Stop Neg-Tagging For Ponzi In a PAID Signature.

[Heutenamos]

I don't this think this is going to change anything but i think it should be discussed once more considering the increasing number of ponzi signature campaigns and their fucking high rates.

more than 95% people on forums are to make some extra bucks a month and spend some time with like minded fellows (Entertainment ,Fun etc..)
(But this fuck has become so political and discussing here is off-topic anyways)

Answers..

[mexxer-2]

Since many people seem to bring up this argument: If its an illegal thing then why is there a ponzi section here in the forum?
Admin's(BB) stand on the matter

This is, first and foremost, a discussion forum. Banning someone for breaking a law/contract/agreement is unnecessary, especially when we have the feedback system. People are capable of making up their own minds on who to trade with as long as they have all the information. Breaking a law doesn't mean you don't have anything to contribute.

All that aside, nobody wants to take the amount of time it would take to personally verify every instance of scamming beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you have hours to kill every day, for nothing in return besides a "Thanks!" or "Fuck you!". Or just let people decide for themselves?

^[1]
For the people who seem to question this(most likely for their personal gains, i.e getting away with advertising a ponzi , while earning a few bucks and not getting a neg for it) .
The staff do not get involved with deciding whether some service is a scam or not, its the community that has to decide that using the feedback system.
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025091.msg11094395#msg11094395

Edit: And just because a certain service is filling a board doesn't mean the board is solely dedicated to it, it would like saying because most of the services in Service ANN. are Exchanges, its a exchange board.
Along with that , some people do seem to like ponzis no matter the risk, the neg only serves as a "reminder" that the person is advertising something that will not be fulfilled, whether you decide to agree with it and no invest or ignore it(while knowing the risks) and invest, depends on you

[Heutenamos]

---snip---

Lmao...then the community is not happy with your post. 75% towards YES,Let the People decide.

[mexxer-2]

---snip---

Lmao...then the community is not happy with your post. 75% towards YES.

You do realize its the sig spammers, trying to make a dollar or two supporting the poll and that its "common sense" that will most likely have many alts? As for the votes, its less than 10 people voting, most likely due to the argument going on in the 12coins thread, who want to get back to the "good old rates".
And as for the poll: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183602.0

Edit: Until they come up with any valid reasoning, their votes should be disregarded.

[Heutenamos]

Along with that , some people do seem to like ponzis no matter the risk,

I dont see any reason to care bout that ,you got any ?

the neg only serves as a "reminder" that the person is advertising something that will not be fulfilled, whether you decide to agree with it and no invest or ignore it(while knowing the risks) and invest, depends on you

True ,this is what i want to speak bout.If the person is carrying the signature then it's fine to tag him but as he removes it then what impact does his payment has over your mindset ?

Neutral is what i am speaking for.

Edit: Until they come up with any valid reasoning, their votes should be disregarded.

I know.

EDIT: Good to know trolls are playing with the Poll.

[mexxer-2]

Along with that , some people do seem to like ponzis no matter the risk,

I dont see any reason to care bout that ,you got any ?

"Freedom of speech" seems quite the rage here, admins' decision to keep the board was likely based on that

the neg only serves as a "reminder" that the person is advertising something that will not be fulfilled, whether you decide to agree with it and no invest or ignore it(while knowing the risks) and invest, depends on you

True ,this is what i want to speak bout.If the person is carrying the signature then it's fine to tag him but as he removes it then what impact does his payment has over your mindset ?

I will not be removing the negative once he ignores all the warnings and stays for at least a week, then the rating wil be permanent, although edited slightly to inform anyone that he can swoop so low, and may engage in such behavior in the future. I don't know whether other will agree with me on this.

Neutral is what i am speaking for.

Lets be honest here for a minute, do you go to someone's trust page just because he has a paid signature? The neg stays as a clear warning about the person's behavior/morality

[foxbitcoin]

Lets be honest here for a minute, do you go to someone's trust page just because he has a paid signature? The neg stays as a clear warning about the person's behavior/morality

In most cases they could be tagged as neutral or negative. You could check the 12dailycoin campaign thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322129.20, actually higher level members wouldn't risk their repution to join it. Beaides that, it is not recognized as proper sign campaign, without an escrow.

[Panthers52]

The question to give negative trust to those who are participating in a signature campaign of a ponzi is a very complex one.

On one hand, these people are advertising what is most likely going to turn out to be a scam. In other words they are advertising what is most likely a scam.

On the other hand, (AFAIK), most of the ponzis have not yet scammed as of when they are running their signature campaigns, so they would not be officially be advertising a scam. There are also a lot of other companies that run signature campaigns that are also very sketch (to say the least).

A number of people who are very trusted today even ran Pirate-pass-throughs that most likely did more damage then anyone participating in a signature campaign today would do.

While I would not personally advertise a ponzi myself, I don't think those that do should receive negative trust. I would not consider someone who knowingly advertised a ponzi to be a especially trustworthy, although I would not go as far to consider them to be a scammer either.

You can make a similar statement about those who promote a ponzi by reporting they have received payment. If someone makes the ill-advised decision to invest, say 0.01BTC and they happen to receive 0.02BTC a week later, I don't see anything wrong with them reporting their experience, and to an extent this will prevent a ponzi who has scammed from being able to continue to steal money because of both the lack of recent positive reports and because of the negative reports.

With the above being said, if someone is what appears to be "shilling" for a ponzi, then the fact that they are also advertising such ponzi in their signature should be taken into consideration when deciding to leave them negative trust. I believe that someone who claims that a particular ponzi will be able to sustain 150% returns forever, is someone who is making outright false statements and is untrustworthy.  

Kind Regards
Panthers52

[mexxer-2]

-snip-

Geez QS, changing sides with an awesome argument , every account. I still wonder how your alts get figured(most of the times I guess they don't)
Edit: What would you say to your own argument here:

You are promoting what is pretty clearly a ponzi that is being deceptive about how they make their money. Not only that but you still have the signature up that caused you to receive negative trust.

If you are really concerned about your reputation, then I would suggest that you stop promoting what is clearly a scam

?

[Heutenamos]

I will not be removing the negative once he ignores all the warnings and stays for at least a week, then the rating wil be permanent, although edited slightly to inform anyone that he can swoop so low, and may engage in such behavior in the future. I don't know whether other will agree with me on this.

It hardly matters ,what you think is low might be the highest for someone somewhere,Perception.I know promoting something which (have not been proven to be a scam) might scam in future is weird and i would never do that but not because someone out of 7.6 billion population is gonna tag me a rating but because it has no benefit and is reflecting/encouraging the failure of the owner/admin who couldn't come up with some good projects or other Scams like PD & JD with the house edge and 100% chance to lose in the end.

But But when i am offered to do so with some really attractive pay or something closer to thousand dolla particularly in my free time then i might consider it cause the reason is the 3rd answer in the poll,everything is influencing and it depends on the person seeing/experiencing,
like they say 'True beauty lies in the eyes of a seeker'.

Neutral is what i am speaking for.

Lets be honest here for a minute, do you go to someone's trust page just because he has a paid signature? The neg stays as a clear warning about the person's behavior/morality

To be honest ,I don't see anybody's trust page but their posts, specifically in meta' and predict them to an extent.I have used escrows with people having 170 foot Green Tree (like master-p) under their avatar.Give me one reason to believe ,because it's green...lmao
what is the point in trusting close-minded power trips ? who cannot come up with some logical reasoning for their opinion or take a stand for their identity,just Copy-Paste.

With the time i have spent exploring ,working with different types of communities ,religions and people i don't think i would judge anyone with a single instance or something i can only see and don't know the reason.I wouldn't end up giving anyone a rating even if i spend my whole life on forums,it's so so childish unless i trade and is a complete different story.

Every man is the master of their own life and the creator of their own future,you cannot learn everything in your mother's closet like you cant see the world in her womb.

However, tagging someone when they are wearing the sig' is ok but judging on it and keeping the feedback's is judgmental behavior at insanity.

I don't think those that do should receive negative trust. I would not consider someone who knowingly advertised a ponzi to be a especially trustworthy, although I would not go as far to consider them to be a scammer either.

This is what,it takes a lifetime to know someone and to predict them clearly.A guy is a scammer and should not be trusted because he did one thing that you think is low is one terrible mindset.

[mexxer-2]

-snip-

tl;dr you seem to forget that trust system is a "opinion-based"system, while some action may be untrustworthy but acceptable for you, it may be neg worthy for someone else. You can either follow the rating given or either exclude that person from your trust list so that you don't have to see feedbacks given by them or do see them but ignore them.
I too don't consider some people's feedbacks not valid, hence have them excluded, I'd advise you to do the same.

[DaddyMonsi]

I would rather warn them first that they are promoting a ponzi and if they continue to promote the site by not removing the signature then they deserve to get a negative. It's telling everyone "here's an illegal drug, it's fine take it as long as I get paid..."

[Heutenamos]

-snip-

you seem to forget that trust system is a "opinion-based"system, while some action may be untrustworthy but acceptable for you, it may be neg worthy for someone else. You can either follow the rating given or either exclude that person from your trust list so that you don't have to see feedbacks given by them or do see them but ignore them.
I too don't consider some people's feedbacks not valid, hence have them excluded, I'd advise you to do the same.

I don't give them the attention or value so that i have to go to the trust page and modify it for their sake.I expect a change and i believe in it.

tl;dr

I wonder why people even post in the thread if they cannot/don't read anything.I hope you answer the future questions with complete knowledge of the posts and the points being discussed in the thread & not like the one i have quoted.

"here's an illegal drug, it's fine take it as long as I get paid..."

Who defines illegal and who cannot ? The whole point in this discussion is rating's from default which can result in people being unable to participate in sig' campaigns.
Let me make one thing clear to you ,more than 99% of the users don't care about the TRUST if the campaigns remove the neg rating rule.It means that the trust is given all this attention because of signatures and nothing else.The traffic is happy or is not affected with it because the rating of some mongoose on his profile couldn't stop him from participating and earning.You get the point.

[shorena]

Disclaimer I didnt read most of the thread, but the amount of "fuck you" and the lack of even a single "thank you" I get makes me wonder if I shouldnt stop with this.

Do you have hours to kill every day, for nothing in return besides a "Thanks!" or "Fuck you!". Or just let people decide for themselves?

Dont tag ponzis anymore, find out for yourself.
Dont help in scam accusation, get the shit sorted yourself.
Dont PM me with your bullshit anymore, get the shit sorted yourself.

You wana be grown up? Fine with me, but dont you dare asking me for help. I have had enough of this whining and drama.

[mexxer-2]

-snip-

you seem to forget that trust system is a "opinion-based"system, while some action may be untrustworthy but acceptable for you, it may be neg worthy for someone else. You can either follow the rating given or either exclude that person from your trust list so that you don't have to see feedbacks given by them or do see them but ignore them.
I too don't consider some people's feedbacks not valid, hence have them excluded, I'd advise you to do the same.

I don't give them the attention or value so that i have to go to the trust page and modify it for their sake.I expect a change and i believe in it.

You are giving "them" the attention by creating the thread in the first place, wouldn't it be easier to exclude me,Lutpin, Shorena, EcuaMobi and Sheild instead of making a lengthy discussion.

tl;dr

I wonder why people even post in the thread if they cannot/don't read anything.I hope you answer the future questions with complete knowledge of the posts and the points being discussed in the thread & not like the one i have quoted.

tl;dr as in "Your point in a shorter text"(yes I know it means "too long didn't read")

Anyway, you seem to repeat the same thing, as am I. I'll let other members come up with arguments.

Finally repeating once again, promoting a scam site is a neg worthy behavior in itself, be it shilling or paid promoting(shilling), if its not scam worthy in your eyes, either give them a positive as a border negative or exclude the person who has given the feedback as it seems you clearly don't trust that person's judgement.

[Heutenamos]

lack of even a single "thank you" I get

I have experiences and proofs that i have always thanked people.I am happy to make them public if anyone questions and you are comfortable.

You are giving "them" the attention by creating the thread in the first place, wouldn't it be easier to exclude me,Lutpin, Shorena, EcuaMobi and Sheild instead of making a lengthy discussion.

On the first place i am not giving attention cause this is necessary and should be discussed.You are not reading the whole post "I expect a change and i believe in it."

tl;dr as in "Your point in a shorter text"(yes I know it means "too long didn't read")

was not my point.You are misleading.

[kotwica666]

Illegal or legal?

In some countries gambling, marijuana are illegal in other are legal.

Banks operations - Iceland illegal, USA - legal.

anyone get negative trust if will get signature with gambling, marijuana or bank sign.. don't think so.

If Administration of this forum let ponzis officially exist here, we have to accept that. If someone don't accept administration law is free to find better place for him.

[1Referee]

People here don't care whether one of their community members get scammed through the ponzi ad they are having in their signature spot. They just care about the earnings.

And those who don't join aren't any better. When you ask them what the reason is for not joining such a signature campaign. Answer. : I don't want to get negative trust. This once again shows no interest in the people that might potentially get scammed. They only care about themselfs.

Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.

[Heutenamos]

Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.

There is always something that you can do.If the campaign mangers agree to prohibit the proven scammers only and disregard the opinion based rating's (like luckyb.it signature campaign was) then it might solve most of the issues & complaint's bout abuse.

[kotwica666]

Then again, as long as the forum allows these ponzi scams to exist, there is not much you can do.

There is always something that you can do.If the campaign mangers agree to prohibit the proven scammers only and disregard the opinion based rating's (like luckyb.it signature campaign was) then it might solve most of the issues & complaint's bout abuse.

What mean proven scammers?

Oremine is working almost 99% like a Ponzi but signature campaign was very succefull and nobody get negative trust.

Who decides who is more evil and who is less evil? You?