Diverenge RE: anon trust verses anon moderation

[FunFunnyFan]

I will delete my post in the thread this was originally posted in and repost here since my original post was techincally off topic. My post was originally in this thread, and is quoted below:

The only reason you would need to know who deleted something is to pester them about it, which would be a pointless annoyance that might even prevent moderators from doing a good job. Admins are the only ones who can restore deleted posts and the only ones who can properly deal with inaccurate mod actions: post in Meta and we'll look into it.

It is too bad the trust system is not setup this way. If it was then more people on DefaultTrust would have the balls to send negative trust to scammers. Just look at the likes of Quickseller (who is now removed), Tomatocage, and Vod (who has now left the forum mostly); there are several threads complaining about the negative trust they leave, even though the trust is reasonably appropiate. I do not doubt that they all receive a lot of harassing PMs regarding their sent negative trust.

Then we have the people that troll people who leave negative trust against scammers. Look at evershawn who was trolling Vod for months after receiving negative trust from him. Look at tspacepilot who is still trolling Quickseller to the point of getting him removed; it also appears that he was able to bully him into removing the negative rating, yet continues to troll him.

I think that our community does not have enough people on DefaultTrust that are active in marking scammers. I can say that very few (if any) scammers were marked with the account that I wanted to sell when I created this account, primarily to keep away the trolling that is associated with such marking.

I think that many people on DefaultTrust wish to maintain a very positive image of themselves to others so they do not tag scammers when they find them. Some people are so afraid of getting trolled that they quickly remove any negative ratings they leave scammers when their inbox gets spammed with enough PM's. Even Tomatocage was spammed with 10+ PM's in his inbox about the above scammer and downgraded his negative rating to a neutral despite solid evidence, a few people even said that the evidence was solid who are on DefaultTrust.

[dogie]

You've stated a problem and its cause in the same post, so I'm not sure what we're meant to do here. Scammers and spammers are some of the worst people to deal with, and fighting scams attracts swarms of them to attack. Its not fun and its a thankless job, so who would bother?

[TECSHARE]

You've stated a problem and its cause in the same post, so I'm not sure what we're meant to do here. Scammers and spammers are some of the worst people to deal with, and fighting scams attracts swarms of them to attack. Its not fun and its a thankless job, so who would bother?

Have you considered that it is a thankless job because it doesn't fix anything and often causes far more harm than good? Does "scambusting" really stop scammers or are they in reality back in minutes under a new name at it all over again? Have none of you learned from history what happens when people continue to fight endless & unwinnable wars? We should be focusing on educating users how to protect themselves, not supporting wannabe forum rentacops shotgunning randomly at the user base hoping they hit a scammer.

[FunFunnyFan]

You've stated a problem and its cause in the same post, so I'm not sure what we're meant to do here. Scammers and spammers are some of the worst people to deal with, and fighting scams attracts swarms of them to attack. Its not fun and its a thankless job, so who would bother?

Three people have bothered, Quickseller, Vod and Tomatocage. One of them no longer has the influence to have his ratings displayed by default, one has left the community (close to perminently), and one has become much too conservative in handing out negative ratings (in order).

I don't think it is entirely a thankless job, I have seen many people say they appreciate the work that all three of them do individually. I have also seen many people post that each of them should be consulted to check if something is a scam or not, so there is reason to believe they do earn a level of respect for tagging scammers.

I think you are right that scammers (and spammers) are going to put a lot of effort into smearing the likes of the above examples I provided. Just look at the "I hate Quickseller", and "I hate Vod" threads, they quickly agree with eachother, potentially agreeing with themselves via sockpuppet accounts - but then again, I am pretty sure you for some reason have a lot of experience with that - at least a lot of experience of being on the receiving end of that.

[erikalui]

We don't need members to be added or removed from the default trust list and instead we need scams to be moderated else we members should be alert of any user trying to scam other users. By adding a negative to an account, it doesn't stop users to come back with their alts (some of which get detected while others don't get detected). Rather than this, why shouldn't there be an end to the ability to create a new alt account? It does help scammers and makes it tough for the DT members to detect alts. That's not a thing they should do all day waiting to search for alt accounts of scammers but it should be a rule to stop alt accounts on this forum.

[Muhammed Zakir]

We don't need members to be added or removed from the default trust list and instead we need scams to be moderated else we members should be alert of any user trying to scam other users. By adding a negative to an account, it doesn't stop users to come back with their alts (some of which get detected while others don't get detected). Rather than this, why shouldn't there be an end to the ability to create a new alt account? It does help scammers and makes it tough for the DT members to detect alts. That's not a thing they should do all day waiting to search for alt accounts of scammers but it should be a rule to stop alt accounts on this forum.

Moderating scams will just give a false sense just like ebay trust system and there are many legit reasons for using alts. Besides, al most all of the scammers hides under VPN or Tor.

[FunFunnyFan]

We don't need members to be added or removed from the default trust list and instead we need scams to be moderated else we members should be alert of any user trying to scam other users. By adding a negative to an account, it doesn't stop users to come back with their alts (some of which get detected while others don't get detected). Rather than this, why shouldn't there be an end to the ability to create a new alt account? It does help scammers and makes it tough for the DT members to detect alts. That's not a thing they should do all day waiting to search for alt accounts of scammers but it should be a rule to stop alt accounts on this forum.

I am not concerned about the number of people on the DefaultTrust list. I am concerned about the lack of people on DefaultTrust list being unwilling to leave negative trust when it should be left.

It is not realistic for moderators to moderate scams because it is impossible to tell when something is a scam or not with 100% certainty, and attempting to do so would cause many people being prevented from trading who are simply uneducated as to how to trade on here, and if my research of you is correct, this would apply to you prior to you accepting escrow services. This would be the bad of all worlds because scammers would learn how to avoid detection of moderators and slightly change their practices, and legitimate users would simply abondon bitcoin when they make small mistakes in how they try to trade with others.
I may propose some kind of system where members of the DefaultTrust list can vote, anon, if someone deserves an anon negative rating, and if so then the person should be awareded an anon negative rating that can only be removed with the vote of even more members of the DefaultTrust list. Maybe someone can receive such a "super rating" if three people vote for such a rating, and such a rating can only be removed if 130% of the number of people who voted for such a rating voted to have it removed.

[XinXan]

We don't need members to be added or removed from the default trust list and instead we need scams to be moderated else we members should be alert of any user trying to scam other users. By adding a negative to an account, it doesn't stop users to come back with their alts (some of which get detected while others don't get detected). Rather than this, why shouldn't there be an end to the ability to create a new alt account? It does help scammers and makes it tough for the DT members to detect alts. That's not a thing they should do all day waiting to search for alt accounts of scammers but it should be a rule to stop alt accounts on this forum.

I am not concerned about the number of people on the DefaultTrust list. I am concerned about the lack of people on DefaultTrust list being unwilling to leave negative trust when it should be left.

It is not realistic for moderators to moderate scams because it is impossible to tell when something is a scam or not with 100% certainty, and attempting to do so would cause many people being prevented from trading who are simply uneducated as to how to trade on here, and if my research of you is correct, this would apply to you prior to you accepting escrow services. This would be the bad of all worlds because scammers would learn how to avoid detection of moderators and slightly change their practices, and legitimate users would simply abondon bitcoin when they make small mistakes in how they try to trade with others.
I may propose some kind of system where members of the DefaultTrust list can vote, anon, if someone deserves an anon negative rating, and if so then the person should be awareded an anon negative rating that can only be removed with the vote of even more members of the DefaultTrust list. Maybe someone can receive such a "super rating" if three people vote for such a rating, and such a rating can only be removed if 130% of the number of people who voted for such a rating voted to have it removed.

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

[erikalui]

I am not concerned about the number of people on the DefaultTrust list. I am concerned about the lack of people on DefaultTrust list being unwilling to leave negative trust when it should be left.

It is not realistic for moderators to moderate scams because it is impossible to tell when something is a scam or not with 100% certainty, and attempting to do so would cause many people being prevented from trading who are simply uneducated as to how to trade on here, and if my research of you is correct, this would apply to you prior to you accepting escrow services. This would be the bad of all worlds because scammers would learn how to avoid detection of moderators and slightly change their practices, and legitimate users would simply abondon bitcoin when they make small mistakes in how they try to trade with others.
I may propose some kind of system where members of the DefaultTrust list can vote, anon, if someone deserves an anon negative rating, and if so then the person should be awareded an anon negative rating that can only be removed with the vote of even more members of the DefaultTrust list. Maybe someone can receive such a "super rating" if three people vote for such a rating, and such a rating can only be removed if 130% of the number of people who voted for such a rating voted to have it removed.

I don't get you as one time you say DT members can track scammers and next time you say it's not realistic to moderate a scam? So just the way DT members can track scams, moderators can't or they don't want to? I don't believe to have certain members of this forum to go about policing when it's the job of the forum moderator. It may make their work difficult but it should be their work and if they don't want to do it, then it's fine. By saying that catching a scam is not realistic or it can't happen then sorry to say as having a DT list also is not realistic to make some members capable enough to track scammers. I am not asking to ban the scammers, but give them warnings at least.

I am on another forum too and there moderators easily track scammers and ban them if they continue to scam even after 2 warnings.

@bold: What does that mean? I am definitely not uneducated on how to trade here and if I was, I would not manage to sell so many gift cards as I have done till date.

@blue: Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

Spam mostly happen publicly and sometimes via PM which will be reported. It is not hard to know who is spammer and who is not unlike scammers. Banning spammers is good and they may change their way of posting or come under new account and if they continue spamming, it will also be deleted.

There is no point at banning scammers because they will come under new name and new address. If we don't ban them, they may still use their account and some of them maybe safe.

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

[XinXan]

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

Spam mostly happen publicly and sometimes via PM which will be reported. It is not hard to know who is spammer and who is not unlike scammers. Banning spammers is good and they may change their way of posting or come under new account and if they continue spamming, it will also be deleted.

There is no point at banning scammers because they will come under new name and new address. If we don't ban them, they may still use their account and some of them maybe safe.

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

So your logic applies to spammers but suddenly with scammers not, so if you ban spammers they can create a new account but they will be banned again yet if you ban scammers they will create a new account and wont be banned? or whats the deal because i really dont see your point, scammers can create new accounts without being banned, probably most of them do so why not just ban their main account directly? What do they bring to the forum?

[Muhammed Zakir]

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

Spam mostly happen publicly and sometimes via PM which will be reported. It is not hard to know who is spammer and who is not unlike scammers. Banning spammers is good and they may change their way of posting or come under new account and if they continue spamming, it will also be deleted.

There is no point at banning scammers because they will come under new name and new address. If we don't ban them, they may still use their account and some of them maybe safe.

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

So your logic applies to spammers but suddenly with scammers not, so if you ban spammers they can create a new account but they will be banned again yet if you ban scammers they will create a new account and wont be banned? or whats the deal because i really dont see your point, scammers can create new accounts without being banned, probably most of them do so why not just ban their main account directly? What do they bring to the forum?

Known scammers' accounts are already marked with negative feedbacks. If they are banned, they will come with a new clean account and can easily scam others. When we ban them, they are *forced* to create new accounts but now, they are not and it chances are less for them to come under alts than when we ban them. This only decrease scams. Banning scammers also create a false sense in inexperienced users that "there are no scams here because they are moderated". Only way to reduce scammers is to enforce "1 account per person" rule which is impossible.

[XinXan]

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

Spam mostly happen publicly and sometimes via PM which will be reported. It is not hard to know who is spammer and who is not unlike scammers. Banning spammers is good and they may change their way of posting or come under new account and if they continue spamming, it will also be deleted.

There is no point at banning scammers because they will come under new name and new address. If we don't ban them, they may still use their account and some of them maybe safe.

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

So your logic applies to spammers but suddenly with scammers not, so if you ban spammers they can create a new account but they will be banned again yet if you ban scammers they will create a new account and wont be banned? or whats the deal because i really dont see your point, scammers can create new accounts without being banned, probably most of them do so why not just ban their main account directly? What do they bring to the forum?

Known scammers' accounts are already marked with negative feedbacks. If they are banned, they will come with a new clean account and can easily scam others. When we ban them, they are *forced* to create new accounts but now, they are not and it chances are less for them to come under alts than when we ban them. This only decrease scams. Banning scammers also create a false sense in inexperienced users that "there are no scams here because they are moderated". Only way to reduce scammers is to enforce "1 account per person" rule which is impossible.

Bullshit, scammers would still create new accounts, like KoS which has what 20 different accounts? And who knows how many more, scammers will create new accounts, they are forced to create new accounts when they are marked with red trust, allowing them to keep talking in the forum with their high rank account its stupid, instead banning them its a better idea, you ban them, yes they will create a new account but they will be newbies, it takes quite a lot of time to reach a higher rank, so in a way you are punishing the scammers, right now you are not, you are letting them be free on the forum, look at meta, all the scammers that are red marked come here and complain about their trust ratings.

[erikalui]

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

Scammers may not use the same IP but I guess it's possible to detect a member who has created an account using a proxy.

Known scammers' accounts are already marked with negative feedbacks. If they are banned, they will come with a new clean account and can easily scam others. When we ban them, they are *forced* to create new accounts but now, they are not and it chances are less for them to come under alts than when we ban them. This only decrease scams. Banning scammers also create a false sense in inexperienced users that "there are no scams here because they are moderated". Only way to reduce scammers is to enforce "1 account per person" rule which is impossible.

@bold: Then really it is impossible to stop scammers from scamming members here and it makes no sense for DT members to do that job which is not their responsibility.

DT members too keep changing their negative trust to neutral when they are under pressure to maintain their DT status which means they are abusing their power. One DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?

If common members of a forum are given a moderating job to track scammers when it should be a job of the admin/real mods, that's when we can see that the forum is not functioning properly and there is no proper law and order.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints and they don't have access to IP address and such except admins. BadBear is already leaving negative trust feedback to alts of scammers. This is enough. If it is not, can you tell me a way to find alts of scammers when they use VPNs and Tor? Almost all scammers don't use same IP which they use for another account.

Scammers may not use the same IP but I guess it's possible to detect a member who has created an account using a proxy.

Experienced/knowledgeable scammers will also avoid that taint.

Known scammers' accounts are already marked with negative feedbacks. If they are banned, they will come with a new clean account and can easily scam others. When we ban them, they are *forced* to create new accounts but now, they are not and it chances are less for them to come under alts than when we ban them. This only decrease scams. Banning scammers also create a false sense in inexperienced users that "there are no scams here because they are moderated". Only way to reduce scammers is to enforce "1 account per person" rule which is impossible.

@bold: Then really it is impossible to stop scammers from scamming members here {...}

We can't prevent all scams here or anywhere else but to some extend, it can.

DT members too keep changing their negative trust to neutral when they are under pressure to maintain their DT status which means they are abusing their power.

Once the negative feedback is not appropriate but a warning should be left, then it is better to change negative feedback to neutral.

One DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?

We don't need them to be in DF list to track scammers. They can investigate and open a thread in Scam Accusations. Other members will leave negative feedback if there is enough proof.

and it makes no sense for DT members to do that job which is not their responsibility.

 -snip-

If common members of a forum are given a moderating job to track scammers when it should be a job of the admin/real mods, that's when we can see that the forum is not functioning properly and there is no proper law and order.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints {...}
 -snip-

By your logic, we need to make someone who are experienced in analyzing taints a staff. But with the another logic of yours, "one DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?", it is not possible. SO...?

[TECSHARE]

Banning scammers isn't going to fix anything. You know what that will do? All it will do is slowly result in all anonymizer services and IPs being banned from BCT. It isn't very hard to get a new IP.

You are all still hyper-focused on finding and punishing scammers (a losing battle), that you totally ignore teaching preventative measures that show people how to protect themselves. Ignore Bitcoin for a second and look at the world and how absolutely saturated it is with scams, all around us. How do you protect yourself from them in daily life? Do you expect the police to protect you? Most people don't. Most people rely on their own past experiences, or the advice of others to prevent being involved in such situations.

Furthermore the individuals that created Bitcoin did so to allow people an environment where 3rd parties were not dictating everything to two parties trading all the time. If you want police to protect you, then that also means you are subject to their potential over reach and abuse. There is no way around this, EXCEPT teaching yourself (and others) the best practices for preventing being scammed. The lazy and the ignorant will ALWAYS be robbed, it is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be like it or not. It is a persistent and inherent feature of technological progression.

Teaching people not to be victims is the only way to stop victimization and stop the supply of funds to thieves. Hacking away at scammers like this is about as efficient as playing whack-a-mole, and not every mole that pops its head out is bad.

[XinXan]

Banning scammers isn't going to fix anything. You know what that will do? All it will do is slowly result in all anonymizer services and IPs being banned from BCT. It isn't very hard to get a new IP.

You are all still hyper-focused on finding and punishing scammers (a losing battle), that you totally ignore teaching preventative measures that show people how to protect themselves. Ignore Bitcoin for a second and look at the world and how absolutely saturated it is with scams, all around us. How do you protect yourself from them in daily life? Do you expect the police to protect you? Most people don't. Most people rely on their own past experiences, or the advice of others to prevent being involved in such situations.

Furthermore the individuals that created Bitcoin did so to allow people an environment where 3rd parties were not dictating everything to two parties trading all the time. If you want police to protect you, then that also means you are subject to their potential over reach and abuse. There is no way around this, EXCEPT teaching yourself (and others) the best practices for preventing being scammed. The lazy and the ignorant will ALWAYS be robbed, it is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be like it or not. It is a persistent and inherent feature of technological progression.

Teaching people not to be victims is the only way to stop victimization and stop the supply of funds to thieves. Hacking away at scammers like this is about as efficient as playing whack-a-mole, and not every mole that pops its head out is bad.

But what about other type of disruptive people, extortionists, people that link malwares etc, shouldnt them be banned and punished? Yeah you can teach people not to download things on the internet randomly but they can still get infected with virus and what about extortionists for example, what do you do? Shouldnt them be banned? We cant just let every scammer, thief and bad person be free around the forum like nothing happened, there has to be something more than a red trust.

[zbfyp]

Teaching people not to be victims is the only way to stop victimization and stop the supply of funds to thieves. Hacking away at scammers like this is about as efficient as playing whack-a-mole, and not every mole that pops its head out is bad.

I know what you mean. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that obsessively protecting oneself from germs doesn't allow the body to develop healthy immune system. Point taken.

But something tells me there must be a happy medium between eating antibiotics 24/7 and creating a cesspool/incubator, stocking it with every pathogenic germ known to mankind, and living in it. Because that's what this forum has become -- a fucking cesspool of scam.

[XinXan]

Teaching people not to be victims is the only way to stop victimization and stop the supply of funds to thieves. Hacking away at scammers like this is about as efficient as playing whack-a-mole, and not every mole that pops its head out is bad.

I know what you mean. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that obsessively protecting oneself from germs doesn't allow the body to develop healthy immune system. Point taken.

But something tells me there must be a happy medium between eating antibiotics 24/7 and creating a cesspool/incubator, stocking it with every pathogenic germ known to mankind, and living in it. Because that's what this forum has become -- a fucking cesspool of scam.

Indeed my point. Most of it happens because its allowed, you are allowed to post scams in the investor based games and no one will tell you anything, you can sell accounts etc etc.

The lending section as well its full of newbie scammers, easy solution, dont allow newbies and jr.members to post on the lending section. There are plenty of solutions for each problem but in the end nothing happens and the scammers still win.

[TECSHARE]

Indeed my point. Most of it happens because its allowed, you are allowed to post scams in the investor based games and no one will tell you anything, you can sell accounts etc etc.

The lending section as well its full of newbie scammers, easy solution, dont allow newbies and jr.members to post on the lending section. There are plenty of solutions for each problem but in the end nothing happens and the scammers still win.

Again, back to my point... does banning them stop them? No, it barely slows them down, and it has side effects for other users who may use the same services as the scammer with no ill intent, not to mention innocent people who are accused and forced to prove their innocence to angry mobs. The real question is, what makes you think you can stop them? Why is it Mastercard and Visa haven't been able to solve this problem yet, but you think you have the solution?

Please tell me how you can really honestly say you are punishing or stopping scammers using these methods. Calling people out is one thing, but then when you enter into messing with the trust system and banning you are entering a whole new arena of vectors for additional abuse and obfuscation.