not the most efficient and if you do come across such users who use the system wrongly, you should add then to your distrust list ~xxxuser. More members should get involved in the trust system to better understand how it works.

There is sometimes no general consensus on 'what the community believes. Also, what is believed is not always practically enforceable by the mods or admins

In the same line which the user understands that account selling is allowed they would also see that it is discouraged, this should prompt them to look around as to why and find out that it is frowned upon, then make their decision. Most users involved in this do not bother to check the rules about their actions.

It is true that occasionally DT members leave negative feedback to trolls which is definitely wrong ( while neutral is appropriate one, if one feels so strongly about tagging) but that is more of an exception than the rule. If you as a DT member constantly keep doing that, chance are that sooner or later you will be out of DT system, which is not perfect of course, and there are manipulations there as well.


If that crypto enthusiast read the rules, he would see that account sale is "allowed but discouraged". Pretty enough for anyone with an honest intentions. After all, I see no reason why would someone buy the account, other than for financial benefit either through sig campaign, or promoting some business, so I don't really buy a story about "crypto enthusiast".


Tomato tomahto. What is the point of this so called "announcing" other than promotion? That's why they post it there, to promote the ponzi.

I've never seen any account get sold on any other forum I visit. The only reason I can think of, is to pretend to be an established member to scam someone. Bitcointalk is the only forum I know that allows to monetize your signature space, so that gives people a different incentive (although it has lead to a lot of spam). I've seen people get tagged years after they bought their account, and I've seen bought accounts that only got a neutral tag and are still good community members. Not all account buyers are bad, and not all people who created their own account have good intentions.

There is no community consensus on anything. That's probably why theymos doesn't want to decide on those things.

Where is the warning? On the website? Are they saying you might lose your funds as well? Rather they are promising a high return. Overall Ponzi Scheme is a liar, they telling revenue will be generated by investing your funds in various places. But aren't doing anything. A few Ponzi rotating money for a few days and a few Ponzi just skip with funds. Although gambling sites not showing warning we are familiar with gambling from childhood.

Not exactly. It wasn't opinion. It was a lack of knowledge.

Forum is free for everyone to post anything if it's not against forum rules. Actually announcing a service here means promoting. It's not just here, if you make an announcement in Cointelegraph simply means you are promoting that.

@savetheFORUM will correct me if I am wrong, but when he mentioned warning about the ponzi, he meant that short explanation of Investor-based games board, which says "Games where the main factor is whether or not new "investors" join the game. Also any Bitcoin-denominated investment product with an APY far above the reasonable market rate". And indeed, when you read that explanation, there is no doubt what it is about.

That doesn't mean that board is a safe place where you can freely advertise scam without fear of being tagged, but just the place that forum stuff decide to create in order to clear gambling board, which was swarmed by those scams some time ago. Whatever you do on this forum reflects on your reputation, so if you are willing to advertise scam, you will pay the consequences.

I don't think tagging people for wearing a gambling signature just because they are wearing it is the correct way to use the trust system. Luckily no one does that. In your own Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, you wrote that evidence should be provided. Where is the evidence that the member will scam or is likely to scam? The fact that he is wearing a signature, can't be considered as valid evidence if you ask me. 

If we look at things that way, where does it stop? If I have negative experience dealing with Germans and Italians (just an example), would it be a correct use of the trust system if I tag people for speaking German or Italian with a negative trust? It would be an unfounded and biased opinion. I am deliberately using an extreme case as an example.

I'm pretty sure we completely agree on this. I don't believe tagging people for promoting gambling is the correct use of the Trust system, and I'm pretty sure it will get the user excluded.
I responded (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5338989.msg57071969#msg57071969) to the (hypothetical) scenario in which savetheFORUM said his opinion doesn't matter.