DoubleBot Signature Campaign [ High Payments ]

[UnknownUsername]

why participants of this campaign get neg trust ?
if he out of this campaign, the neg trust will delete ?

The negative trust will be only removed if the signature campaigner didn't get paid and has leave the campaign but if he/she got a payment the neg trust won't be removed that is my understanding from shorena's post.

[1714634154]

1714634154

[1714634154]

1714634154

[1714634154]

1714634154

[1714634154]

1714634154

[1714634154]

1714634154

[larem]

To those participants that have received a negative rating from me.

I will remove the rating if you remove the signature and no payment was claimed.
I will rephrase the rating if you remove the signature but claimed payment.

In case you are not aware. You are promoting a ponzi which will eventually collapse. The rating serves as an additional warning.

I feel like this is a little unfair. Just because they are taking part in a paid signature campaign doesn't make them bad. That's like saying "every employee of Enron needs to go to prison because they should have known it was a scam."

[Samdo]

WELCOME TO 2ND WEEK SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN

Hello, after all payouts have been made for last week, the new week has started, check the spreadsheet in OP

[King tyga]

Name:   King tyga
Posts:   32
Activity:   28
Position:   Newbie
Bitcoin address: 1MYohtgRA1PP6UeoPinnKrCCJhiqGWLVfa

[Lutpin]

I feel like this is a little unfair. Just because they are taking part in a paid signature campaign doesn't make them bad. That's like saying "every employee of Enron needs to go to prison because they should have known it was a scam."

Let's see what their sig says:

Code:

200% Payout ★ 100% Payouts Guaranteed

That's obivously a lie, because the ponzi will collapse at one point.
If they run around with such bullshit in their signature, there is indeed reason enough to tag them with a negative feedback until they remove it.

[larem]

I feel like this is a little unfair. Just because they are taking part in a paid signature campaign doesn't make them bad. That's like saying "every employee of Enron needs to go to prison because they should have known it was a scam."

Let's see what their sig says:

Code:

200% Payout ★ 100% Payouts Guaranteed

That's obivously a lie, because the ponzi will collapse at one point.
If they run around with such bullshit in their signature, there is indeed reason enough to tag them with a negative feedback until they remove it.

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

[Lutpin]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

The people here are not "charged" for wearing that signature.
They are made aware of what they do via negative feedbacks.
Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

It's not that users in the campaign are sued or banned or something like that.

[Heutenamos]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

corrected something that was supposed to , you should not leave more than neutral to someone who is signaturing solely for the attrctive payouts ...
ignoring the logic is also some kind of misbehavior or not rightful.

[shorena]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

corrected something that was supposed to , you should not leave more than neutral to someone who is signaturing solely for the attrctive payouts ...
ignoring the logic is also some kind of misbehavior or not rightful.

A neutral rating is only helpful if someone checks the history. A negative rating is easier to spot and check.

[kori]

Username : kori
Current Post count : 188
Rank : full member
BTC address : 1ECLGujfWbisvS29Smzmmhwb77mhMPd6dw

[Samdo]

No new slots are available, sorry guys

[Heutenamos]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

corrected something that was supposed to , you should not leave more than neutral to someone who is signaturing solely for the attrctive payouts ...
ignoring the logic is also some kind of misbehavior or not rightful.

A neutral rating is only helpful if someone checks the history. A negative rating is easier to spot and check.

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

[shorena]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

corrected something that was supposed to , you should not leave more than neutral to someone who is signaturing solely for the attrctive payouts ...
ignoring the logic is also some kind of misbehavior or not rightful.

A neutral rating is only helpful if someone checks the history. A negative rating is easier to spot and check.

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

I have not updated this here, but yes I will change the rating to neutral once the signature is gone.

[Heutenamos]

They're just advertising. When MSN/AOL advertise a car as being top of its class in reliability, and then it has a recall due to reliability issues, do you think they should also be charged since they are making a false claim, leading people into buying something they shouldn't?

Shorena (and others) stated that those negs will be removed, if they remove the signature (and don't get paid for it).

corrected something that was supposed to , you should not leave more than neutral to someone who is signaturing solely for the attrctive payouts ...
ignoring the logic is also some kind of misbehavior or not rightful.

A neutral rating is only helpful if someone checks the history. A negative rating is easier to spot and check.

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

I have not updated this here, but yes I will change the rating to neutral once the signature is gone.

yup that would some wise and rightful decision from your side , or else the users would be pissed as hell for joining it .

[One Suck Gay]

Hello, I sent you a pm , please check

Kind regards

[EcuaMobi]

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

I have not updated this here, but yes I will change the rating to neutral once the signature is gone.

yup that would some wise and rightful decision from your side , or else the users would be pissed as hell for joining it .

I would have my doubts about this. This is a clear scam and users who wear this signature are doing so for money knowing that others will lose theirs. If they are willing to affect other people's money as long as they earn some themselves then I would think they won't have problems in the future being untrustworthy again. I would not trust someone who does that.

Besides warning newbies not to invest on this site now that negative trust would be a warning to deal with extreme caution with people willing to promote a scam site to earn some coin.
I will check the participants of this signature campaign and will add negative trust permanently unless they desist immediately before receiving their payment.

[Heutenamos]

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

I have not updated this here, but yes I will change the rating to neutral once the signature is gone.

yup that would some wise and rightful decision from your side , or else the users would be pissed as hell for joining it .

I would have my doubts about this. This is a clear scam and users who wear this signature are doing so for money knowing that others will lose theirs. If they are willing to affect other people's money as long as they earn some themselves then I would think they won't have problems in the future being untrustworthy again. I would not trust someone who does that.

Besides warning newbies not to invest on this site now that negative trust would be a warning to deal with extreme caution with people willing to promote a scam site to earn some coin.
I will check the participants of this signature campaign and will add negative trust permanently unless they desist immediately before receiving their payment.

I don't think anybody is stopping you to ? it was just our discussion and maybe we agreed cause are like minded

The above explanation in the thread is more then clear for anyone to understand what the situation and condition is,there are no higher rank's or quality posters involved and even if any accusations arise in near future then most likely they are gonna get ignored.

[larem]

yeah but i ain't speaking for the red but the thing is we all know it is only for the high payment and nothing to do with the scam and i cannot ignore that fact .

It's fine to make them Red for now but it shouldn't be visible forever , must be changed to neutral if the removed the sig regardless of the payment received cause if the user is not wearing any scamming sig then what are you warning newbies for ?

If they are getting punished just for the extra coins they tried to earn and had no intentions to scam then i wouldn't agree with that at least after seeing all the sig drama.

I have not updated this here, but yes I will change the rating to neutral once the signature is gone.

yup that would some wise and rightful decision from your side , or else the users would be pissed as hell for joining it .

I would have my doubts about this. This is a clear scam and users who wear this signature are doing so for money knowing that others will lose theirs. If they are willing to affect other people's money as long as they earn some themselves then I would think they won't have problems in the future being untrustworthy again. I would not trust someone who does that.

Besides warning newbies not to invest on this site now that negative trust would be a warning to deal with extreme caution with people willing to promote a scam site to earn some coin.
I will check the participants of this signature campaign and will add negative trust permanently unless they desist immediately before receiving their payment.

If people give money to an obvious scam, is that not their own fault? You're blaming the signature wearers (read: third-party, neutral advertisers) for what others choose to do. It's just crappy in and of itself. But to each his own, I guess.

[Samdo]

Username : kori
Current Post count : 188
Rank : full member
BTC address : 1ECLGujfWbisvS29Smzmmhwb77mhMPd6dw

Last member accepted and Ayoko has been removed from the campaign, as he demanded too high rates and when he agreed at lower, we had given Kori a place

Please note guys, the earlier u join the better rates u get, I will now lock this thread until friday as no new slots are available

[Samdo]

All participants are getting paid today and new contest coming up for christmas , all will be paid even those who didnt make enogh posts ( dont worry we will ask u to make more posts in christmas week )