Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

[minifrij]

Why the forum administration does not remove that forum is beyond me. Having the investor based forum here is actively supporting ponzi  schemes

This was explained above by Lauda. If the section was removed the Ponzi schemes would go back to being posted around the forum like previous and would need a lot of effort to clean up. It's easier just to have all of them in one cesspool than to have to clean them up from around the forum. See:

Removing that board is definitely problematic as it is going to push those games towards other sections

If the administration is really serious about preventing ponzi scams why would they keep that forum alive which enables anyone to openly promote such schemes.

I don't think the administration (theymos and BadBear) really cares currently. The people in the Default Trust system do not represent the views of the administration, nor Lauda or any other staff member than theymos and BadBear.

[cryptodevil]

Also, why did you make this case now since you received your rating on: 2016-04-03 ?

I figure it's probably because the negative rating is harming his ability to sell his account 'package':

Auctioning domain freedoge.co with all files

Alexa Rank: 825k, 112 sites linking in http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freedoge.co

Domain registered on Namecheap, expires May 19th, 2016

+ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/freedogeco - 698 followers
+ This Bitcointalk account


Starting bid 0.1BTC
Min increment 0.005BTC

Payment BTC only, escrow welcome, buyer pays the fees
Payment address: 39eaKtKQ9Ba6RhUbURQKpyZnAnPjTYmd3R

Auction ends on 15th may 22:00 Gmt+1, +5 minutes after the last bid

Funny thing, consequence.

[freedoge.co]

Also, why did you make this case now since you received your rating on: 2016-04-03 ?

I figure it's probably because the negative rating is harming his ability to sell his account 'package':

Auctioning domain freedoge.co with all files

Alexa Rank: 825k, 112 sites linking in http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freedoge.co

Domain registered on Namecheap, expires May 19th, 2016

+ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/freedogeco - 698 followers
+ This Bitcointalk account


Starting bid 0.1BTC
Min increment 0.005BTC

Payment BTC only, escrow welcome, buyer pays the fees
Payment address: 39eaKtKQ9Ba6RhUbURQKpyZnAnPjTYmd3R

Auction ends on 15th may 22:00 Gmt+1, +5 minutes after the last bid

Funny thing, consequence.

you have some investigating skills, i must admit, but you are wrong i started this topic after the domain has expired so i'm keeping the account and want to join sig campaign.

i won't fight with you, enjoy your useless police work in your investor-based games playground.

[ibminer]

you have some investigating skills, i must admit, but you are wrong i started this topic after the domain has expired so i'm keeping the account and want to join sig campaign.

i won't fight with you, enjoy your useless police work in your investor-based games playground.

As you are well aware, you're in a grace period, you can still renew the domain. You would have probably 25-30 days to do this, so it doesn't matter that you started this topic a day after it expired. You were still looking for offers as of yesterday (even though your auction apparently ended on the 15th). You would still have a reason to fight to remove the trust and sell the domain within the next 25-30 days. You might want to go ahead and end your auction if your not planning to sell the domain and are keeping the account.

[freedoge.co]

you have some investigating skills, i must admit, but you are wrong i started this topic after the domain has expired so i'm keeping the account and want to join sig campaign.

i won't fight with you, enjoy your useless police work in your investor-based games playground.

As you are well aware, you're in a grace period, you can still renew the domain. You would have probably 25-30 days to do this, so it doesn't matter that you started this topic a day after it expired. You were still looking for offers as of yesterday (even though your auction apparently ended on the 15th). You would still have a reason to fight to remove the trust and sell the domain within the next 25-30 days. You might want to go ahead and end your auction if your not planning to sell the domain and are keeping the account.

is it relevant to this topic anyway? i'm not selling it nor renewing. I keep this account and need the false red trust gone to join sig campaign, that simple.

[dogie]

Why the forum administration does not remove that forum is beyond me.

Because if they're not wall off in their own area they end up being spammed all over the place.

[Evildrum]

Mods are in support of flagging people for using a sub forum that ownership set up? I can see how people get confused here.
I know the line but you can see why these issues bubble up and it seems a member is pushing them to bubble up by leaving these trust ratings.
Thought trust was to be a personal reflection of your interaction with the person,rather than a agenda tool.

Just interesting to see this over and over and still a disconnect.

[minifrij]

Mods are in support of flagging people for using a sub forum that ownership set up? I can see how people get confused here.

Simply being a moderator doesn't mean you have to agree with everything your superior does, similar to how being a member here doesn't mean you have to agree with the staff.
Regardless, the reasoning behind the sub-forum has been made clear in this thread. If you were to read it there is really not much to be confused about.

I know the line but you can see why these issues bubble up and it seems a member is pushing them to bubble up by leaving these trust ratings.

A user does something untrustworthy. That user gets the consequences of doing something untrustworthy. User complains about consequences.
You would think after a while there would be no issues, as people could simply use their common sense and figure out that their actions have consequences. Sadly, and as this thread shows, this is not the case.

Thought trust was to be a personal reflection of your interaction with the person,rather than a agenda tool.

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

You don't have to trade with someone to distrust them. Promoting an eventual scam is extremely untrustworthy IMO.

If we went by your logic I could steal some bitcoin from a newbie and keep my reputation clean. Since I wouldn't have traded with a DT member they couldn't tag me as a scammer with negative trust. Do you think this is how it should work?

[Evildrum]

Why the forum administration does not remove that forum is beyond me. Having the investor based forum here is actively supporting ponzi  schemes, If the administration is really serious about preventing ponzi scams why would they keep that forum alive which enables anyone to openly promote such schemes.

This is why people are confused by the stance of the mods and ownership. On one hand they have a sub forum that is set up by ownership for a reason and the other mods not wanting people to use the forum. There are many splinters off this issue that make you worry about agendas being driven a little to hard at times.
This is not a accusation against any one just a observation,really do not care if the forum goes or stays.

Edit:

@minifrij

I am simply stating how I perceive things here,its the same line mods take with signatures as well.
Think you are misunderstanding what I said about the trust,personal reflection encompasses all those aspects you are stating. The agenda tool aspect is when some one is doing nothing but attacking a certain aspect it becomes a agenda,otherwise they let it go after 3 or 4 members get dinged making their point.
So it usually goes down the road of why and people look into those aspects and find threads that do not look that great,but I think you can find a thread like that for anyone driving change.

[freedoge.co]

OK guys i give up on deleting my neg trust because it's all confusing here on bitcointalk, soon people will be afraid to even make a post because they will probably get red trust for spammning.

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

just to summarize this non-sense:

1: the bitcointalk.org forum supports the ponzi games because the gambling->investor-based games is full of hyip and ponzis, doublers etc
2: there is a guy "cryptodevil" giving negative feedback to people involved in ponzis, doublers, hyip games
3: i asked the forum staff to remove this guy from default trust because he has nothing to do there
4: i'm getting negative response from forum staff, my negative feedback is ok
5: this is unbelievable, confusing and ridiculous  

1,2,4,5 are all correct.  But staff isn't going to do jack shit about him being on dt.  You're right, he shouldn't be on it but simply for the fact that he's a complete asshole, not because he neg reps ponzi people.  Not saying all his feedback is correct.

[freedoge.co]

just to summarize this non-sense:

1: the bitcointalk.org forum supports the ponzi games because the gambling->investor-based games is full of hyip and ponzis, doublers etc
2: there is a guy "cryptodevil" giving negative feedback to people involved in ponzis, doublers, hyip games
3: i asked the forum staff to remove this guy from default trust because he has nothing to do there
4: i'm getting negative response from forum staff, my negative feedback is ok
5: this is unbelievable, confusing and ridiculous  

1,2,4,5 are all correct.  But staff isn't going to do jack shit about him being on dt.  You're right, he shouldn't be on it but simply for the fact that he's a complete asshole, not because he neg reps ponzi people.  Not saying all his feedback is correct.

and now i'm doing his job, trying to remove the investment-based section from this forum, what a lazy ass this cryptodevil.

[Evildrum]

OK guys i give up on deleting my neg trust because it's all confusing here on bitcointalk, soon people will be afraid to even make a post because they will probably get red trust for spammning.

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

This argument has always been written off as emotional or rhetoric when its addressed but I agree it has to play a factor into the forum. But without the ownership correcting the forum,we remain in that area that we currently have with people policing the forum,you can agree or disagree,it never changes the tact one way or another.

I find I usually get my posts dissected three ways to Sunday to the point I no longer recognize my own post due to my logic fails,so tread lightly in agreeing with anything I say.

[Lutpin]

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes
that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

You're wrong there, just because something isn't exactly banned doesn't mean it's being supported by the forum.
We could display all the reasons here once again, but that has been done over and over already, so there's little to no sense in doing so.
Also, I fear you might not even care for it.

[Lauda]

"Interesting" turn of events. You've completely diverted the thread from the original and futile attempt at getting someone removed from DT to attacking the forum itself? Of course, the forum supports every single thing that happens on the forum. This is based on very sound logic

You're wrong there, just because something isn't exactly banned doesn't mean it's being supported by the forum.

If someone comes to your backyard and does something bad, you were in support of his actions the whole time. Don't deny it!

[freedoge.co]

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes
that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

You're wrong there, just because something isn't exactly banned doesn't mean it's being supported by the forum.
We could display all the reasons here once again, but that has been done over and over already, so there's little to no sense in doing so.
Also, I fear you might not even care for it.

true i don't care, i only wanted my red trust deleted, but that's impossible no matter what my arguments or evidence are. There are so many points of view on this because of bad management of forum. If i would not want to have a ponzi links and keywords on my forum i would just delete them without warning. So as long as these games even have their own place on this forum, my statement is valid: bitcointalk.org supports the illegal ponzi schemes.

and this even makes my red trust irrelevant and indeed i'm not doing anything wrong according to bitcointalk policy.

isn't it a paradox or irony

[freedoge.co]

"Interesting" turn of events. You've completely diverted the thread from the original and futile attempt at getting someone removed from DT to attacking the forum itself? Of course, the forum supports every single thing that happens on the forum. This is based on very sound logic

yes, because this got me into this situation. I learned that it's worthless to try to get the feedback deleted so i'm moving on.

[Quartx]

OK guys i give up on deleting my neg trust because it's all confusing here on bitcointalk, soon people will be afraid to even make a post because they will probably get red trust for spammning.

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

Your reason / logic is retarded.

If a government built fucking high security prisons to keep highly dangerous criminals to segregate them from other minor offenders and the public, using your logic, you are claiming that the government supports highly dangerous criminals and the things they do?

If a murder happens to a stranger in a building u rent out, you are an accomplice?

It isn't a misunderstanding at all. The subforum was made to wall off all potential scams. If something is gonna happen regardless of what you do, and you can do something, it makes perfect sense to keep the anomaly isolated. Removing the subforum (thrash bin), would simply result in trash everywhere else.

If I remembered correctly your initial argument was that cryptodevil was giving false trust, you requested to remove him and your neg not because you wanted to join in sig campaigns.  After losing the argument, you change your reasons and the whole point of the meta thread to you simply wanting to join sig campaign again and that bct endorses ponzis?

Just because reddit have hidden private subreddits with dubious uses doesn't mean they are endorsed. Your logic is that of a 1 year old. Your arguments are juvenile at best. Try harder and get better evidences and proof of your shitty reasons instead of trying to push your flawed logic to everyone else.

Edit: Nope you have NOT moved on, if you had you would have deleted /archive or requested to have it deleted. You are acting like a spoilt brat who requests for orange juice  just after dropping the milk you took from your sibling a second ago

[james.lent]

[freedoge.co]

OK guys i give up on deleting my neg trust because it's all confusing here on bitcointalk, soon people will be afraid to even make a post because they will probably get red trust for spammning.

but my conclusion on this is that: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

that'sthe reason of this misunderstanding.

Your reason / logic is retarded.

If a government built fucking high security prisons to keep highly dangerous criminals to segregate them from other minor offenders and the public, using your logic, you are claiming that the government supports highly dangerous criminals and the things they do?

If a murder happens to a stranger in a building u rent out, you are an accomplice?

It isn't a misunderstanding at all. The subforum was made to wall off all potential scams. If something is gonna happen regardless of what you do, and you can do something, it makes perfect sense to keep the anomaly isolated. Removing the subforum (thrash bin), would simply result in trash everywhere else.

If I remembered correctly your initial argument was that cryptodevil was giving false trust, you requested to remove him and your neg not because you wanted to join in sig campaigns.  After losing the argument, you change your reasons and the whole point of the meta thread to you simply wanting to join sig campaign again and that bct endorses ponzis?

Just because reddit have hidden private subreddits with dubious uses doesn't mean they are endorsed. Your logic is that of a 1 year old. Your arguments are juvenile at best. Try harder and get better evidences and proof of your shitty reasons instead of trying to push your flawed logic to everyone else.

Edit: Nope you have NOT moved on, if you had you would have deleted /archive or requested to have it deleted. You are acting like a spoilt brat who requests for orange juice  just after dropping the milk you took from your sibling a second ago

holy shh..what is your problem?

i wanted my red trust deleted because i believe it was not fairly given.
It was given by some silly guy acting here like police and abusing the trust system.
He gave me red trust for one post in investor-based thread.
I did not scam anyone!

We are on a forum, community of people with same interest, every forum has it own rules right?

For example hackforums has it's own rules and i don't think people get red trust for promoting ponzi sites there  see the difference?

So firstly i would like to know the official statement from the forum administrator that ponzi websites are not allowed here, then i wouldn't say anything more on this topic.

But i guess there is none of such statement that ponzi sites are forbidden, if it was i believe people would not get only red trust but direct bans or delete.

hold on your real life stories which are not related to this topic, keep your philosophy in your head please.

I respect the rules so i don't have problem to admit my mistake, so it's not about moving on. If rules were clear then there would not be such worthless discussion and many misunderstandings.