A mod here believes I should be scammer tagged and keeps stalking/harassing me

[paraipan]

the mod knew something we did not know.

If that's the case, that's pretty scummy and should have been fixed a long time ago.

I don't believe paraipan knew he was that scammer. He just felt something wasn't right with the dude.
I had that same feeling just didn't call him out about the slogan thing as much as paraipan lol

I figured as much, I would have been pissed if you actually knew who he was and kept it quiet.

Interestingly enough, his hosting biz lives on.

If this was the case, I will avoid anyone at all costs that paraipan chases. Good work paraipan.

Thanks pekv2, my "gut" feeling was right on this one. After all the shit i've been taking, a thank you means everything.

[pekv2]

the mod knew something we did not know.

If that's the case, that's pretty scummy and should have been fixed a long time ago.

I don't believe paraipan knew he was that scammer. He just felt something wasn't right with the dude.
I had that same feeling just didn't call him out about the slogan thing as much as paraipan lol

I figured as much, I would have been pissed if you actually knew who he was and kept it quiet.

Interestingly enough, his hosting biz lives on.

If this was the case, I will avoid anyone at all costs that paraipan chases. Good work paraipan.

Thanks pekv2, my "gut" feeling was right on this one. After all the shit i've been taking, a thank you means everything.

Also: Note: There is a guy roaming on BTC-E chat name Tazz:, I confronted him asking if he is TizzyTazzy, he denies it so, just be weary if you are on BTC-E chat.

Maybe the BTC-E admins can help, ionno.

But yes. You're are very welcomed .

[Raoul Duke]

He is online here at this moment.

Now let's keep ontopic and answer the OP:

A mod here believes I should be scammer tagged and keeps stalking/harassing me

A mod here was right and you now have a scammer tag. Happy?

[Dargo]

I didn't really know, but I'm not surprised this person has been exposed as a scammer. It was really annoying me that he kept offering essentially fake "rewards," most recently here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93825.0

This is also what the OP of this thread was on about, but I guess the OP knew more.

I hope that nobody does business with this person - i.e uses his web hosting solutions.

[IIOII]

I'm not surprised at all. From my point of view the repeated offering of fake rewards alone would have qualified him as a scammer. At least it showed a lack of personal integrity which often is one of the few reliable indicators available to offer an increased probability in the prediction of future scam behavior.

But the majority decided to believe otherwise.

[Gladamas]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29636.msg372022#msg372022

His name is Christopher M. Phillips.

[nimda]

I'm not surprised at all. From my point of view the repeated offering of fake rewards alone would have qualified him as a scammer. At least it showed a lack of personal integrity which often is one of the few reliable indicators available to offer an increased probability in the prediction of future scam behavior.

But the majority decided to believe otherwise.

Next time, you should speak up; BCB would be 33 BTC richer if you had and he'd listened.

[IIOII]

I'm not surprised at all. From my point of view the repeated offering of fake rewards alone would have qualified him as a scammer. At least it showed a lack of personal integrity which often is one of the few reliable indicators available to offer an increased probability in the prediction of future scam behavior.

But the majority decided to believe otherwise.

Next time, you should speak up; BCB would be 33 BTC richer if you had and he'd listened.

I did express my disapproval of TizzyTazzy's "business practice" - however this was not well received, I was even suspected of being someones (probably paraipan's) sockpuppet: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83972.msg927302#msg927302

I wasn't eager to participate in a flame war to convince people about what I believe is wrong. If people just don't want to see the warning signs it doesn't help much to scream it out.


(Currently I see the same thing happening with the Bitcoinica scam - given the evidence I cannot understand why these guys (esp. Zhoutong) are not scammer tagged (instead theymos chose to accept 80 BTC from Zhoutong to advertise his next "project"  - filling all available ad slots of the forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94475.20))

[BadBear]

(Currently I see the same thing happening with the Bitcoinica scam - given the evidence I cannot understand why these guys (esp. Zhoutong) are not scammer tagged (instead theymos chose to accept 80 BTC from Zhoutong to advertise his next "project"  - filling all available ad slots of the forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94475.20))

Ever hear of reasonable doubt? Innocent until proven guilty? There is no solid proof it was him, and marking him as a scammer if he's innocent would open up the forum to serious legal problems (and rightly so).

[IIOII]

(Currently I see the same thing happening with the Bitcoinica scam - given the evidence I cannot understand why these guys (esp. Zhoutong) are not scammer tagged (instead theymos chose to accept 80 BTC from Zhoutong to advertise his next "project"   - filling all available ad slots of the forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94475.20))

Ever hear of reasonable doubt? Innocent until proven guilty? There is no solid proof it was him, and marking him as a scammer if he's innocent would open up the forum to serious legal problems (and rightly so).

This is probably not the right place to discuss this.

I know about presumption of innocence. Thanks for the special instructions.

However there is substantial evidence in the ZT case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95738.0
Since scammer tags have been issued in less severe cases of equivalent certainty in the past it is not disproportionate to issue scammer tags in the bitcoinica case.

At the very least forum operators should not engage in dealmaking with probable scammers, effectively helping them to run the next (unprovable) scam.