Disallow Scams and Ponzi Schemes in the Forum rules.

[ElectricMucus]

I am suggesting that moderators remove likely scams in this forum on sight.

That is: Anything having to do with "lending" or "investing" where an insufficiently clear or no business model was presented.

The free-for-all attitude has to stop.

[Atlas]

I will say this free-for-all attitude has made for some great paranoia.

[repentance]

I am suggesting that moderators remove likely scams in this forum on sight.

That is: Anything having to do with "lending" or "investing" where an insufficiently clear or no business model was presented.

The free-for-all attitude has to stop.

While I'm actually for this proposal, I can see it being problematic.  Anyone with half a brain can present a plausible business model but be lying through their teeth about what they're actually doing with user funds.  We need some way of forcing more transparency, but I don't really have many ideas about ways to do that which the community would find acceptable given the "Bitcoin is supposed to be anonymous" sentiment which prevails here.

[ElectricMucus]

I am suggesting that moderators remove likely scams in this forum on sight.

That is: Anything having to do with "lending" or "investing" where an insufficiently clear or no business model was presented.

The free-for-all attitude has to stop.

While I'm actually for this proposal, I can see it being problematic.  Anyone with half a brain can present a plausible business model but be lying through their teeth about what they're actually doing with user funds.  

Well, the thing is with the gross bulk anybody with half a brain can figure out its a scam. The current attitude even enables anybody with quarter a brain to finish a scheme.
I'd say the pirateat40 drama could have been prevented with the right policy and the will to enforce it.

We need some way of forcing more transparency, but I don't really have many ideas about ways to do that which the community would find acceptable given the "Bitcoin is supposed to be anonymous" sentiment which prevails here.

That too but we need a step in the right direction now. Even small measures help even if they don't stop the schemes completely and it isn't the silver bullet. There is no need to make it easy for those types.

[SaltySpitoon]

Perhaps instead of giving the already burdened forum staff this job, a new Anti Scam Strike Force could be created to at least notify people of possible scams. This of course would have to be done carefully, because it would be pretty shitty to start labeling someone a scammer just because they are new to BTC and don't understand all of the safety precautions. Also, there is nothing wrong with Ponzi Schemes, as long as people know they are ponzi schemes. Just like the BTC Pyramid. Its a pyramid scheme, but who cares, because everyone knows it is.

Anyway, all in favor of Team Anti Scammy, say Aye!
also, by saying Aye, you are also nominating SaltySpitoon as leader of Team Anti Scammy! 

[SEC agent]

I am suggesting that moderators remove likely scams in this forum on sight.

That is: Anything having to do with "lending" or "investing" where an insufficiently clear or no business model was presented.

The free-for-all attitude has to stop.

This would be the smartest thing to do. Unfortunately, it seems that some of the moderators actively promote and protect the criminal acts that take place on this forum.

[Stephen Gornick]

Even small measures help even if they don't stop the schemes completely and it isn't the silver bullet. There is no need to make it easy for those types.

Here's an example of someone new who didn't understand what a scammer tag meant and sent coins to a now-outed scam service where the operator has run:

HungerCoins SCAM
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117309.0

The solution there might be to have posts by a scammer stand out differently, perhaps with a scammer background image in the posts's div, for instance.

Or perhaps a separate board (thread cemetary) where threads from which the scammer operated can be moved.

[CJGoodings]

This sec guy is a retard, but he's right. If this Scam force used current staff/mod members, it would be no different than a collection of dirty cops placed in charge of picking new IAB recruits.

[theymos]

Disallow Scams and Ponzi Schemes in the Forum rules

OK: All scams are hereby disallowed by the forum rules. I trust that all forum users will respect this rule and refrain from scamming in the future.

I'd rather let hundreds of scam threads exist than remove one non-scam thread by accident. Maybe someone will figure out how to legitimately pay 7% interest weekly someday; who knows? It's not the place of moderators to decide which products/investments are good and which are bad. Buyers must decide for themselves who to trust.

Here's an example of someone new who didn't understand what a scammer tag meant and sent coins to a now-outed scam service where the operator has run:

If he doesn't notice a scammer tag then he's not going to notice that the thread is in a scammer section. Making scammers' posts stand out more will just give them the power to annoy people with their bright posts, and it will discourage them from being constructive forum members (as a few scammers have been). And someone that careless is eventually going to get scammed anyway.

[repentance]

I think the disconnect here is between theymos' vision of this forum and what the community believes is needed.  theymos has articulated his vision for the forum before - it's a forum for free speech, not a place which exists to give newbies a positive impression of Bitcoin or to project a professional image of Bitcoin to the world at large.

Rather than trying to bludgeon theymos into re-purposing this forum, it would be better if those who believe more moderated or more "professional" forums are needed set about creating an online presence which reflects their own vision.

[ElectricMucus]

Rather than trying to bludgeon theymos into re-purposing this forum, it would be better if those who believe more moderated or more "professional" forums are needed set about creating an online presence which reflects their own vision.

Good point, that kind of things failed in the past through.
The BTC-community seems want to stick together.

Disallow Scams and Ponzi Schemes in the Forum rules

OK: All scams are hereby disallowed by the forum rules. I trust that all forum users will respect this rule and refrain from scamming in the future.

I'd rather let hundreds of scam threads exist than remove one non-scam thread by accident. Maybe someone will figure out how to legitimately pay 7% interest weekly someday; who knows? It's not the place of moderators to decide which products/investments are good and which are bad. Buyers must decide for themselves who to trust.

I was hoping you being affected by GLBSE makes you more receptible to the issues..  (Yes I get the point of that being legimate in it's own.)
But there were tons of stuff on there where it was fairly obvious.

The one falsely removed legimate thread is can be protested on by the OP. Yes that results in even more work, I know...

Here's an example of someone new who didn't understand what a scammer tag meant and sent coins to a now-outed scam service where the operator has run:

If he doesn't notice a scammer tag then he's not going to notice that the thread is in a scammer section. Making scammers' posts stand out more will just give them the power to annoy people with their bright posts, and it will discourage them from being constructive forum members (as a few scammers have been). And someone that careless is eventually going to get scammed anyway.

Yes, and if a more agressive approach were taken that would be preventable. It's less work for a few mods to remove a thread and ban the potential scammer than for the scammer to create a new emal adress, and a new story and identity.

I'd volunteer if I hadn't that Orange Ignore Button™.

[mufa23]

While we are at it, let just remove stupidity. Think of how great this forum would be without the asinine people buying into obvious scams. But... since we don't know who the stupid ones are... let just ban everybody! HOORAY!

[repentance]

While we are at it, let just remove stupidity. Think of how great this forum would be without the asinine people buying into obvious scams. But... since we don't know who the stupid ones are... let just ban everybody! HOORAY!

Actually, maybe handing out a "stupid" tag to everyone who gets scammed isn't a bad idea.  Might be a disincentive to being so open-minded their brains fall out.

[ElectricMucus]

Just a thought: That "Homeless Jackie" story was acted upon the right way.
What I am asking for is to get this kind of swift justice everywhere on the board, because if you look at it the Jackie thing wasn't fair - from the perspective on which hoops one normally has to go through to actually get the scammer tag.

[ildubbioso]

I wanna have the possibility to lose my BTCs with a scam. How can I learn if I can't do this?
And if the mods don't remove a scam? Everybody will lose their btcs that because: "hey, the mods didn't remove it, so it must be legit".

[repentance]

Just a thought: That "Homeless Jackie" story was acted upon the right way.
What I am asking for is to get this kind of swift justice everywhere on the board, because if you look at it the Jackie thing wasn't fair - from the perspective on which hoops one normally has to go through to actually get the scammer tag.

For a long time it was only small-time scammers who ever got the tag quickly.  Recently theymos has been willing to give the tag to high profile people much faster, although if Nefario can be tagged for closing down a service with no notice and leaving users in limbo for a few days it becomes harder and harder to justify those associated with Bitcoinica not having scammer tags months after they ceased communicating with and trying to repay their users.

Jackie's an interesting case because she got banned when someone provided evidence that "she" was a male with a history of scamming elsewhere.  I suspect that a non-trivial amount of users here fudge their personal information when posting here to protect their privacy - at what point should that be considered scamming behaviour?

[BadBear]

For a long time it was only small-time scammers who ever got the tag quickly.  Recently theymos has been willing to give the tag to high profile people much faster, although if Nefario can be tagged for closing down a service with no notice and leaving users in limbo for a few days it becomes harder and harder to justify those associated with Bitcoinica not having scammer tags months after they ceased communicating with and trying to repay their users.

That's not why I gave him a scammer tag. If that were the only issue I would have waited much longer, it's reasonable to give him some time to return the money and get a system set up.

[Dalkore]

I'd rather let hundreds of scam threads exist than remove one non-scam thread by accident. Maybe someone will figure out how to legitimately pay 7% interest weekly someday; who knows? It's not the place of moderators to decide which products/investments are good and which are bad. Buyers must decide for themselves who to trust.

Yes there is truth to that but we should also acknowledge that we are using a "fixed asset" so anyone offering a commitment on a ongoing basis with any meaningful amount of interest is a scam just because if you do the basic exponent math using the rate offered, you can see the date where this operation will need to own all the coins that exist.  For Pirate, it was a little over 12 months. 

Obvious scams should be removed and taken serious.  This forum is at the epicenter of the Bitcoin movement, the position should not be just let scammer operate until they have stolen and tell people to do your diligence while people who have vested interests in seeing these scams work (ie: early investors) go on and try to discredit real skepticism that is warranted.

If we push back on having this stance, in a sense we are condoning it by letting it happen and having such weak rules on it.

[dank]

It's like having more police because some people got robbed.  The only way to prevent scams is to make people realize nothing good comes out of it, with the force of karma at role.  Would you steal from somebody if you knew karma would have the last say?

The only way would be to raise the awareness of those tempted by greed, to reach the realization that acting out of your ego only causes more pain, even if it alludes you to thinking you're helping yourself.

[ElectricMucus]

If only scammers were generally as unsuccessful in their scheming as dank here there wouldn't be a need for this tread.