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

[cjmoles]

Well, in the beginning the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency scene was considered a ponzi scam by many.  In fact, I still hear that from many today, even after it got some legitimacy behind it.  Putting an untrustworthy label on somebody because something they promote appears too good to be true, or what they promote is associated with other projects that were scams, would be wrong without providing a fair sample of proof.  When you think about it:  when we promote Bitcoin, we're doing so in light of Mt. GOX, the silk road, and every other scam that uses the blockchain; however, we aren't responsible for those accounts, so we shouldn't be labeled untrustworthy on account of them.  Right?

[1713836890]

1713836890

[1713836890]

1713836890

[Syke]

Well, in the beginning the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency scene was considered a ponzi scam by many.

Well, they were wrong. Bitcoin has never been a ponzi in any way.

[cjmoles]

Well, in the beginning the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency scene was considered a ponzi scam by many.

Well, they were wrong. Bitcoin has never been a ponzi in any way.

That's my point....People shouldn't get a negative trust for their signature in a signature campaign unless it is "proven" that they're culpable...otherwise, we'd all have negative trust based on popular opinion.

[Vod]

New question - should people who offer to sell pictures of their boobs for positive trust be given negative trust instead?  

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1193147.0

(Edited to provide google cache since the scammer deleted his/her post)

[shorena]

New question - should people who offer to sell pictures of their boobs for positive trust be given negative trust instead?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1193147

Cmon, dont derail the thread. Besides you should have made a backup of their thread, it was edited and there is just free pictures now.

-snip-
That's my point....People shouldn't get a negative trust for their signature in a signature campaign unless it is "proven" that they're culpable...otherwise, we'd all have negative trust based on popular opinion.

How do you suggest we prove that?

[Everybitbit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

[shorena]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

I wrote them a PM, judging by the boards they post in, they are aware. I think they should be given time to respond here though.

PS: https://archive.is/2muLo

[tmfp]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

Personally, I don't have too much problem with sigs like that, it's clearly marked HYIP which anyone with the slightest idea knows means Ponzi.
HYIP is just a name the industry made up.
The site Rob It Bot  (the clue's in the name) only makes a half hearted attempt to pretend they are anything but a last in loses Ponzi type scheme.
There has got to be some Caveat Emptor somewhere, anyone going into that would probably have their eyes open.

What I think should be negatived are schemes like the one in my homemade sig, which blatantly lie and pretend to be legitimate, forex dealing, arbitrage, cloudminers etc.
That's why the CloudThink signature campaign raised a lot of criticism of senior + members who signed up for it, it so obviously screamed scam while pretending to be legit, but they still queued up to take the money.
I personally think that established forum members have a duty to research what they advertise and if there is a major red flag, err on the side of caution and decide against helping pretty likely scammers (although not proven to legal standards maybe) with their deception.

[GannickusX]

Well, in the beginning the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency scene was considered a ponzi scam by many.  In fact, I still hear that from many today, even after it got some legitimacy behind it.  Putting an untrustworthy label on somebody because something they promote appears too good to be true, or what they promote is associated with other projects that were scams, would be wrong without providing a fair sample of proof.  When you think about it:  when we promote Bitcoin, we're doing so in light of Mt. GOX, the silk road, and every other scam that uses the blockchain; however, we aren't responsible for those accounts, so we shouldn't be labeled untrustworthy on account of them.  Right?

That makes no sense, yes people may have thought that bitcoin was a ponzi but these guys are promoting a ponzi, they are telling you it's a ponzi, there is nothing to prove since ponzies are scam, they are not a real strategy or business investment, they are a scam .

[Keyser Soze]

That's why the CloudThink signature campaign raised a lot of criticism of senior + members who signed up for it, it so obviously screamed scam while pretending to be legit, but they still queued up to take the money.
I personally think that established forum members have a duty to research what they advertise and if there is a major red flag, err on the side of caution and decide against helping pretty likely scammers (although not proven to legal standards maybe) with their deception.

I cannot agree more, people need to wake up and realize that promoting questionable businesses is a problem. Unfortunately people are easily swayed with relatively small amounts of money.

[Everybitbit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

Personally, I don't have too much problem with sigs like that, it's clearly marked HYIP which anyone with the slightest idea knows means Ponzi.
HYIP is just a name the industry made up.
The site Rob It Bot  (the clue's in the name) only makes a half hearted attempt to pretend they are anything but a last in loses Ponzi type scheme.
There has got to be some Caveat Emptor somewhere, anyone going into that would probably have their eyes open.

What I think should be negatived are schemes like the one in my homemade sig, which blatantly lie and pretend to be legitimate, forex dealing, arbitrage, cloudminers etc.
That's why the CloudThink signature campaign raised a lot of criticism of senior + members who signed up for it, it so obviously screamed scam while pretending to be legit, but they still queued up to take the money.
I personally think that established forum members have a duty to research what they advertise and if there is a major red flag, err on the side of caution and decide against helping pretty likely scammers (although not proven to legal standards maybe) with their deception.

hmm i dont have problem too 
anyhow this is topic for this discussion, so i just bring along the profile that promote ponzi in their signature,
some people here got negative feedback but some don't for promoting ponzi signature. just curious.. 

[coinhugger]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

I wrote them a PM, judging by the boards they post in, they are aware. I think they should be given time to respond here though.

PS: https://archive.is/2muLo

Hi Shorena, I noticed I was given negative trust by you because I had a ref link of an investor-based game (ponzi) in my signature. I wasn't sent a PM warning me first of the consequences though. If I had known it was frowned upon I would have gladly removed the link. I have now read this thread and I understand my error.

Is there any way to be forgiven of this mistake and for the trust level to be restored?



 

[shorena]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

I wrote them a PM, judging by the boards they post in, they are aware. I think they should be given time to respond here though.

PS: https://archive.is/2muLo

Hi Shorena, I noticed I was given negative trust by you because I had a ref link of an investor-based game (ponzi) in my signature. I wasn't sent a PM warning me first of the consequences though. If I had known it was frowned upon I would have gladly removed the link. I have now read this thread and I understand my error.

Is there any way to be forgiven of this mistake and for the trust level to be restored?

Yeah, sorry for that I did not send a PM to everyone at first. Seeing that you removed the signature I removed the rating as well.

[coinhugger]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, but still with neutral trust.

I wrote them a PM, judging by the boards they post in, they are aware. I think they should be given time to respond here though.

PS: https://archive.is/2muLo

Hi Shorena, I noticed I was given negative trust by you because I had a ref link of an investor-based game (ponzi) in my signature. I wasn't sent a PM warning me first of the consequences though. If I had known it was frowned upon I would have gladly removed the link. I have now read this thread and I understand my error.

Is there any way to be forgiven of this mistake and for the trust level to be restored?

Yeah, sorry for that I did not send a PM to everyone at first. Seeing that you removed the signature I removed the rating as well.

Thank you very much, @Shorena.

[cjmoles]

New question - should people who offer to sell pictures of their boobs for positive trust be given negative trust instead?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1193147

Cmon, dont derail the thread. Besides you should have made a backup of their thread, it was edited and there is just free pictures now.

-snip-
That's my point....People shouldn't get a negative trust for their signature in a signature campaign unless it is "proven" that they're culpable...otherwise, we'd all have negative trust based on popular opinion.

How do you suggest we prove that?

I suggest proving it with proof.  If one is convinced that a signature campaign is a ponzi scam, to justify punishing somebody who is not convinced, one should, at least, be able to provide support for their argument in the form of facts and not just opinion alone.

[leex1528]

I don't think people should get negative trust. I think this poll or question should be something like this:  If a ponzi operator claims it is a ponzi, and there is a chance you will not get your money back, will people still play.  I am fairly certain most of the people still playing realize its a ponzi and are hoping to get a double here or there. Why not just be honest and hope for the best.

[shorena]

New question - should people who offer to sell pictures of their boobs for positive trust be given negative trust instead?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1193147

Cmon, dont derail the thread. Besides you should have made a backup of their thread, it was edited and there is just free pictures now.

-snip-
That's my point....People shouldn't get a negative trust for their signature in a signature campaign unless it is "proven" that they're culpable...otherwise, we'd all have negative trust based on popular opinion.

How do you suggest we prove that?

I suggest proving it with proof.  If one is convinced that a signature campaign is a ponzi scam, to justify punishing somebody who is not convinced, one should, at least, be able to provide support for their argument in the form of facts and not just opinion alone.

So we tag ponzis after they ran with the money?

[winspiral]

So we tag ponzis after they ran with the money?

if you tag before you can kill innocent ones
If you tag after it is almost too late.

If you think putting all in the same hole and recover them for ever is the best solution then tag...
but please do not cry in the future if you are killing with innocent ones.
perhaps a day you will be in the same situation as me for an other fact.

For you if people do not think same than you they are on the bad side.
Why could people among themselves not play ponzi?
Ok about scammers...but you cannot know in advance if a ponzi runner is systematickly a scammer.
if you think that ponzi's and investment systems are against the rules on this forum,then propose to the rule changing and we are then with forul rules and not imaginative members rules.
if here each member imagine his own rules it is the end of this forum.
If all members here believing that you are wrong "tag" you...what would you say then?
Do you believe then that you are "over" the rules too?

[Lethn]

With this kind of attitude towards all of this you guys are getting dangerously getting close to the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality, I personally do my best to avoid sites that do dodgy shit and also avoid the ones that put silly restrictions on what I can and can't say about them. However, you can't prevent stupid people from pissing away their money on ponzi schemes. You can only really warn them, if you lot go into a scorched earth policy with this kind of thing you'll have a lot of angry newbies posting around and a lot less people will be willing to register here and it will make even me consider staying the fuck out.

[shorena]

So we tag ponzis after they ran with the money?

if you tag before you can kill innocent ones
If you tag after it is almost too late.

If you think putting all in the same hole and recover them for ever is the best solution then tag...
but please do not cry in the future if you are killing with innocent ones.
perhaps a day you will be in the same situation as me for an other fact.

For you if people do not think same than you they are on the bad side.

No, that is just your interpretation. You claim to be innocent without addressing any of the issues I presented you.

Why could people among themselves not play ponzi?

Why advertise outside of the ponzi section if you want to stay within? Notice how I dont tag anyone that stays in that section? Because I dont have a problem with ponzis in general, I have problem with people like you that present overly complicated systems and try to pitch them as safe investments.

Ok about scammers...but you cannot know in advance if a ponzi runner is systematickly a scammer.
if you think that ponzi's and investment systems are against the rules on this forum,then propose to the rule changing and we are then with forul rules and not imaginative members rules.

I dont think ponzis are against the rules, scams are neither. Trust is not about rules.

if here each member imagine his own rules it is the end of this forum.
If all members here believing that you are wrong "tag" you...what would you say then?

Depends on the wording of the rating. I have little problems with people leaving me negative ratings out of spite, its pretty obvious anyway.

Do you believe then that you are "over" the rules too?

No.

With this kind of attitude towards all of this you guys are getting dangerously getting close to the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality,

Yet we are no judges, we do not imprison anyone, we can just issue warnings. There is a big difference here in the power someone on DT actually has and the power a court has.

I personally do my best to avoid sites that do dodgy shit and also avoid the ones that put silly restrictions on what I can and can't say about them. However, you can't prevent stupid people from pissing away their money on ponzi schemes, you can only really warn them, if you lot go into a scorched earth policy with this kind of thing you'll have a lot of angry newbies posting around and a lot less people will be willing to register here and it will make even me consider staying the fuck out.

Its all I do, its all anyone on DT can do, nothing more.