Someone give you negative trust for participating in a PONZI?

[whywefight]

I have -ved op because he promoted a ponzi. In my eyes that makes him untrustworthy. I could imagine betcoin doesnt want to be connected with people promoting ponzis while wearing their sig.

I will contact the campain manager

[1714125269]

1714125269

[1714125269]

1714125269

[1714125269]

1714125269

[mexxer-2]

I have -ved op because he promoted a ponzi. In my eyes that makes him untrustworthy. I could imagine betcoin doesnt want to be connected with people promoting ponzis while wearing their sig.

I will contact the campain manager

If OP simply gave himself pos feedbacks from any random alt, he'd still qualify to be in the campaign*. Thats how stupid the campaign rules of that signature campaign are.

*Although of course, he'd get more negs for trust farming from alts

It teaches them to be critical thinkers instead of community sheep later in life and are prepared when the real scammers show up.

Although I hate arguments being compared to real life, I slightly agree with it. However, it doesn't explain why they shouldn't get a negative for promoting/supporting the ponzi, which will lead to more users being scammed

3.I see people with highest quality of posts with negative feebacks for silly reasons.I think investing in a Ponzi is a subject limited to one's personal choices ,you can't force him to not to.

The decision of promoting/supporting the ponzi is the user's own, from what I know CD is not forcing anyone to decide what to do with their money, he is essentially saying don't encourage the others to invest only to be scammed later.

That being said, if you don't comply with his intentions,you're free to leave him a feedback and this should be understood by the campaign managers that it necessarily doesn't portray one is a spammer and he deserves to be kicked out of campaign if he still has the highest quality of posts .

Trustworthiness and post quality are two different things, even theymos has clarified that in the thread announcing the trust system

[rogie07]

lmao wtf dude? So lose money first, tag later ? None of the admins intentions are good. They make no income running a clean ponzi. All those 2.5% fees and stuffs are shit. 99% of them run away with the pot.

why you should give them a negative feedback if their site pays and if neg bombers have a brain preferrably someone should test the site first with the minimum amt. don't conclude that all investing sites are bad there will be always a paying investing site. and it's in their conscience if they gonna scam or not..

[Stroto]

It teaches them to be critical thinkers instead of community sheep later in life and are prepared when the real scammers show up.

Although I hate arguments being compared to real life, I slightly agree with it. However, it doesn't explain why they shouldn't get a negative for promoting/supporting the ponzi, which will lead to more users being scammed

It is really not that hard to explain. A red trust is a warning. Warnings make you aware something is up. They work because they aren't always around us. But when every participant has the same warning on their profile it loses it's message.

When a noob googles bitcoindoubler and comes to the subforum and sees everyone with with negative trust it is nothing special anymore and I doubt they will check it.

A negative trust, a warning should not be giving lightly in my opinion for that exact reason. It should stand out when visiting a page. And it will lose its message in that subforum when everyone wears that tag.

[xetsr]

People are free and free to do whatever they want

I would appreciate the person who gave me red trust withdraw why should not give to me but to the creators of these sites

People are free to do whatever they want, including leaving negative trust? LOL. Sorry but you had that one coming.

[Quickseller]

OP should make an attempt to get Dooglus removed from DT as crypto devil is in dooglus's trust list and Dooglus makes no attempt to ensure fair ratings are given by people in his trust list (in addition to being a scammer, extortionist and promotes numerous scams in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars himself).

That is the only way to get negative trust removed.

[mexxer-2]

OP should make an attempt to get Dooglus removed from DT as crypto devil is in dooglus's trust list and Dooglus makes no attempt to ensure fair ratings are given by people in his trust list (in addition to being a scammer, extortionist and promotes numerous scams in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars himself).

Now now, lets not bring personal feud in this

[Quickseller]

OP should make an attempt to get Dooglus removed from DT as crypto devil is in dooglus's trust list and Dooglus makes no attempt to ensure fair ratings are given by people in his trust list (in addition to being a scammer, extortionist and promotes numerous scams in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars himself).

Now now, lets not bring personal feud in this

Not a personal feud. This is only facts.

Dooglus does not care about his image because he has enough fan boys from JD to back him up and because his business does not have a very large presence on the forum. So any issues with a negative rating is not going to get resolved via a public discussion

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I tend to agree with OP.  Bitcoin is about freedom and people should be able to spend their money how they see fit.   Maybe I should get a neg for indirectly supporting ponzis??

[Heutenamos]

But how come he knew we are alt's ? I mean i wore double while doing it ,but still ?

[cryptodevil]

I tend to agree with OP.  Bitcoin is about freedom and people should be able to spend their money how they see fit. 

Freedom of choice, just like freedom of speech, does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Tagging people for being provably untrustworthy does not stop them from continuing to support ponzi scams. Do not conflate the issue with that of denying people their autonomy.

[TheInfidel]

I tend to agree with OP.  Bitcoin is about freedom and people should be able to spend their money how they see fit.

Freedom of choice, just like freedom of speech, does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Tagging people for being provably untrustworthy does not stop them from continuing to support ponzi scams. Do not conflate the issue with that of denying people their autonomy.

Please tell me more about these "consequences"

It is my money.
It is not in breach of any forum rules to post in that thread.
It is not illegal in real life to participate.
I participated, not promoted.

The ONLY explanation for there being any "consequences" is therefore that it simply rubs YOU the wrong way.

BTW thinking of playing the LOTTO this weekend, I now the chance of winning is slight but please may I please please pretty please?

[condoras]

I tend to agree with OP.  Bitcoin is about freedom and people should be able to spend their money how they see fit.

Freedom of choice, just like freedom of speech, does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Tagging people for being provably untrustworthy does not stop them from continuing to support ponzi scams. Do not conflate the issue with that of denying people their autonomy.

Please tell me more about these "consequences"

It is my money.
It is not in breach of any forum rules to post in that thread.
It is not illegal in real life to participate.
I participated, not promoted.

The ONLY explanation for there being any "consequences" is therefore that it simply rubs YOU the wrong way.

BTW thinking of playing the LOTTO this weekend, I now the chance of winning is slight but please may I please please pretty please?

Oh no, dont do it!!! If you win you will take all the others money!!!

Seriously, you know that is not the same. Ponzi they are NOT lottery.

I agree that it needs to be done something about scammers but to use trust rating is simple abuse and blackmailing. These are also crimes CD...

[Heutenamos]

Seriously, you know that is not the same.

The unfair dice with house edge ? or the poker ? You are winning the money which people lost while gambling with a 100% losing chance at some point in their Run.Does declaring that makes it legit ?

You might want to read what Stunna says here in 7th sub heading  ---   https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/primedice-3-interview-stunna-primedice-bitcoin-casino/

"Taking away other people money who lost because of the unfair house edge,with cent percent chance to lose eventually " , Is it not what devil is shouting ?

[onlinedragon]

Don't think trust should be used that way because it could hit all of us. I have also participated in Ore-mine and lost around 0.8btc should all people who were promoting ore-mine get negative trust. There enough people who don't see the risk before they start investing.  So be carefully who you give negative trust and for what reason.

[TheInfidel]

I have -ved op because he promoted a ponzi. In my eyes that makes him untrustworthy. I could imagine betcoin doesnt want to be connected with people promoting ponzis while wearing their sig.

I will contact the campain manager

lol, I found something out, now I have to run and tell!
What are you two?

FYI, I PM'ed roslinpl within minutes of me receiving the neg trust, and explained the situation and linked him the posts.

What he replied I will keep to myself, I unlike some of you do not throw innocent people under buses.

Have a nice day 

[cryptodevil]

Please tell me more about these "consequences"

It is my money.
It is not in breach of any forum rules to post in that thread.
It is not illegal in real life to participate.
I participated, not promoted.

As I already said, you are free to do what you like in your quest for profit. You are not, however, free to do so without there being consequences for displaying behaviour which objectively proves that you care not where that profit comes from, even if it is stolen from other users and shared with you as a reward for your collaboration with the ponzi operators.

The butt-hurt and whining is pathetic. You don't have an objective counter to this simple fact:

Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.

Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?

Do you have an answer that *isn't* centred around logical fallacy and tone complaint?

Giving negative trust on DT is to communicate to other forum members whether you are provably untrustworthy. Hoping to profit from money stolen from other users is one big fucking slab of proof that you are not trustworthy. I think it is worth ensuring that other forum members are aware of that fact when dealing with you in future.

Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence.

[whywefight]

I have -ved op because he promoted a ponzi. In my eyes that makes him untrustworthy. I could imagine betcoin doesnt want to be connected with people promoting ponzis while wearing their sig.

I will contact the campain manager

lol, I found something out, now I have to run and tell!
What are you two?

FYI, I PM'ed roslinpl within minutes of me receiving the neg trust, and explained the situation and linked him the posts.

What he replied I will keep to myself, I unlike some of you do not throw innocent people under buses.

Have a nice day  

pro tip for free: think first, post afterwards

i didnt report you to him, i just asked what they think about people that are in their campaign promoting ponzis. not more, not less.

my days are always nice and full of fun, i eat hate like crisps!

[TheInfidel]

Please tell me more about these "consequences"

It is my money.
It is not in breach of any forum rules to post in that thread.
It is not illegal in real life to participate.
I participated, not promoted.

As I already said, you are free to do what you like in your quest for profit. You are not, however, free to do so without there being consequences for displaying behaviour which objectively proves that you care not where that profit comes from, even if it is stolen from other users and shared with you as a reward for your collaboration with the ponzi operators.

The butt-hurt and whining is pathetic. You don't have an objective counter to this simple fact:

Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.

Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?

Do you have an answer that *isn't* centred around logical fallacy and tone complaint?

Giving negative trust on DT is to communicate to other forum members whether you are provably untrustworthy. Hoping to profit from money stolen from other users is one big fucking slab of proof that you are not trustworthy. I think it is worth ensuring that other forum members are aware of that fact when dealing with you in future.

Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence.

"displaying behavior"
I think the only one here who is displaying any kind of behavior is you.
Simply refusing to see any other point of view than your own, and when people don't comply there will be "consequences"
Trying to blackmail people into agreeing with your point of view does not make it the right or even the only point of view.

But thanks for bumping, the more people who read this thread the better.

Have a nice day.

[whywefight]

we will keep this topic on the first page for free!

words to look up for you so far:

- ponzi
- gambling
- abuse
- blackmail

If you are free to promote a ponzi (and yes i agree you are), i am free to leave you a feedback for it because i think you will drag people into it. Well, i think i will just come back to this in a few weeks after the whole thing is broken. like all the others "invests" in that section.