Bitcoin Forum

I propose that the ability to lock Scam Accusations threads be restricted to only Administrators (and maybe Global Moderators) and to have a policy to only lock a thread when all parties agree the dispute has been resolved.

This will prevent accusers from being able to essentially self moderate their own Scam Accusation threads (and prevent evidence from being presented against their claim). When accusations are not resolved but threads are locked the result will be someone else opening a "continuance" thread that only adds to confusion (which opens up the probability of multiple threads).

Case in point this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0;all) has been locked (and unlocked) multiple times, preventing others from being able to provide additional evidence and additional commentary. According to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.msg10235549#msg10235549) the thread was locked because "socks" were posting in the thread, and the thread would remain locked until they get banned (it is not against forum rules to have alt accounts, although it is scammy behavior to have your own alts vouch for yourself - however the forum does not moderate scams). The above thread getting locked resulted in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=933888.0;all) being opened that has remained open the entire time. I think it is fair to say everyone is aware of the negatives associated with having duplicate threads so I will not get into that (however I can if necessary).

Not only that but this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=933887.0) was opened in service discussion because other threads were locked (I assume he is referencing the original scam accusation as that his the thread he linked to). Additionally this(1) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=932131.0;all), this(2) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931109.0;all), and this(3) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.0;all) were all opened in reputation with very similar topics of discussion. I can only speculate as to why so many threads were opened.

In total there were 6 topics posted about essentially the same scam accusation.

The only people that should be concerned with Scam Accusations are scammers themselves.



~BCX~

This is not true. It is not unusual for someone to post a dubious scam accusation against someone. If there is evidence the disproves such accusations the person post such accusation could lock their thread making their accuser look like they really scammed when they did not.

You don't think a locked thread tells the story?


~BCX~

information could easily be left off or additional information could be presented to disprove a scan accusacation. Locking a thread before it is resolved would prevent such information from being presented.

As with self-moderated threads if people are claiming they want a discussion and keep messing with things just create your own thread and talk about them there, nothing stopping you, I remember awhile back there were certain users that were spamming self-moderated threads all over the board so people just started making unmoderated duplicates, eventually the users involved learned their lesson.

Lethn is right. Whilst it is annoying to have several threads on the same subject if people lock theirs and the situation hasn't been resolved people are free to create their own. Locking threads in Scam Accusations is actually good for when a dispute has actually been settled, though of course this can be abused by locking the thread prematurely but that's when you open up your own to continue discussion.

The point is that when you start to lock and then unlock threads then you start to have multiple conversations going and it is difficult to find information especially when the thread that gets locked has substantially more information (when it gets unlocked the conversation will migrate back there and the 2nd thread will get more or less ignored - along with most information in it).
my proposal is to only allow scam accusacations threads to get locked when a dispute has been settled. My concern is not just locking them but also the updating a locked thread and unlocking a thread after a 2nd thread was started.

In the example I gave, there are not 2 threads discussing a dispute, there are 6 and in three different boards.

Who determines if the dispute is settled? The WoodCollector dispute is *not* settled if you ask WC or TECSHARE.

What if everyone agrees it's settled except for the accused? Still lock it?

FWIW, at least three of the threads you linked were created by the scammer trying to avoid the main thread lock. Nothing can be done to prevent this, least of all leaving the main thread unlocked.

it would be up to the moderator/admin if it has been settled (and would do so by getting agreement of all parties involved).

I would say that until the person who got scammed is repaid then a scam accusacation thread should not be considered resolved. It may be proven that someone has actually scammed (this fact is open to debate in your specific case) however additional information may come to light or the person scamming may try to scam again.

Even if you ignore all of the threads by WC there are still three threads about the same topic. I am not sure on this however it is possible that WC opened and/or posted in his threads when your thread was locked (so that would bring the thread count up to 4).

What if all parties involved are unable to come to an agreement?

I locked that thread because it turned to diarrhea. Sock fight. Would not consider unlocking for any reason at this point.

if the scammer does not repay the victim then the thread should remain unlocked. If the scammer ever wants to repair his reputation then he could later repay his victims and post there of this.

If the level of socks get to a spam level you can report the posts in question and if they are against the rules they will be deleted. Having your own sock accounts post in a scam accusacation thread will generally only make you look worse which is what happened to WC (it is actually one reason why I am leaning more towards thinking he is a fraud)

 :o

Wholeheartedly disagree. "Repairing a reputation" online is foolish to the point of absurdity. The sensible thing for WC to do would be to just create a new account -- his current one is irreparably damaged.

If his victims get repaid (they won't), he's still a scammer, just a scammer with a conscience after the fact. I personally do not care if his customers ever get a dime back; he has a big "S" branded on his forehead, and that's that.

EDIT: Out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to see if you had in mind any examples of reputations that have been repaired.

But that would contradict mods not getting involved in scams. I don't think it's that big of a deal personally. Most threads are only locked when the situation has been resolved anyway and situations like the one you mentioned are rare (and still not that big a deal).

If you don't think he will ever repay his customers then the thread should remain unlocked. Sometimes people will scam much smaller amounts and will repay.

Even if you think it has been proven that he is a scammer, he still has the right to defend himself. I don't think you would like it if someone presented some evidence that you were scamming and then locked the thread making it difficult for you to defend yourself.

I don't think this would really be them getting involved but more only accepting the fact that all parties agree the issue is resolved as "proof" that it is resolved

They can defend themselves by opening another thread, if anything if someone makes a claim that you scammed and then they lock the thread it just looks like they are craving attention.

If someone is searching scam accusacations threads prior to doing business with you they may find a locked thread that does not include any kind of rebuttle they may decide not to do business with you before even looking at your rebuttle thread. They may decide to never even contact you in the first place.

If someone is searching scam accusation threads, they know how to forum better than most people here, and can probably distinguish shit from shinola on their own.

the claim may not be 100% BS but in reality they were not scamming.

One example would be when someone provides proof they sent something to someone gave them a payment address and then changed the payment address at a later date. (Although this would be BS). Someone could provide proof they sent goods, a screenshot of logs giving the payment address and a link to a block explorer showing no tx to that address.

Another example would be someone being late on a loan or goods getting lost in the mail

FWIW, your first example would be rendered moot if people used PGP.

it would not resolve the issue. Someone could provide the PGP signed message in lieu of chat log screenshots. When someone gives a PGP signed message asking to change the payment address the first one would still not have a tx showing payment.

You would have the same issue of having a locked thread without the ability to give a rebuttal.

Maybe you should write out your example in full, because you just lost me. If I have two pgp-signed messages from a seller saying "send money here" and "send money there", what's the problem? Send the money to the newest address they gave you. Create a scam thread with the PGP messages if they scam you.

1- buyer and seller agree to a trade
2- sends a widget to the seller
3- seller gives PGP signed message saying to send funds to address (a)
4- buyer receives widget
5- seller gives a 2nd PGP signed message saying to send funds to address (b)
6- buyer sends funds to address (b)
7- seller opens scam accusacation saying they were never paid
8- seller provides the PGP message for address (a) as well as screen shots showing he gave that address to buyer
9- seller locks thread before buyer can respond

10- Buyer creates a scam thread, and provides second PGP signed address from seller, indicating address b.
11- Seller is labelled scammer due to conclusive evidence, negative trust is left.

true however just because someone is a scammer does not make their word useless. If later a potential trading partner searches for the buyers username in scam accusacations there will be a thread without a rebuttal

I disagree, without offering proof to the contrary.


A locked scam accusation thread with no replies is not really anything we should be changing site policy over.

most scam accusation threads with some level of proof get replies fairly quickly. If the person getting accused doesn't have access to evidence to backup their case right away they may not be able to prove their side immidiatly. He may not be on the forum for a day or two so he wouldn't even know about it until it would get locked.