Accusing someone of being a liar without presenting any evidence, is against rules here No, it's not. |
|
|
|
Does this apply to users who create flags without being personally harmed? I believe this applies to type 2 and 3 flags, which require a contractual violation between the peers. Highlight: This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages. This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages. |
|
|
|
But it seems you have some +DT trust for being a “super alt detector” I see no disconnect between advocating for users to take their privacy seriously and reporting users who are evading bans or similar. One could argue about the actual dynamics of tagging people based on the "no alts enrolled" rule especially when this is usually more of a status quo copy-pasted clause rather than any thought-out rule. [ref]It's clear when you look at spreadsheets where participants have the same address etc. with no due diligence during enrollment. And of course, considering such users high-risk despite their harm being a spam problem... well, at the end of the day you're effectively calling for more moderation. After all, some users are able to pump out consistent replies of high quality on multiple accounts, whether in secrecy or not. |
|
|
|
Bump again.
I've had the pleasure of conversing with a few new members and they would have greatly appreciated a warning about scams not being moderated on the forum. I think this is the most important thing to deal with right now.
The common justification for "no false sense of security" is absolutely demolished by the fact that people have no idea that there is a lack of security in the first place: how are Newbies expected to deal with all of the random forum mechanics we've fit onto here when they first join the forum? Hell, if the idea was to prevent there from being a false sense of security then you might as well place a scammer warning in front of every single user: that's how we operate in our heads on the forum anyway when it comes to trust - assume everyone (new) is untrustworthy before any transaction.How about that welcome message? |
|
|
|
How do you feel knowing that your sig profits are coming directly from the fees of the most egregious criminals you can imagine as they successfully evade every law you advocate for?
Let’s see someone explain to me how you can wear a CM sig and not hold the principles of an anarchist..
Ready for the word-salad trying to explain this away.. One possible avenue would be to compare the structures of the highlight. Arguing for non-censorship on the currency and low granularity basis to enable individual censorship on platforms, something like that. something something property rights
The only rule I follow is that there are no rules thereafter!  |
|
|
|
I believe that the purpose of an advertisement may not be making you click it. It's all about creating association and prevalence. Of course you don't expect the advertisement to work with immediate effect: marketers are not hypnotists... though, perhaps over the long-term, you could make that sort of analogy. Consider, also, the demographic that you are appealing to: users that actively post or read a forum that is dedicated for Bitcoin discussion (+ alts) are likely to be active participants in blockchain use as opposed to other spaces like price consolidation/portfolio websites. It's also a broad enough platform to host a variety of sites. The gambling and mixer sites function well due to whales that can cover the majority of the profits gained from the campaign, whereas places that can't handle high volume may need to rely on much greater mass appeal to gain a return. Perhaps that's why those are the main ones you see: it's the structure of the advertising platform and ecosystem that create the ideal competitor. You could call this analogous to the concept of dominant archetypes in biological ecosystems.
I tend to think if an advertiser has the money to spend on signature ads, they must be making a whole lot of money off the people they're advertising to, and I'd rather not fall into that category. I don't personally have qualms with the gambling industry but surely it should be difficult to say that it's not just a case of, "the rich get richer"? Casinos are capitalism maximized: create an addiction for your consumers so that their capital shifts towards the greater sum - yours. You can argue this or that about entertainment but the pedantry required is quite an abominable mess. At the end of the day, your pay comes from someone else's deposit. |
|
|
|
I think they bought it on purpose, just to install the AdkinsBET sig.
Rather than paying participants per week in $$$.
Guess. Consider: if you have alternate accounts under your control, rather than the signature campaign participants merely indirectly promoting your product, you can start posting en masse in certain threads and boards to advertise even when the ANN thread is locked away. People who don't know about the situation can easily ignore one shill but if you have a large number of them, that sentiment is hard to unstick from your biases - I'm certain that when the main thread was buzzing with activity, the handful of posts distracting from the accusations helped to swayed opinion to some degree. At this point, the negative feedback may have triggered the "point of no return" where they all shift to blatant shadiness after having been exposed. Who knows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
How about the other users opposing the flag on the casino account? Similar password change times on BPIP though I haven't investigated in detail.
It doesn't matter to me whether they are alts or not: either they are shills or they are blindly ignorant.
Defending the site to such a degree after having seen everything else must be a fatal exercise of cognitive dissonance or stupidity if it's not entangled with malice.
|
|
|
|
I said if a someone a DT claims is a scammer says 2 + 2 = 4
Then you agree with them and say yes 2 +2 = 4
Then you should have a tag for agreeing that their statement is correct and independently verifiable.
I don't believe that means you essentially have to like the poster does it?
Yes or no? Analogies are nice in that they can create an isomorphic structure of which we extract semantic meaning. The unfortunate part is that I can't decipher the intent, at least not entirely: Is there someone handing out opinion-based negative feedback? Does this negative feedback have to do with agreeing with a separate (-ve) account? Alternatively: is this behavior that you wish to exemplify? Or, is this behavior that someone is criticizing, but also hypocritically defending on their terms? Vice versa? |
|
|
|
I am not even surprised that people like jollygood not even reply on here. Actmyname same story. On the moment they go negative, they will get tagged and they are scared to post negative. I fail to see what relevance JollyGood and my name have here. I am waiting for the reply from Sportsbet.io as I would prefer that this thread follow a streamlined correspondence and dialogue. After all, are JollyGood or I expected to respond to all new threads every single time they pop up? When you made your reply, it had only been about a day and a half since the topic was posted - rather than project malicious intent onto us, are there not countless alternative reasons for why we didn't respond? It is better for both parties if ad hominem was not used and if all participants of the thread could stick to the actual content of the posts. The same casual defense of ToS-based clauses is also something that needs to be addressed - they should not have absolute power and consumers should be protected against abuse of the system. |
|
|
|
Like why would YOU merit anyone for a quality post when you can just merit your friends or
your alt accounts? Not a rhetorical question. You think theres no actual issue with that, why? Tit for tat strategy. Encourage honest meriting and look for reciprocation. RETURN
RETURN
Also see: mutually assured destruction, social contract, status quo RETURN
Also, what's the problem with merit in general? All it does is add a further restriction to leveling up - good for preventing spam. |
|
|
|
|
I remember back in the day when I had to farm likes on Facebook so I could post "Marty's Apples" under my posts in a new Facebook Signature Campaign, which was definitely a secure job that made me create a mass of spam.
It's the bounties of the altcoin cesspool that cause your discussion board to be tainted by such shit: that, and a lack of additional moderator support for locking down useless threads.
You have a report button, so start using it.
|
|
|
|
I would suggest to everyone who creates threads there and doesn't want shitposters to lay their eggs, to create self-moderated threads and delete whatever posts they deem unworthy. Self-moderated threads are also an instant turn-off for spammers because they know here is a guy who pays attention to what is happening in his topics. This is polishing a turd. Self-moderated threads don't just turn of spammers, but also people who don't want to see posts deleted at a random user's discretion. True altcoin section users should be reporting the constant spam that come from users and they should also avoid participating in all of those meaningless megathreads. You can immediately identify them by title, which is usually why spammers only respond to the title without reading anything else. |
|
|
|
|
If you have such low signal to noise, then just put up a PGP key. Block all PMs. Make people send encrypted messages to you, or prompt you for temporary correspondence.
Presumably, the most likely culprits are Newbie accounts - just block PMs from Newbies.
|
|
|
|
So what's that supposed to mean? As far as I know, for the player it's not even possible to cancel a withdrawal. At least I didn't find any option or button to cancel it. Meaning, the email is a blatant lie. If you didn't have the presumption of malice before, then this should move the needle (at least a notch)
Don't really see this going anywhere though: any response you'll get will probably place the responsibility on your end or throw some other ToS at you. |
|
|
|
You were the guy that was scammed by game-protect, too. Remember what a beautiful thread that was?
It's funny because they declined the withdrawal and then state in the email that you cancelled it. Note that there is a difference in the page. Taken from this thread, for example: 
Whereas in your image:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
