Why I should get a scammer tag.

[Twilight Sparkle]

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. [/quote]

in the wild west people stole horses.  one time a horse was stolen from the gang who stole them in turn from a train,

when the gang went to deliver the horses they had no horses to sell to the townspeople

to whom did the townspeople turn?

[stochastic]

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

Sorry, but I think if nefario really did steal GLBSE then you guys would have voted to remove him as CEO and posted the transcripts of doing so.  If he is still CEO, then he the BitcoinGlobal partners are still allowing him to make the operational decisions, which includes shutting it down and accepting this claims process.

I agree, It seems Theymos was outvoted and thus called being outvoted a scam (so much for democracy and by-laws). Seems he lost the election and to get revenge gave Nefario the tag.

Theymos now claims he has no responsibility for this (in his mind, but might have admitted to legal responsibility in the real world).

Since Nefario is supported by the by-laws and the other stock holders how again did he scam again? Seems so silly and this whole thing was rushed...

Anyway I hope this gets resolved and the scammer tag process becomes clear or is just abandoned. Seems like right now its a tool for abuse (to protect Theymos' interests. I know this personally cuz Maged made threats claiming I would get a scammers tag if I did not do something he wanted me to do (related to GLBSE).. such corruption...

It is time for a radical correction one way or the other.

The Bitcoin Forum is a website meant to host free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics. It is operated as a service to the community, and all profit is reinvested into the forum. It was started in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto, the original creator of Bitcoin. It is now managed by Malmi Martti (Sirius), Stefan Thomas (justmoon), and Michael Marquardt (theymos). Donated funds are managed by theymos.

I think people should think twice about donating funds to be managed by someone that refuses to take responsibility.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

Sorry, but I think if nefario really did steal GLBSE then you guys would have voted to remove him as CEO and posted the transcripts of doing so.  If he is still CEO, then he the BitcoinGlobal partners are still allowing him to make the operational decisions, which includes shutting it down and accepting this claims process.

I voted to remove him and the transcripts haven't been released yet.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

So, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to give the other owners a scammer tag. Actually, I still don't think Nefario should have gotten it, since he was likely the victim of a threat, but that's yet another topic.

[JoelKatz]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

Until and unless someone authorize to represent GLBSE actually makes this argument on behalf of GLBSE, I wouldn't credit it.

So, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to give the other owners a scammer tag. Actually, I still don't think Nefario should have gotten it, since he was likely the victim of a threat, but that's yet another topic.

If so, he has to say so.

You can't prospectively refute every argument that might be made. You just have to make a case and then the other side has to choose what defense it's going to take. Otherwise, you wind up with an infinite burden of proof. Even if there's a good explanation, the people who are presently losing money deserve to hear that explanation from the people they trusted.

Scammer tags are provisional. They can be removed if new evidence appears. If someone doesn't pay you money they owe you and posts no explanation, we can give them a scammer tag even though they might have gotten hit by a bus. If we find out two weeks later they got hit by a bus and they make payments as soon as they can, we can remove the scammer tag and apologize. Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

Until and unless someone authorize to represent GLBSE actually makes this argument on behalf of GLBSE, I wouldn't credit it.

Didn't theymos made this argument in the OP of his topic asking for the tag to be applied to Nefario? Wasn't such disrespect of GLBSE rules the reason for BadBear to tag him?
IIRC that's what happened.
EDIT, here it is:

Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal's purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.

Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

Okay, whatever. I'd just give the guy a little more time.

[stochastic]

bitcoin.me aka noagendamarket or theymos don't seem to be in control of the funds of GLBSE users - those guys do NOT deserve a scammer tag.

It's nefarios responsibility to return the funds  and the shares to the users of GLBSE. He clearly controls the domain name glbse.com.

Innocent until proven guilty!

Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

If that's the case those "scammer tags" should be renamed.

A person can now open a 'company' and name a sockpuppet as CEO.  Then when user funds get large blame the CEO for running off with the money.  In the bitcoin world, when times get tough no one needs to blame Chinese relic dealers for stealing the funds.  Just claim he is the CEO now.

[stochastic]

A person can now open a 'company' and name a sockpuppet as CEO.  

Nefario is not a sockpuppet, he's real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmPD_YSQ--k

Then when user funds get large blame the CEO for running off with the money.  In the bitcoin world, when times get tough no one needs to blame Chinese relic dealers for stealing the funds.  Just claim he is the CEO now.

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers. Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

pirateat40, Bitcoinica, and Matthew's bet were not general partnerships.  BitcoinGlobal is a partnership and partnerships do not have limited liability.  It is not a difficult concept for people to grasp.  This is why governments have created business structures like limited liability companies and corporations so that these businesses can get lots of partners but the partners don't have to be vigilant about the management of the company.

Go into the real world and start a partnership with someone.  It could be anything: a car wash, a grocery store, or home building.  Then watch someone get hurt in your business because one of your employees forgot to put up a "Caution: Wet Floor Sign".  Tell me then if none of the partners of that business will not be held personally liable for the pain and suffering of that customer.

This is why I always advise people not to form partnerships.  If someone asks if they want me to invest/work in a company but is unwilling to only give me profit sharing instead of ownership, I say no.  This is because if that partner screws up in any way, then I will be liable for their actions because I formed a partnership with them.

If people want to have no government registration of their business, that is fine, but that person cannot cry if they don't get limited liability because that is only available if they registered a limited liability company or corporation to get government protection.  Otherwise, they have unlimited liability and someone may be able to take your house, your car, or your special collection Night of the Living Dead book.

I see no contract between nefario and the rest of the BitcoinGlobal partners that Nefario will be responsible for all debts and obligations of BitcoinGlobal and its subsidiaries.  Thus, without any proof, each BitcoinGlobal member has unlimited liability for GLBSE debts and obligations.

The ignorance on these forums is amazing.  It is like arguing with Creationists.

[LoupGaroux]

^^ That's a basic set of truths right there. Partnerships exist so that all of the partnered parties can enjoy the benefits of ownership of the venture. With this comes joint and several responsibility for all of the liabilities of the partnership as well. If I start a partnership with stochastic and we rent a building to conduct our business out of, I do not have the ability to say "this month I'm not liable for the rent because sto is in charge", we are both liable for the rent because it is the partnership itself that has created the obligation.

Same is true if parties in a partnership obligate themselves in the name of the partnership- if my business with stochastic involves negotiating a contract or deal with somebody else, he is just as tied to my decisions as I am to his. If I make a bad choice and promise to pay $500 for a load of supplies, our supplier will be right to demand payment from both of us until that $500 obligation is paid in full.

There are forms where investors/partners/beneficial parties can participate in a venture and not be exposed to full liability. GLBSE was not formed as one of those, and to best of the limited knowledge, has at no time reorganized to become such. There is no acceptable argument that theymos et al are as fully responsible for ALL obligations and liabilities of GLBSE and BitcoinGlobal as nefario and his "supporters" are. And for the record those liabilities include inept management which has hurt investor value, and losses through gross mismanagement of the venture. Jut because they want to point a finger and tell us the other guy messed up the situation, they are all responsible to the investors they are continuing to damage with this situation, and they will lose when this matter comes before judgement.

[JoelKatz]

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a moral argument or a legal argument. As a moral argument, it clearly fails. If shareholders, employees or customers did bad things that contributed to the failure, they are responsible for those actions. As a legal argument, it also fails. If the company is a legal person with limited liability, the company itself is responsible. If the company is not a legal person with limited liability, then all of its principals are fully responsible for the actions of their agents when their agents are acting within the scope of their agency.

Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

The scammer tag is based on moral responsibility. So it would hinge on what actions they took that harmed others. Those who invested in Matthew's bet didn't hurt others and couldn't have done anything to prevent it, so no. As far as those who invested in Bitcoinica and pirateat40, it would depend on their culpability. There aren't simple and obvious answers everyone will agree on. Moral culpability is a slippery question.

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

The community can act without details if it has no choice. Scammer tags are always provisional and if people don't cooperate, we have no choice but to do the best we can. If someone makes a scam accusation against someone other than Nefario in connection with the GLBSE shutdown, that case should be evaluated based on the strength of the evidence it can present. There is no "GLSE's all Nefario's fault" get out of jail free card for everyone else. They are responsible, legally and morally, for their own actions.

[CharlesPonzi]

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a moral argument or a legal argument. As a moral argument, it clearly fails. If shareholders, employees or customers did bad things that contributed to the failure, they are responsible for those actions. As a legal argument, it also fails. If the company is a legal person with limited liability, the company itself is responsible. If the company is not a legal person with limited liability, then all of its principals are fully responsible for the actions of their agents when their agents are acting within the scope of their agency.

Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

The scammer tag is based on moral responsibility. So it would hinge on what actions they took that harmed others. Those who invested in Matthew's bet didn't hurt others and couldn't have done anything to prevent it, so no. As far as those who invested in Bitcoinica and pirateat40, it would depend on their culpability. There aren't simple and obvious answers everyone will agree on. Moral culpability is a slippery question.

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

The community can act without details if it has no choice. Scammer tags are always provisional and if people don't cooperate, we have no choice but to do the best we can. If someone makes a scam accusation against someone other than Nefario in connection with the GLBSE shutdown, that case should be evaluated based on the strength of the evidence it can present. There is no "GLSE's all Nefario's fault" get out of jail free card for everyone else. They are responsible, legally and morally, for their own actions.

How do the other shareholders exit the situation ? If nefario ends up failing to return the coins shouldnt the people who failed to vote to remove him hold a higher culpability ?

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

[JoelKatz]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

If nefario ends up failing to return the coins shouldnt the people who failed to vote to remove him hold a higher culpability ?

Morally, probably so. Legally, there is no higher culpability level than joint and several liability for all harms. (Other than criminal culpability, and I don't think it's likely that could hinge on how you voted.)

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

[repentance]

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

They had the option of filing an emergency legal action to have all user funds placed in trust until an orderly repayment process is in place.  It's pretty obvious that the partnership itself is now irreparable, and in fact Nefario appears to have stated an intention to dissolve it.  Under those circumstances, the partners are entitled to a distribution of whatever funds are left over once everything has been paid.

Partnerships dissolve all the time.  The onus is on those wanting to dissolve the partnership as soon as possible to seek legal advice regarding the best way to go about it in this situation.

[Twilight Sparkle]

in the wild west people stole horses.  one time a horse was stolen from the gang who stole them in turn from a train,

when the gang went to deliver the horses they had no horses to sell to the townspeople

to whom did the townspeople turn?

[deeplink]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

This is what I tried to say in my post in this thread earlier.

We need to hear from Theymos and see by his actions that he accepts his responsibility.

If not, I do not want to bear a Donator tag on this forum any longer, like I also said before, and ask Theymos to remove it.

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Joel, you of all people have credit card debt? I just didn't take you for that kind of person ;-)

[stochastic]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

This is what I tried to say in my post in this thread earlier.

We need to hear from Theymos and see by his actions that he accepts his responsibility.

If not, I do not want to bear a Donator tag on this forum any longer, like I also said before, and ask Theymos to remove it.

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Joel, you of all people have credit card debt? I just didn't take you for that kind of person ;-)

I am surprised more people don't ask for his resignation.  Even if Nefario pays out 100% of the claims it is still distressing that the site administrator does not know these basic concepts about business partnerships and responsibility.  It perpetrates others in this community to also not take responsibility for their actions or investments.  I would like to see a statement by theymos and other BitcoinGlobal partners accepting responsibility for GLBSE claims in the event that Nefario does not complete the claims process in a timely manner.  A statement after Nefario completes the claim process will be too late.

[LoupGaroux]

Apparently there is a set of owners who support nefario enough to block his removal, indicating he has the support of at least 51% of the partnership shares. It is more than distressing, it is downright disturbing that those who sit in positions of authority in this community, and who pass judgement on the business activities of others (viz who is a scammer, who is to be banned for dishonest business practices etc.) do not exhibit the tiniest bit of understanding of a very significant responsibility they attached themselves to in their partnership.

Given the prevailing "I started a club, now let's go be millionaires" mentality of this community, frankly I am not surprised that they don't know the first thing about how to run a business, other than to use what authority they have to promote themselves and punish their enemies, but it is chilling that there is so much authority vested in persons who have not the slightest clue what they are doing. Or, perhaps, are so involved with defending their ranking positions in the scams offered up as businesses, they don't dare let on for a moment that they know what they are doing.