Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?

[onemorexmr]

its like saying someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing is innocent

Technically, someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing IS innocent.  

You can't force morality on people.  You can't make people believe what you believe.

Some people on this planet only look out for themselves.

Witnessing a crime and not reporting is a in fact crime in most of Europe. I can't speak of the USA as I'm not even sure what the equivalent term in English since I'm a non-native speaker.

That is ridiculous.Who would come forward in court as eye witness if he would fear of being persecuted for witnessing the crime? One would rather keep mum than help in investigation

the point is to stop the crime from happening (in case of rape: stop the rapist asap). IMHO thats more important than the investigation afterwards.

AFAIK american law is much about revenge. german /european law is more about finding ways to not make such things happen again.

[1715026540]

1715026540

[1715026540]

1715026540

[1715026540]

1715026540

[worhiper_-_]

its like saying someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing is innocent

Technically, someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing IS innocent.  

You can't force morality on people.  You can't make people believe what you believe.

Some people on this planet only look out for themselves.

Witnessing a crime and not reporting is a in fact crime in most of Europe. I can't speak of the USA as I'm not even sure what the equivalent term in English since I'm a non-native speaker.

That is ridiculous.Who would come forward in court as eye witness if he would fear of being persecuted for witnessing the crime? One would rather keep mum than help in investigation

ahem

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=failing+to+report+crime&tbm=nws

[Patejl]

I don't know why but I feel as if the thread is getting a bit derailed.
I see many people voted no for negative trust but I still don't think I have seen a strong argument as to why.

[Hexcoin]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

[worhiper_-_]

I don't know why but I feel as if the thread is getting a bit derailed.
I see many people voted no for negative trust but I still don't think I have seen a strong argument as to why.

Well, I think that occasional negative ratings can be ok. If for example someone is trying to deceive people into thinking that a HYIP/PONZI/PYRAMID is an actual investment opportunity without disclosing risks then in my opinion he's doing something very controversial. Such schemes benefit early 'investors' which the advertiser is likely one of them, as well as providing heavy referral rewards. It's very likely that any successful promotion will lead to people losing money.

[Patejl]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

[winspiral]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friends would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust points you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventually be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

[Patejl]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friend would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust point you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventuammy be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion, and you giving me 1k+ negative wouldn't affect my trust rating.
What you can do is stop running a ponzi and make shorena reconsider his negative feedback.

[winspiral]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friend would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust point you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventuammy be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion, and you giving me 1k+ negative wouldn't affect my trust rating.
What you can do is stop running a ponzi and make shorena reconsider his negative feedback.

but it is NOT a SPONZI

[shorena]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friend would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust point you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventuammy be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion, and you giving me 1k+ negative wouldn't affect my trust rating.
What you can do is stop running a ponzi and make shorena reconsider his negative feedback.

but it is NOT a SPONZI

Yet, you are unable to explain to me how it is not. All you came up with - before you asked me to leave your thread - is that you get ad revenue. You still have not explained why you need investors for ad revenue and why you do not inform your possible investors in advance of your business.

I am open for arguments, but your sob story will not help you.

[Patejl]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friend would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust point you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventuammy be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion, and you giving me 1k+ negative wouldn't affect my trust rating.
What you can do is stop running a ponzi and make shorena reconsider his negative feedback.

but it is NOT a SPONZI

Yet, you are unable to explain to me how it is not. All you came up with - before you asked me to leave your thread - is that you get ad revenue. You still have not explained why you need investors for ad revenue and why you do not inform your possible investors in advance of your business.

I am open for arguments, but your sob story will not help you.

@winspiral- If you do want to "sob" about your negative trust try convincing shorena through PMs or make a thread in meta.

[GannickusX]

its like saying someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing is innocent

Technically, someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing IS innocent.  

You can't force morality on people.  You can't make people believe what you believe.

Some people on this planet only look out for themselves.

Witnessing a crime and not reporting is a in fact crime in most of Europe. I can't speak of the USA as I'm not even sure what the equivalent term in English since I'm a non-native speaker.

That is ridiculous.Who would come forward in court as eye witness if he would fear of being persecuted for witnessing the crime? One would rather keep mum than help in investigation

You guys are derailing the thread but you can always be an anonymous eye witness and yes moderators that do not remove those ponzi scams dont do it because they are told not to, it is not the same

[worhiper_-_]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friends would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust points you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventually be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Of course, ponzis and their advertisements aren't against the rules here or anything but leaving trust ratings freely is also not against the rules. If the single person in default trust that left you negative thinks advertising ponsis while not disclosing what they actually are is immoral they he's free to accuse you. While you probably didn't scam someone directly, the most responsible thing to do while advertising something would be to warn people that are potentially interested on what they could be getting into.

[winspiral]

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friends would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust points you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventually be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Of course, ponzis and their advertisements aren't against the rules here or anything but leaving trust ratings freely is also not against the rules. If the single person in default trust that left you negative thinks advertising ponsis while not disclosing what they actually are is immoral they he's free to accuse you. While you probably didn't scam someone directly, the most responsible thing to do while advertising something would be to warn people that are potentially interested on what they could be getting into.

For me it is clear:
I will time let prove that it's not a ponzi and that i'm not a scammer...
Anyway one cannot do something against...
I cannot prove that my system is not a ponzi
and i cannot prove that i will not be a scammer in the future.
Can someone prove that he will never be a scammer?
Basta...

[worhiper_-_]

If you can actually prove that this is not a ponzi (or scheme of similar likelihood) then I'm sure shorena would remove the rating and you'd stop being looked down upon. Time alone won't help a lot though, there have been scams running for a very long time.

[Xialla]

this is very hard to decide.

from one side, bitcoin is about freedom and this forum is almost without moderation (at least, compare to other forums on web), in other hand, one stupid link may literally ruin people lifes these days..

anyway yes, people promoting OBVIOUS ponzis should be marked red and not just by users..

[winspiral]

If you can actually prove that this is not a ponzi (or scheme of similar likelihood) then I'm sure shorena would remove the rating and you'd stop being looked down upon. Time alone won't help a lot though, there have been scams running for a very long time.

I tried...but shorena does not understand my English.
I wish only one thing..;that such thing does not happen to other forum members.
My purpose is programming systems,making money and dispatching it to my members...without risk.
if someone does see in this a ponzi sheme i cannot avoid it.
In my eyes with a ponsi sheme you have ever a loser...
Explain me how a system without losers can be a ponzi?
if asking satoshi means ponzi...then all no free systems are ponzi.
All sites are then certainly ponzi if you send satoshi somewhere because the recerver can not send you something for your satoshi.

But it is clear...here anyone can note negative for anyone and the "negative noted" can just dry...(lol)

In France...if you write something in a newspaper about you...you have a "droit de réponse" (right of answer)
I think near to the vote and comment from shorena,I should have  the right and the place to answer...

[Patejl]

If you can actually prove that this is not a ponzi (or scheme of similar likelihood) then I'm sure shorena would remove the rating and you'd stop being looked down upon. Time alone won't help a lot though, there have been scams running for a very long time.

I tried...but shorena does not understand my English.
I wish only one thing..;that such thing does not happen to other forum members.
My purpose is programming systems,making money and dispatching it to my members...without risk.
if someone does see in this a ponzi sheme i cannot avoid it.
In my eyes with a ponsi sheme you have ever a loser...
Explain me how a system without losers can be a ponzi?
if asking satoshi means ponzi...then all no free systems are ponzi.
All sites are then certainly ponzi if you send satoshi somewhere because the recerver can not send you something for your satoshi.

But it is clear...here anyone can note negative for anyone and the "negative noted" can just dry...(lol)

In France...if you write something in a newspaper about you...you have a "droit de réponse" (right of answer)
I think near to the vote and comment from shorena,I should have  the right and the place to answer...

Okay I get that but why do you need investors money for it then? And how can you promise back an interest along with it as well?

[winspiral]

Okay I get that but why do you need investors money for it then? And how can you promise back an interest along with it as well?

it is the two points who are not understood by my detractors...
i have explained it already 5 times:
the investment is JUST to fix the prorata of dividends.
I promise an interest but I do not promise a "amount of interest" for exemple 1% or 10% etc...
The only thing I promise is that the principal is given back in less then 100 days.
About the dividends nothing is promised...exept that what you see on your account will be given with the last payout.

So long people does not understand this...they believe that it is a ponzi.
But if one understand the principle...the one understand that it has absolutly nothing to do with a ponsi sheme.

[shorena]

If you can actually prove that this is not a ponzi (or scheme of similar likelihood) then I'm sure shorena would remove the rating and you'd stop being looked down upon. Time alone won't help a lot though, there have been scams running for a very long time.

I tried...but shorena does not understand my English.
-snip-

If you can explain it to anyone else and they can explain it to me that works as well. Again you claim 20 years of experience in this section, I would expect an expert like you to be able to break it down a bit from the technical terms.

-snip-
In France...if you write something in a newspaper about you...you have a "droit de réponse" (right of answer)
I think near to the vote and comment from shorena,I should have  the right and the place to answer...

I was under the impression that this was done when you answered me in your thread. You have stated your view on things, I have stated mine. You answered 1 out of 3 questions I have and asked me to leave your thread. I did and asked that you let me know when you are willing to answer my questions in simple terms. I dont think thats unreasonable. I have yet to received a PM. Instead you are now here, borderline derailing the thread.

To make sure we are on the same page here are the questions again:

-snip-
#1 how you make profit (you say from ads)
#2 how it is tied to the investors (if its from ads, why do you need their money?)
#3 why you explain nothing in that regard on your site?

Edit:

One more if you dont mind. You created your thread in the HYIP/Ponzi section. By your returns we can hardly talk about a HYIP. Why didnt you open a thread in the security section? Which would be the appropriate section for a non ponzi with reasonable returns.