Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

[cryptodevil]

If you actually bothered to read the link I gave you it is perfectly clear why negative ratings are the weapon of choice against scammers and those who support them.

That IBG is getting fewer new scam threads with much shorter lifespans is evidence enough that this community action works.

[freedoge.co]

If you actually bothered to read the link I gave you it is perfectly clear why negative ratings are the weapon of choice against scammers and those who support them.

That IBG is getting fewer new scam threads with much shorter lifespans is evidence enough that this community action works.

ok cryptodevil do what you want.

Just stop spamming this thread with off-topic posts, this topic is about: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes

what is your opinion related to it?

[Lauda]

yes i started this topic asking for removal the cryptodevil from DT, but you said is not possible, ok i see the dead end. So i go further to get some explanation why i should accept that trust while the ponzis are allowed here based on current situation.

I never said that it was impossible. What I did say is that there is no sign of clear/extensive abuse which would require the intervention of the administration. Just because you don't agree with someones ratings that does not mean that they're abusing something.

ok, but also bitcointalk donesn't moderate ponzi threads, which indirectly supports it

Example: Facebook also supports every single evil entity that shares anything that could be considered 'immoral'? Doubtful at best.

well, what i wanted is simple justice. If ponzis are allowed why would i get red trust for it, in those sites are not allowed then ok my red trust is earned.

Again, you seem to fail to realize even how this forum works. You don't usually get negative rating for breaking the forum rules, you get punished (e.g. banned). You got negative ratings for things that are 'frowned upon' by the community, e.g. support ponzi's, scam and such.

I hoped that the staff could remove it as i wasn't doing anything against forum rules.

Do I have to draw this out for you? Staff does not moderate trust ratings.

[freedoge.co]

yes i started this topic asking for removal the cryptodevil from DT, but you said is not possible, ok i see the dead end. So i go further to get some explanation why i should accept that trust while the ponzis are allowed here based on current situation.

I never said that it was impossible. What I did say is that there is no sign of clear/extensive abuse which would require the intervention of the administration. Just because you don't agree with someones ratings that does not mean that they're abusing something.

ok, but also bitcointalk donesn't moderate ponzi threads, which indirectly supports it

Example: Facebook also supports every single evil entity that shares anything that could be considered 'immoral'? Doubtful at best.

well, what i wanted is simple justice. If ponzis are allowed why would i get red trust for it, in those sites are not allowed then ok my red trust is earned.

Again, you seem to fail to realize even how this forum works. You don't usually get negative rating for breaking the forum rules, you get punished (e.g. banned). You got negative ratings for things that are 'frowned upon' by the community, e.g. support ponzi's, scam and such.

I hoped that the staff could remove it as i wasn't doing anything against forum rules.

Do I have to draw this out for you? Staff does not moderate trust ratings.

i probably should have already drawn it to you that i understood it.  

ok i don't accept the red trust from cryptodevil and i can do nothing about it, i don't like your attitude Lauda and can't do anything about it neither, instead of directly saying to me the facts and my possibilities you acted in other way posting unrelated off-topic non-sense  and accusing me of other actions. But ok let's move on.

[freedoge.co]

Just found interesting topic related to Bitcointalk's support of illegal activities:

"Suing Bitcointalk.org and Theymos for $20,000,000 for facilitating scams"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466749.0

[Lauda]

ok i don't accept the red trust from cryptodevil and i can do nothing about it, i don't like your attitude Lauda and can't do anything about it neither, instead of directly saying to me the facts and my possibilities you acted in other way posting unrelated off-topic non-sense  and accusing me of other actions. But ok let's move on.

Incorrect. I provided (or at least tried) to provide you with the correct information the whole time. Usually in trust-related cases (DT2) the options are:
1) Contact the person who left you the rating.
2) Contact the person from DT1 who has them in their list.
3) Try to get other DT1 members to exclude them.

About point 2: That would be dooglus; I've told you this already
Do you have any other requests/questions? Has this thread served its purpose or is it going to be continued with the "BTCT supporting ponzi's" stuff?

"Suing Bitcointalk.org and Theymos for $20,000,000 for facilitating scams"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466749.0

you should sue money because it helps people get drugs  

[freedoge.co]

Incorrect. I provided (or at least tried) to provide you with the correct information the whole time. Usually in trust-related cases (DT2) the options are:
1) Contact the person who left you the rating.
2) Contact the person from DT1 who has them in their list.
3) Try to get other DT1 members to exclude them.

About point 2: That would be dooglus; I've told you this already

i indirectly thanked you for that if you remember
Do you have any other requests/questions? Has this thread served its purpose or is it going to be continued with the "BTCT supporting ponzi's" stuff?

What's wrong with that statement? Do you have a proof that Bitcointalk doesn't support the illegal ponzi schemes? [ironic smile]

[Lauda]

What's wrong with that statement? Do you have a proof that Bitcointalk doesn't support the illegal ponzi schemes? [ironic smile]

Why would I have to provide proof of 'non-existing' support when you haven't provided proof of 'existing' support. Tolerating those 'games' is one thing, participating and supporting them is another.

[freedoge.co]

What's wrong with that statement? Do you have a proof that Bitcointalk doesn't support the illegal ponzi schemes? [ironic smile]

Why would I have to provide proof of 'non-existing' support when you haven't provided proof of 'existing' support. Tolerating those 'games' is one thing, participating and supporting them is another.

do you know of any other bitcoin forum/resource with such significant influence like bitcointalk allowing promotion of ponzi sites?  

[Lauda]

do you know of any other bitcoin forum/resource with such significant influence like bitcointalk allowing promotion of ponzi sites? 

What exactly would be the argument here? BTCT is supporting X because BTCT allows it and has 'significant influence' while others don't? No, I'm not familiar with similar forums because they're mostly filled with conspiracy rubbish (e.g. HF fanatics). As far as Bitcoin forums go, BTCT is the most popular one, yes.

[freedoge.co]

do you know of any other bitcoin forum/resource with such significant influence like bitcointalk allowing promotion of ponzi sites?  

What exactly would be the argument here? BTCT is supporting X because BTCT allows it and has 'significant influence' while others don't? No, I'm not familiar with similar forums because they're mostly filled with conspiracy rubbish (e.g. HF fanatics). As far as Bitcoin forums go, BTCT is the most popular one, yes.

my argument and proof is this subforum and the view statistics of each topic: Investor-based games

[thesame12]

I'm pretty sure that scams aren't moderated.

[Lauda]

my argument and proof is this subforum and the view statistics of each topic: Investor-based games

Nope. That is not the proof of anything. Just because the administration allows a place for ponzi threads to be opened/moved to, that does not mean that the administration supports a single ponzi within that section.

I'm pretty sure that scams aren't moderated.

Exactly.

[thesame12]

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[freedoge.co]

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

[tmfp]

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Maybe you should stop posting tendentious crap and read the replies you get.

Scams aren't moderated.

That doesn't mean they are condoned.

[freedoge.co]

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Maybe you should stop posting tendentious crap and read the replies you get.

Scams aren't moderated.

That doesn't mean they are condoned.

^how about this crap you posted? explain your logic there

[minifrij]

^how about this crap you posted? explain your logic there

Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)

Tolerating something (as in, creating a trash can for it to not litter the rest of the forum) != condoning it. I really don't see what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Nothing, as scams are not moderated (and hopefully never will be).

[freedoge.co]

^how about this crap you posted? explain your logic there

Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)

Tolerating something (as in, creating a trash can for it to not litter the rest of the forum) != condoning it. I really don't see what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Nothing, as scams are not moderated (and hopefully never will be).

it's not about me understanding it ok so bitcointalk.org tolerates ponzi schemes, right?

does it sound positive to you?

[minifrij]

it's not about me understanding it

Perhaps this thread isn't, however you clearly do not properly understand why the forum works how it does. Currently, it is obvious you are trying to run a smear campaign against the forum after you got negative consequences for your shady actions.

ok so bitcointalk.org tolerates ponzi schemes, right?
does it sound positive to you?

However, that is out of context. The quote "The government tolerates dropping litter on streets" sounds negative, until you learn that they tolerate it only if it is being dropped in a rubbish bin. Twisting people's words to try and stretch a valid point does not then make it the truth.

Personally I think this is a better quote, and I don't have to even take it out of context for it to be valid - "Bitcointalk User 'freedoge.co' condones pyramid scams". Perhaps you should promote that one a bit more; it would save you looking like even more of an ignorant idiot than you already do.