I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential; vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....
Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly... One option is in relation to reputation. I have no problem with this, at all. I think this is a good addition save for the fact that it has a lessened effect on all the previous genuine negative feedback. Flags are inherently flawed in the fact that the victim of a scam must flag the user. Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed. |
|
|
|
Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members. I have two problems with the reputation + flag system. One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer. Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted. |
|
|
|
Please detail how the post is a derailment from the intial post? we honestly do not at all get your meaning. Insults, ad-hominem attacks. Let's do away with that, first and foremost. You need to understand we believe that not all readers view all threads. A reader should be furnished with the full and optimal information in order to reach the optimal level of understanding and form the optimal opinion? True. But a reader doesn't need to see the same kind of reply four times. Each thread needs to stand on its own. And each thread is catered to a specific discussion, which does not need to be bloated with excess information. A simple link suffices, if you have to. To even suggest this is related to trolling seems very strange. I'm not saying you're trolling. I'm merely suggesting that your behavior is what causes others to dismiss you as a troll. |
|
|
|
Well go on now you miserable lonely prick!!!!
Back to where we began!! We have not exchanged greetings yet: let's not start with the banter yet! Hi, I'm actmyname. It's nice to meet you, Shawn Thaut. |
|
|
|
I'm just going to pay the last week and let people go on their way peacefully without spam disputes Alright. As long as you're making a conscious effort to mitigate the amount of spam that erupts as a result of the campaign (by deterring the act of spamming), that's fine by me. The issue at-hand is that the voluminous verbosity that is derived from the aggregate of Stake's campaign is probably too much for one person, right? Why don't you cut down on the members or hire someone to help you count posts? And whoever does -- they should be very critical with the quality. In my opinion, 99% of posts that come from the campaign should be tossed. |
|
|
|
what like he has not been caught out lying and scamming before ??
how many chances does this lying scamming piece of shit get?? let's just get this dirt bag out.
We were presenting observable instances of his lying and scamming for months? how is it still permitted to be in a position of trust? this without the extortion and shady escrow business and trust abusing whistle blowers. This is the fourth derailment within an hour. If you want to be taken seriously, I would highly advise you to keep out of closed discussions and to avoid this kind of behavior. This is why users call you a troll: because you are redirecting discussion towards something else when the topic is focused elsewhere. Relevant ideas need not be brought up constantly for they will come naturally. Good ideas need not be brought up constantly since they can stand on their own. By repeatedly stating the same things, you are giving off the appearance of a rambling theorist, regardless of the soundness of your ideas.
Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar?? Well it could have something to do you with you being a proven scammer yourself? or a probable extortionist or a shady escrow? or using red trust to silence whistle blowing?? or saying fuck off you will not work within the new fair and transparent rules that ensure everyone is protected from scamming trash like you?
Pharmacist has been distancing himself from your abuse for a while. can we see the victims that we scammed we notice you and your pal hhampuz and some noob dreg have given us a shiny new flag.
be great when you are all blacklisted. |
|
|
|
Just quoting this because it seems cabalism13 is unaware that trolling is a serious matter and can result in a ban. To admit you are always a troll just makes it easier. Trolling may be bannable but rules are always followed based on the moderators' discretion. Determining how severely a user has to troll is difficult since I actually haven't seen anyone being banned for trolling... and there are a variety of users that have trolled far, far harder than what cabalism's thread entailed. |
|
|
|
37892d5fa2478958ef322e6261a9dd6695943affc175f40109b98381f9bee99d
Loan date: May 10, 2019
Amount 0.5 BTC
Date of theft: May 22, 2019 Where is the link to Hhampuz and this address? I couldn't find anything for the address in question. |
|
|
|
@hilariousandco
If you have anyone else you want kicked out let me know because I'm removing people right now since the week just ended Realistically, you shouldn't even be restricted to only removing people after a week ends. Since you have this requirement: "Constructive posts only (no spamming)" any rule-breakers shouldn't be paid for their shitposts. Don't reward spamming.  |
|
|
|
I think the big players will end up creating their own threads. I'm pondering one for the Known Alts thread (separate) will you lock your thread or keep it open?
*Edit* Would it be better to start thread's based on themes (Ponzi etc)?
Perhaps for larger categories, one could make different posts. I don't see the point of having more than one thread unless it's a significant case. The ones that justify larger chunks of evidence and threads might need a new thread but most of the time you should just link to it via your main thread  |
|
|
|
This thread will be used as a collection of all my flags. Don't have the font? Get the font.
Quick Access Table of Contents: kralleLahvacekmoneyZarfundOrhan1337U745
User: kralle
Action: Scammed user via PayPal for $20.
Evidence: Scam Report
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
User: Lahvacekmoney
Action: Promotes their ponzi scheme. Ponzis are by definition a -ev investment and are likely to result in investors' losses.
Evidence: Ponzi Topic
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
User: Zarfund
Action: Promotes their ponzi scheme. Ponzis are by definition a -ev investment and are likely to result in investors' losses.
Evidence: Ponzi topic
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
User: Orhan1337
Action: Runs a falsely provably fair gambling site which has rigged rolls. One of the options doesn't even allow you to win.
Evidence: Main thread
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
User: luckygames
Action: Rigged "provably-fair" game because a player had found an advantage and capitalized upon it. The player's advantage was not cheating: rather, it was simple statistical analysis akin to counting cards.
Evidence: Main thread
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
User: U745
Action: Automated sale links, fake trust.
Evidence: Main thread, Account 1, Account 2, Account 3
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
[anchor=]User: [/anchor]
Action:
Evidence:
Misc: Flag
----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever Considering that they have already resolved this situation, it seems strange to insert yourself into this. It's like offense culture. |
|
|
|
Facebooks 1984 coin will be the example par excellence. Don't worry. I love my shadowbanned farmville coins! What a riot. |
|
|
|
|
Close this thread.
This has nothing to do with you nor your campaign. This has to do with the very idea of having a thread for reporting spammers.
I tried this in the past and I realized all too soon that it was a waste of time. Leaving behind "evidence" of their spam is ridiculous because for 99.9% of cases you need not look further than their most recent posts.
The amount of time it takes for your construction of such a post against one given spammer is equivalent to the amount of time that you could make a few score good reports against both the spammer thereof and others.
How many posts have you reported, Steve?
|
|
|
|
I don't like the idea of constantly tossing around the "alt of X" dismissal every time you have someone disagree with a generally unpopular opinion.
Considering the account's history pre-BK, I don't think it's likely that this is an alt of dean. |
|
|
|
Most sites' terms say that terms can change. Sure, this is usually the case when it's found in the ToS. These were not. Again, the archive didn't have anything that would make a prospective investor assume that the terms could change at any time. Especially when it concerns long-term financial fulfillments like this. I'd be concerned if a crypto site didn't say that as nothing is proven and we are in uncharted territory. If a site didn't change terms on a whim? Makes it exciting times and luckily betking is surviving and bkt price rising due to better management and removing schemes that scammers took advantage of. Can't blame the scammers for getting upset. Who is scamming here? What "scheme" is this buyback? I'd say that this was a pretty large part of the whole token.
Here. http://web.archive.org/web/20170629082143/https://betking.io/A percentage of the profit made from bankrolled games will be used to buy back BetKing Bankroll tokens from holders. |
|
|
|
@marlboroza These are the relevant parts of BetKing's stance on buybacks. You are under the assumption that this was all a personal loan I got from investors.
It was an investment in a business. With all investment in any business there was risk.
There was no "deal". There was no "guaranteed" buybacks.
You do know that the price of the original token could easily have dropped to 100th of the original ICO price too right? Where in your image does it say the word guarantee?
It says BetKing will offer to buy "up to 10%"
Thus, we can conclude that simply writing terms on the site does not guarantee that they are going to be in-effect for any predictable duration. In this case, there isn't anything exactly stopping BetKing from changing up the structure again if they decide not to buyback the BKT tokens, is there? It's either: A) Buybacks were part of the original token terms and were removed subsequently B) Buybacks were not part of the original token terms but were written on-site with no remark indicating removal thereof |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
