MATTHEW N. WRIGHT IS A SCAMMER

[conspirosphere.tk]

he offered the bet as a hedge against pirate losses
and a lot of people didnt sell their pirate accounts for
 75% -50% -25% etc because they thought they were
sufficiently hedged either way

Not only: I even bought some FOO.PPPPT at 50% to hedge in case I lose my bet with Matthew. And now they are at 0.05 BTC each.

So much for:

No funds changed hands...as far as we are aware.

You can be sure that some money changed hands, so much that I am now wondering if Matthew is a Pirate's shill.

Lets take a lesson from Matthew and not rush to judgement.

WUT? Which lesson? That the BTC scene is a playground of scammers-trolls? And would that not be a judgement?

[BCB]

Boycotts are fine.  Name calling is obviously fine on BCT.  However, I still lack clarity on the scammer tag.   MNW obviously, much to his pleasure, provoked a mob, but does that make him a scammer?

[DeathAndTaxes]

No funds changed hands. 

Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement.  "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.

That is the most ridiculous requirement.

So if I asked you to make a logo and then didn't pay you I shouldn't get a scammer tag?  No funds changed hands (even though that is the entire problem).
What if you and I agreed to a CFD so I could hedge my businesses exposure and the price of BTC skyrocketed so you decide to not honor it.  Once again no funds changed hands.

How about keep it simple:
"If you make an agreement and break it you are a scammer".

[bg002h]

No funds changed hands. 

Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement.  "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.

That is the most ridiculous requirement.

So if I asked you to make a logo and then didn't pay you I shouldn't get a scammer tag?  No funds changed hands (even though that is the entire problem).
What if you and I agreed to a CFD so I could hedge my businesses exposure and the price of BTC skyrocketed so you decide to not honor it.  Once again no funds changed hands.

How about keep it simple:
"If you make an agreement and break it you are a scammer".

I'll give you a $100,000,000,000,000,000,000 if you can spell Mississippi backwards...

...awaiting scammer tag...

[BCB]

Would I have to present evidence of my work for you that I created the logo that I did not get paid for?
Have those betting with Matthew provided evidence they were caused financial harm by entering into an obviously unrealistic bet?

I'm not defending MNW.  I'm just requesting clarity.  Right now its a mob raging against against MNW's obvious incitements.

[BCB]

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Really?

He didn't upheld his end of a contract.

Correct.  But there are a LOT of people on this board who would be labeled SCAMMER  right now if that is now the definition of scammer.

[giszmo]

If I promise rain for tomorrow and ask to be labeled scammer, if not, I shall be labeled scammer regardless of people taking decisions based on my prediction or not.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Really?

He didn't upheld his end of a contract.

Correct.  But there are a LOT of people on this board who would be labeled SCAMMER  right now if that is now the definition of scammer.

Who? Did anyone request a scammer tag?  Were they denied?

[picobit]

No funds changed hands. 

Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement.  "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.

If he would have accepted payments if he had won, then he is a scammer.  Undoubtedly had he won a lot of people would not have paid.  They now missed their chance of becoming scammers

Waging thousands of bitcoins without escrow is stupid.  Waging *with* escrow is probably also stupid, but that is another discussion....

[theymos]

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

He clearly reneged on his contract, which caused several people to suffer losses. If he had won the bet, he would have received BTC even though he had no intention of paying if he lost. He's a scammer.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If I promise rain for tomorrow and ask to be labeled scammer, if not, I shall be labeled scammer regardless of people taking decisions based on my prediction or not.

Yes. 

Simple solution is to not promise rain (or anything else you are unable or unwilling to deliver).  Of course to be labeled a scammer requires someone you scammed to request it.  If nobody requests the tag then you won't get it.  One way to avoid someone requesting it is to work out some agreement (compensation for loss, repayment plan, etc).

[muyuu]

Wagering is rarely enforceable in court, depending on your jurisdiction.  So what Theymos is saying by labeling MNW a scammer is that wagering IS enforceable on Bitcointalk.org.  Correct?  Theymos, could you please confirm.

Thanks.

Don't you see the tag? What the fuck are you on about?

[BCB]

I do see the tag.  That is why I am asking.  

So as I understand it there are two additional ways to get the scammer tag.

1.  welch on a bet.
2.  Ask for it.

edit: (I was not previously aware of these)

If there are any others I'd be curious to know that too.

Thanks.

[amencon]

This is even up for debate?  BCB trolls good.

The worst (and best) thing about bitcoin are the people involved.

[Vod]

Whoever got scammed should boycott all of Matt's bitcoin products.  Ellet, Bitcoin Magazine, etc.

Why limit it to whoever got scammed?  I'm boycotting his products because he supports Zhou Tong.

[Francesco]

Not a very good scammer either.

...why do I keep reading this in Fluttershy's voice?  (much like "not a bad problem to have, if you ask me")

Oh, I bet she'd try to understand, or at least pity him

There, there. You're not a bad troll, you just made a bad decision. All you have to do is find a less serious forum to play in.

[BCB]

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

The scammer tag isn't appropriate at all, but there is no "Unethical Scummyfuck" tag.

There has already been a request for a "douchebag" tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105100.80

Maybe that would be appropriate here as well.

[Dansker]

MATTHEW N. WRIGHT was a scammer, MATTHEW N. WRIGHT is a scammer and MATTHEW N. WRIGHT will always be a scammer.

And then there was that thing with the 17-year old asian girl posing in lingerie he was trying to push too...

Creepy guy, but at least everyone should be vaccinated against even talking to him now.

[cbeast]

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

The scammer tag isn't appropriate at all, but there is no "Unethical Scummyfuck" tag.

There has already been a request for a "douchebag" tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105100.80

Maybe that would be appropriate here as well.

I was thinking of asking in Meta for an Atlas tag to be created as well.

[korila]

MATTHEW N. WRIGHT was a scammer, MATTHEW N. WRIGHT is a scammer and MATTHEW N. WRIGHT will always be a scammer.

And then there was that thing with the 17-year old asian girl posing in lingerie he was trying to push too...

Creepy guy, but at least everyone should be vaccinated against even talking to him now.

must be talkin about posadoll model