Stopping gift card money laundering

[Heutenamos]

What you are saying is, when someone is "raping a bitch" you stand aside and do nothing, because you do not force anyone. That does not make you neutral, it makes you inhumane.

Not true.Yes, I agree i don't go around forum's 24x7 searching who is scamming and who is losing but ,but whenever i notice something shady then I definitely make sure that i PM any of the active DT guy,with proper evidence so that no one loses their money.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.[1]

That makes me a Rough or not very King guy.This now gets complicated because the third party has to face the retaliation from the criminal or accuser.
In simple words I will be helping or taking risks for them until the problem or revenge of their's(victim and accused) is significantly bigger than what is between the third party(me) and them.

so let them make their own mistakes.

Exactly.You cannot help or explain everything to everyone and every single time.

[1714759880]

1714759880

[1714759880]

1714759880

[1714759880]

1714759880

[1714759880]

1714759880

[shorena]

What you are saying is, when someone is "raping a bitch" you stand aside and do nothing, because you do not force anyone. That does not make you neutral, it makes you inhumane.

Not true.Yes, I agree i don't go around forum's 24x7 searching who is scamming and who is losing but ,but whenever i notice something shady then I definitely make sure that i PM any of the active DT guy,with proper evidence so that no one loses their money.

Well the metaphor was bad anyway. They do go around, is that in itself bad? Your critique seems to be the lack of evidence. Why is it a problem here, but not when ponzis are tagged? There is lack of evidence as well. Why are the two a problem, but I am not?

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.[1]

That makes me a Rough or not very King guy.

What?

This now gets complicated because the third party has to face the retaliation from the criminal or accuser.

Lutpin and mexxer-2 do get messages from scammers and they are not always nice. Why does that make things more complicated?

In simple words I will be helping or taking risks for them until the problem or revenge of their's(victim and accused) is significantly bigger than what is between the third party(me) and them.

so let them make their own mistakes.

Exactly.You cannot help or explain everything to everyone and every single time.

No, but why attack those that are still willing to try?

[ABitNut]

Also why dont you acknowledge the fact that acquiring giftcards and then selling in bulk at a loss is feasible

please explain how one can buy GCs in bulk so he gets awesome discounts like 80%

You dont have to buy them, skip back a few pages, and an 80% discount is probably not legit, in talking about people giving discounts in the  20-30% region

i know there are websites out there, and i think i posted it before, that enables reselling with that rates. i didnt check anonymous22 cards against public offers, but i know a few sellers that use that as their source.

so basicly your fighting for anonymous22 because this might be his source while we talking about hardcore discounts. so we talking in different directions. BUT if OgNasty confirms the source is fine, anons feedback will be removed. So the system works.

In that case are you going to leave a positive feedback? Since you've verified their source and are convinced they're actually honest and fair.

If you're going to work this system of "vetting" sellers, it should work both ways, right?

[Heutenamos]

Your critique seems to be the lack of evidence.

Yup,If i find any evidence i will try to stop the scammer but not just tagging and saying hey you motherfucker come and strip right now or else enjoy the rating.

Why is it a problem here, but not when ponzis are tagged? There is lack of evidence as well.

I i remember right then i have opened a thread for that some months ago ? also both are different stories.

Why are the two a problem, but I am not?

What do you mean ? Nobody is problem to me ,anyways.

Lutpin and mexxer-2 do get messages from scammers and they are not always nice.

Keep them aside.We are not discussing bout them or any individual.

Why does that make things more complicated?

I have seen people not getting any jobs for years cause one google search for their name leads to nude photos of their's or relatives.Its a lot more complicated when it gets serious.

but why attack those that are still willing to try?

If you people are going to say attack,target to every post of mine then what should i say so that you guys understand that i am speaking bout the problem and not to individual persons.

Shorena,I am not attacking or targeting anyone and there is no one who can or will forcefully remove your opinions from your own mind ,you are the master of your life but because the specialty of human's is communication and i thought we could actually discuss something but if this ends on IMO's then i am not interested,you win ,I lose.Thank You.

Like Mobi said "I strongly believe forcing untrustworthy users to stop being untrustworthy is right".So how many bitches should i force to not be a bitch? and if Mobi is going to save me from the law ? because the rape was for good cause and i should not be in a jail.

[shorena]

-snip-
Shorena,I am not attacking or targeting anyone and there is no one who can or will forcefully remove your opinions from your own mind ,you are the master of your life but because the specialty of human's is communication and i thought we could actually discuss something but if this ends on IMO's then i am not interested,you win ,I lose.Thank You.
-snip-

You also only have your opinion. If its opinions what are we even talking about?

I bring up mexxer-2 and lutpin here, because this discussion directly lead to the "save the trust system" thread where its asked to remove them from the system.

If someone does shady shit on the internet and later fails to get a job I have no problem with that.

Personally I find the arguments and faux-outrage of those of less-than-honest nature, when it comes to being marked as having a less-than-honest nature, utterly fallacious.

Just as much as nobody is here to stop them doing whatever they wish to do in their libertarian utopia, we are equally as entitled to objectively mark them as evidently having demonstrated a less-than-honest nature.

We're not stopping them, we're simply communicating to others the facts of their past behaviour.

It's called consequence, people.

[Heutenamos]

You also only have your opinion. If its opinions what are we even talking about?

OK, So to force someone is opinion ? nice knowledge then.I am learning a lot.

I bring up mexxer-2 and lutpin here, because this discussion directly lead to the "save the trust system" thread where its asked to remove them from the system.

I don't know what these kids are up to and in simple words THEY NEED TIME.

If someone does shady shit on the internet and later fails to get a job I have no problem with that.

No, their doxes were posted while they were trying to "force" the so called untrustworthy and not publicly available info but paid doxes.Like suchmos's.

[shorena]

You also only have your opinion. If its opinions what are we even talking about?

OK, So to force someone is opinion ? nice knowledge then.I am learning a lot.

How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards paid with stolen credit cards? DT does not have that power, its just a warning nothing more.

I bring up mexxer-2 and lutpin here, because this discussion directly lead to the "save the trust system" thread where its asked to remove them from the system.

I don't know what these kids are up to and in simple words THEY NEED TIME.

I dont know how old they are, but they will adapt.

If someone does shady shit on the internet and later fails to get a job I have no problem with that.

No, their doxes were posted while they were trying to "force" the so called untrustworthy and not publicly available info but paid doxes.Like suchmos's.

link?

[Heutenamos]

How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards

Tagging and trolling their thread and business unless they reveal you the method is not forcing ?

paid with stolen credit cards?

Evidence ?

link?

I am not going to make anything public but anyways some public info might of help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1334378.msg13621674#msg13621674

[whywefight]

How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards

Tagging and trolling their thread and business unless they reveal you the method is not forcing ?

paid with stolen credit cards?

Evidence ?

link?

I am not going to make anything public but anyways some public info might of help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1334378.msg13621674#msg13621674

The rating says "or belive..." so if i belive someone is a scammer whos job is it to proof my thoughts are wrong?

[Heutenamos]

whos job is it to proof my thoughts are wrong?

Your Own cause you are the accuser.

[shorena]

How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards

Tagging and trolling their thread and business unless they reveal you the method is not forcing ?

Did it stop the trades?

paid with stolen credit cards?

Evidence ?

Opinion is commonly used when evidence is absent. I think it was already established in this thread that its difficult to find the line between someone selling legit cards at a discount and someone not. Is it 50% discount or 48.7548%? Still a rating from DT is not a sentence to jail, its just a warning nothing more. It hardly stops anyone from selling what they sold before. See Vods crusade against MS keys. If anything it makes those wondering whether they should buy think. Which is the whole reason the ratings are left, to make the possible buyers think "can this be legit?".

link?

I am not going to make anything public but anyways some public info might of help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1334378.msg13621674#msg13621674

How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards.

[whywefight]

whos job is it to proof my thoughts are wrong?

Your Own cause you are the accuser.

nope. i dont have to proof what i think or belive. also again for you what the neg option states:

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

It doesnt say something about having evidence. In most of the cases we present one by leaving a correct reference. Just because i think someone is a scammer doesnt make him one, thats why most of the people -veing take their feedbacks back when proven wrong. I know it should be the other way around BUT no one dies, no one goes to jail because he has a feedback.

Lets do it the other way around and lets stick with GCs. What evidence would you like to see if we say: "Those GCs are not legit"?

[Heutenamos]

Did it stop the trades?

It will never but the Thinking to force them as far as you can just because "forcing for a good cause is Right" is what i am talking about.

How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards.

Those are the risks for a third party interference and i linked that because you said i am "inhumane".

nope. i dont have to proof what i think or belive.

Strange,cause i don't believe anything unless it has some sense in it and is mostly based on facts rather than my likes and fucking opinions.And if i do then i make sure that i am believing it because i like it but there is a high possibility that it could be wrong.

What evidence would you like to see if we say: "Those GCs are not legit"?

There is none and i am not going to observe how a user is treating his wife and tag them here on forum.Fuck it's their personal life and how they get them is impossible to know and is also not my job, because i could post a fully functional s7 in Auctions and sell it for half the price and it would be impossible to know if i stole that or actually bought that.

I check if the user is avoiding Escrow,insisting others to go first(If new account),convincing users to trade somewhere on skype etc..

[whywefight]

Did it stop the trades?

It will never but the Thinking to force them as far as you can just because "forcing for a good cause is Right" is what i am talking about.

How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards.

Those are the risks for a third party interference and i linked that because you said i am "inhumane".

nope. i dont have to proof what i think or belive.

Strange,cause i don't believe anything unless it has some sense in it and is mostly based on facts rather than my likes and fucking opinions.And if i do then i make sure that i am believing it because i like it but there is a high possibility that it could be wrong.

What evidence would you like to see if we say: "Those GCs are not legit"?

There is none and i am not going to observe how a user is treating his wife and tag them here on forum.Fuck it's their personal life and how they get them is impossible to know and is also not my job, because i could post a fully functional s7 in Auctions and sell it for half the price and it would be impossible to know if i stole that or actually bought that.

I check if the user is avoiding Escrow,insisting others to go first(If new account),convincing users to trade somewhere on skype etc..

So td;lr: you dont have a clue how it should be handled but you think everything what others do is wrong? If you dont care about it i am cool with but i care.

Ps: (sticking at your s7) it would be possible thats what emais are made for... i think your counter examples are somehow horrible...

[shorena]

Did it stop the trades?

It will never but the Thinking to force them as far as you can just because "forcing for a good cause is Right" is what i am talking about.

Im still not entirely sure how to handle the gift cards, but I dont like the idea of letting carders just be for a lack of evidence.

How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards.

Those are the risks for a third party interference and i linked that because you said i am "inhumane".

Because you brought up the rape example.

[Shield]

here is another seller
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378550.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=45380

[Heutenamos]

for a lack of evidence.

It means that whatever you do could be wrong,cause its based on ?

Because you brought up the rape example.

I don't have a problem with what you call me and i need 3 seconds to know why the guy is abusing and ignore it,but yes that doesn't makes me inhumane,it's complicated.

here is another seller
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378550.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=45380

I think that is also a hacked account ?

[MisterMiyagi]

So td;lr: you dont have a clue how it should be handled but you think everything what others do is wrong? If you dont care about it i am cool with but i care.

Ps: (sticking at your s7) it would be possible thats what emais are made for... i think your counter examples are somehow horrible...

Says a guy who is a account re seller at this forum.We are in short of logical individuals here .Selling a third party gift card which belongs outside of this forum validates for being a negative tagged crime but selling of the forum accounts which are main cause of even bigger scams are totally fine here. There is something wrong with the system.Not for long .Let's see what I have for you.

[whywefight]

So td;lr: you dont have a clue how it should be handled but you think everything what others do is wrong? If you dont care about it i am cool with but i care.

Ps: (sticking at your s7) it would be possible thats what emais are made for... i think your counter examples are somehow horrible...

Says a guy who is a account re seller at this forum.We are in short of logical individuals here .Selling a third party gift card which belongs outside of this forum validates for being a negative tagged crime but selling of the forum accounts which are main cause of even bigger scams are totally fine here. There is something wrong with the system.Not for long .Let's see what I have for you.

i am sad you dont know how lending works. maybe you should ask those who are more established than me and doing the same. uh oh, might be some of your friends as well... in addition it seems you can read but you have a lack of understaning how i handle acc sales, when and what my terms are. well let me make one step towards you so everyone can see i accept suggestions, not like you. i will eat the loss i made with defaulted loans and will get rid of only one more. after that, i am done. you want me to change it? you are welcome i will do so.

And again, my master, i didnt sell "accounts" i sold one account. it will be "accounts" with my final sale.

Thanks for bringing my wrong doings to my attention and make me think about it.

[Quickseller]

Opinion is commonly used when evidence is absent. I think it was already established in this thread that its difficult to find the line between someone selling legit cards at a discount and someone not. Is it 50% discount or 48.7548%?

Opinions should not be used when deciding to leave negative trust, as for the majority of people a single negative rating can essentially torpedo one's ability to conduct business around here. If you can't cite specific facts and if you cannot speak to why you left a negative rating then it is probably not a good idea to leave such negative rating in the first place.

See Vods crusade against MS keys. If anything it makes those wondering whether they should buy think. Which is the whole reason the ratings are left, to make the possible buyers think "can this be legit?".

I would argue Vod leaving negative ratings for MSDN key sellers will have the opposite effect. Potential MSDN key sellers know that all MSDN key sellers will have negative trust so they do not bother checking their trust profile and ignore their trust score. This has allowed multiple people to continue to scam even after having negative trust by selling MSDN keys that do not exist. There have been a number of scam accusations opened against people who received payment for MSDN keys and sent nothing in return and who previously had multiple trust reports saying they had scammed previously at the time payment was received. Normally, when someone starts a business they will initially have difficulty conducting business because they have no reputation, however as they have been in business longer, they will build up a reputation of trading honestly and if they want to maintain that reputation then they will need to not (try to) scam the people they do business with, however when everyone has negative trust ratings this is not possible.

Your critique seems to be the lack of evidence. Why is it a problem here, but not when ponzis are tagged? There is lack of evidence as well. Why are the two a problem, but I am not?

A ponzi is essentially a promise which is mathematically impossible to be kept. A ponzi is essentially a promise that if you give me $1 today, then I will give you $2 tomorrow with no limits as to how much total money I will accept. If I claim to somehow use this $1 and "invest" it for a day that somehow gives me >$1 in returns in that one day, then it is your responsibility to ask questions to debunk my claims if you wish to leave me a negative rating. Take these two threads for example (one, two), they were claiming to "invest" in altcoins/ect. so they were initially given the benefit of the doubt, however after questions were asked and research was done, it was determined they were in fact lying about not being a ponzi and were left negative trust.

Another good example is this in which the OP of this thread was offering ponzi-like returns, however was claiming that he was "investing" money sent to him by "investors" and when he was questioned about how he makes the money that he uses to pay the returns, he provided evidence (not proof) of legitimacy, and without significant evidence that would prove otherwise a negative rating is inappropriate in this case.