Negative (shown as
-1)
- If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
- If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.
If that means you tag users because they promote a casino, you'll probably get excluded by other users and you feedback won't ever reach DefaultTrust, but that's all part of the way the Trust system works.
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.
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?
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.
I think that is the real problem, what the community believes should be the rules, methinks.
Same thing for account sellers and Ponzi promoters, although I have stronger feelings against the former category than I do against the latter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
You see how with time opinions can change
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 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.
