I am pretty sure bpb had a rule of one per person. I agree though it is questionable but not quite a scam. I think the OP is accusing him of scamming though.
But rules a user makes are not forum rules. People can make up whatever rules they wish for giveaways or signature campaigns but they're not enforceable by anyone other than themselves. I'm not sure what the op is accusing him of apart from behaviour he finds questionable. That is my arguement. He is not being accused of breaking any forum rules. I think the "scam" he is being accused of is account farming/selling, which is not seen as bad in many people's eyes as it once was. Although some of the accounts do have somewhat poor quality posts so that may be a concern (I remember the last time the op made a thread about him, very noob level questions were being asked |
|
|
|
This should probably be in scam accusacations
Whatever he has done is according to the rules as far as I can tell. The only slip was caught by Shorena and Marco is negged for that. I doubt he is planning a scam. He probably has more to gain by staying here. The giveaway might be considered to be a scam. Hard to say though Nah. Some may find such behaviour questionable but it's not a scam nor is it against any forum rules. I am pretty sure bpb had a rule of one per person. I agree though it is questionable but not quite a scam. I think the OP is accusing him of scamming though. |
|
|
|
This should probably be in scam accusacations
Whatever he has done is according to the rules as far as I can tell. The only slip was caught by Shorena and Marco is negged for that. I doubt he is planning a scam. He probably has more to gain by staying here. The giveaway might be considered to be a scam. Hard to say though |
|
|
|
Seems that most people who feel Vod needs to be removed
are people that have received negative trust from Vod.
Just sayin.
I am fairly certain that if vod is removed then someone will step in and negative trust everyone that he gave negative trust to |
|
|
|
|
This should probably be in scam accusacations
|
|
|
|
hey guys I am on the site constantly for more then two years. How about a pm or two for a heads up. Rather then starting a thread that attacks me Frankly I did not ask for the promotion to the default list. And I don't want to defend myself here. As for positive and amount risked. If you send me 1 btc for a miner you may never get the miner so you risked 1 btc. If I mail you a good miner and you say it is dead I am risking the same 1btc Since I always send a replacement . I will look into the list as it is long and covers many people I have removed a few names upon request and I am certainly willing to check it over more closely. As to putting coins risked if the deal worked both ways I am leaving the trust in since I fully back my gear up when I sell it . As I am at risk to someone lying about the gear that I sold to them. It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this. I don't think this is so much an attack thread, but more of a concern about the intregitory of the trust system. I think what the OP's primary concern is that by adding anyone to your trust list that you have ever done business with, you are making your trust score higher then it really should be and are giving people the "power" of default trust that really do not deserve such power. I think it is fair to say that it is generally safe to do business with you so making your trust score as high as possible is not going to give you any real advantage. |
|
|
|
|
Gotcha. Unusually when you use the lending section to document a loan like this it is stated that the terms were preneogeoiated and a thread is being made for transparency sake. (And to avoid this kind of confusion)
Good luck with your loan.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you produce a signed message from an address they have posted?
|
|
|
|
|
These are pretty specific terms to be lending someone else. Are you sure you aren't lending to yourself
|
|
|
|
It is a free market isn't it?
What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" . You are saying on staff+ can get vouches, it is up to individual members to believe a vouch. Mods have scammed before. Some people may not want to make their trade public for a number of reasons. Not being able to rate others unless you trade with them is a horrible idea. If someone whose opinion is not valued by the community is scammed then a scammer will be able to continue to scam and could simply trade with people without reputation. |
|
|
|
It's only shown in certain sections, not based on time. I forget which sections offhand, easy to check though.
I believe it is in the securities and long term offers subsection under lending where the scams are most likely to be (or at least where the scams that can last the longest and take the most money are). It might be one of the mining sections too but I'm not 100% on this. I agree there should be some kind of warning about the scam moderation policy in the other marketplace (and beginners section). (We don't have newbie jail but if newbies are following the rules they should be asking newbie like questions (including trade related questions) in the newbie section and business could transact there) |
|
|
|
|
It is a free market isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Your account is not worth that much
|
|
|
|
Regardless of which change, I'd like to see rules in place.
it should be used for scamming and deals. Scam attempts etc.
Not used for hurt feeling reports. Or as a means of payback. And a way to report abuse of the system.
In order for rules to be enforced then the trust system would need to be moderated. Once the trust system becomes moderated then it is subject to moderation abuse |
|
|
|
That isn't what happens when your account gets hacked. Your account is beyond worthless - even a liability so no one in their right mind would ever "hack" it |
|
|
|
I think your price expectations might be a little high |
|
|
|
Hi,
Happy new year!!!
My account is banned for more than 2 month, If the admins agree, I ask you please unbanned my account.
Thank you
What is your username? What were you banned for initially? How many times were you previously banned? My account is CoinGamez. And I was banned for one time for 1) Using ads and banners out of signature part. 2) Impatient to wait 7 days. I accept that some of I done was wrong. I do apologize again for that. So if I am understanding you correctly you were banned for having spammy advertisements in your service announcement posts (or other posts), the ban was for 7 days. You got "impatient" and created a new account that you used to evade your ban. Then when you were caught ban evading you were permanently banned. IIRC your posts contained a lot of spammy pictures/ads. I think this was to the point that a mod needed to edit posts on your behalf. You seem sincere but ban evading is breaking a very serious rule. Idk if they will lift it or not. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Happy new year!!!
My account is banned for more than 2 month, If the admins agree, I ask you please unbanned my account.
Thank you
What is your username? What were you banned for initially? How many times were you previously banned? |
|
|
|
I hope the hacker didn't do too much damage.
No, it seems he hasn't done much other than to some people, trying to to sell them their own Mail addresses  I hope they were not successful.... were they? No, I think not. The inbox was deleted, though, but I still have some outgoing PM's. He was selling his "exploit" for 1.7 BTC and after I created this thread he gave me negative trust that said I scammed him 2 BTC, so hopefully I stopped someone from buying from him by creating this thread and tagging him |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
