Should paid sig accounts be negd on bad campaigns.

[Spoetnik]

The only people who care about the trust system are scammy idiot losers.
Seriously look at all people involved and that last point I just made here..
It blows my mind that you all are trying to make bad work.

This place became a joke half a decade ago.
So your "business" is a joke and then some.

I have no respect to for 99.99% of you and think you are greedy rats.
Almost all of you are trust system abusers trolls and brats.. Hypocrites.
All of you have a shady past and I can easily name names..
And those same people cluck around like hens whining and lecturing about morality..
On a fucking scam site LOL

Hey smug dumb fucks check this out..
You like to declare sites as scammy right?
Wouldn't theymos deserve red trust for running a scan site then? 

[1714039532]

1714039532

[1714039532]

1714039532

[Vod]

I have no respect to for 99.99% of you and think you are greedy rats.

99.99% of us have no respect for pehophiles like you and Quickseller (below)!   So?

[Quickseller]

Unfortunately, many companies will appear to be legitimate only to later turn out to be an outright scam, and/or legitimate companies eventually scam. It is also not always 100% clear when a company is a "scam" or not.

In cases of a company being a clear scam, campaign participants should receive a negative rating if they continue to advertise a company after they are aware the company has scammed, and the participant has had the opportunity to discuss leaving the advertisement up (and has not presented any respectable points why they believe they should keep the advertisement up).

For campaign managers, this is a little bit more complicated because they should not quit in the middle of a payment cycle as doing so would be unprofessional, and could harm participants (and potentially others). I would apply a similar criteria as above to campaign managers as of when a new payment cycle starts.

The above mostly applies to companies doing business on the forum and not necessarily ICOs. In regards to ICOs, this is much more complicated because campaigns are likely to end as of (at the latest very shortly after) an ICO is complete, so not delivering (scamming) would happen when the participants stop advertising for them anyway.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This place became a joke half a decade ago.
So your "business" is a joke and then some.

I agree with this to some extent.  The trust system is broken in my opinion, but it's not my forum and I deal with it.  I've never scammed anyone on this forum and have no intention of doing so.  But I've had people not want to do deals with me because of all the red trust on my profile.  It's all because I tagged account dealers, and it's all retaliatory.  And even though it's not trusted feedback, people see a sea of red there and think twice.  They don't bother to look at the missing reference threads and so forth.

I really have no problem tagging scam ICO promoters, but it would certainly be a tough battle.

[Vod]

But I've had people not want to do deals with me because of all the red trust on my profile.

Seriously?  You should remind them that untrusted feedback is most always from scammed accounts - hence untrusted.  

Pedophiles like Quickscammer will quickly get the most TRUSTED negative trust (hence the -241) but untrusted feedback should be ignored.

[Quickseller]

Pedophiles like Quickseller

That is 100% baseless and you know it. There is not even any unsubstantiated/fake evidence to support this. 

[Grant Hero]

Simple thought for accountability and integrity.

If an ico/project doesnt deliver then should the campaign manager and members getting paid for their sigs and profile pic be neg rating for spreading the word?

icos are rampant many scams and account farming for this. is it time to neg them if the ico or proj is a scam later? it makes people accountable for their account and posts.

skincoin for example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1944508.0

the whole topic is mainly sig members promoting it as they arent going to say anything not positive as they get paid. this falsely drags people in to invest. the sig member likely doesnt even have the coin.

by neging their account if it doesnt deliver or scam results that sig wearer cant use account for another sig campaign and ensures they vet what they are being paid to promote.

should campaign managers be responsible in the same way so they run reputable campaigns? or should campaign managers be responsible to neg members if the campaign results in lies or not delivering?

thoughts?

seems to be a way to police the rampant icos and campaigns.

I completely agree with you.  I hate bounties as a result.  There is little to no authenticity in the posts which leads to quantity over quality and dilution of content in these forums.

We are announcing our ICO soon, but we won't have a bounty.  Rather, we are developing an ambassador program and establishing long term relationships with reputable community leaders that believe in our product to help us evangelize our mission.

[Vod]

Pedophiles like Quickseller

That is 100% baseless and you know it. There is not even any unsubstantiated/fake evidence to support this.  

Not baseless at all, and you know it.

There are several reports online about you being a pedophile.  One of them even comes from a respected member whose identity is known.

[Quickseller]

Pedophiles like Quickseller

That is 100% baseless and you know it. There is not even any unsubstantiated/fake evidence to support this. 

Not baseless at all, and you know it.

There are several reports online about you being a pedophile.  One of them even comes from a respected member whose identity is known.

None of that is true.

[Vod]

Pedophiles like Quickseller

That is 100% baseless and you know it. There is not even any unsubstantiated/fake evidence to support this.  

Not baseless at all, and you know it.

There are several reports online about you being a pedophile.  One of them even comes from a respected member whose identity is known.

None of that is true.

Of course it is true, and you know it.  One simply has to google Quickseller and Pedophile to come up with results.  :/

[Decoded]

So. If I take a job to manage a signature campaign on a promising looking ICO, and it all goes well, including payouts on time, etc, and they go scam right there and then, with the campaign still running fine, does that mean I deserve a neg?

Sure, you were endorsing an ICO that went scam, but how would you know, if no one else did and it was cleverly hidden?

Pedophiles like Quickseller

That is 100% baseless and you know it. There is not even any unsubstantiated/fake evidence to support this.  

Not baseless at all, and you know it.

There are several reports online about you being a pedophile.  One of them even comes from a respected member whose identity is known.

None of that is true.

Of course it is true, and you know it.  One simply has to google Quickseller and Pedophile to come up with results.  :/

Can't tell if I just got baited or Google is cucking me over with steam links....

[erikalui]

Once the site turns scam and you're promoting it, it's morally wrong to keep supporting the project and getting paid as the money being paid to you is from the ones who got scammed. Don't get why skincoin is considered as an example as the ICO was successful and it's not a scam project not is there any accusation. Tagging people before the project turns scam (or just because they supported it before turning scam) is really weird as how can one imagine that the project would turn scam in future? Nobody can forecast these situations and some projects that were considered scam are still running successfully.

Anyways, users supporting ponzis are getting neg repped from DT members and even though theymos doesn't support this, it's being followed.

[Vod]

Anyways, users supporting ponzis are getting neg repped from DT members and even though theymos doesn't support this, it's being followed.

If you support (play) a ponzi, and you get paid, that profit comes from the scam of other users.

[Spoetnik]

But I've had people not want to do deals with me because of all the red trust on my profile.

Seriously?  You should remind them that untrusted feedback is most always from scammed accounts - hence untrusted.  

Pedophiles like Quickscammer will quickly get the most TRUSTED negative trust (hence the -241) but untrusted feedback should be ignored.

Jesus christ man.. YOU GET EXPOSED FOR BEING A FUCKING PEDO *FIRST*
Then.. you run around the forum negging everyone you don't like calling THEM ONE !
Then you start lying your ass off playing this little my word against theirs game like people are going to side with you.

You are the most irritating asshole on this forum.
You are a bullshitting arrogant prick with a vile attitude.
Either a) you literally do nothing but Police the Rep/Scam sections for morality.
or b) you do that and profiteer it up in the Altcoin section covertly.
Either way you are a useless sleazy bullshitting little fraud.

Aren't you people sick of this asshole yet ?
Makes you wonder why a grown man simply loiters around in the Rep section for 5 years 24/7 ?
What else does he do in crypto ?
Apparently nothing if you believe what is presented to you..
I have seen his dark side and watched him lie when it suits him.
I have watched him habitually and chronically break the rules defiantly when he feels like it then lectures the fuck out of other about it.. negging them.

All he does is run around troll and call people a pedo.
Pedo this.. pedo that.. blah blah blah

Why ?

Because he was exposed FIRST.
His co-workers exposed him online 4 years ago.
When i pointed that out and posted a link with his name and address etc on the link.
He then accused me of being one and then went on to start shit with me endlessly.
All the while harassing me via PM or publicly for *MY* address.
Talk about casting and deflection and misdirection games.

Bottom line:

This little idiot is done.
He wants to fuck with me ?
I will chew him up and spit home out.
I have taught him a few lessons and put him on his ass and he comes back for more ? LOL
He's been having free jabs at me while i did nothing in return for damn near two years.
Those days are gone.
I was trying to turn the cheek.
Not no more i 'm not.
Wanna piece ? I will give you the whole damn thing bucko !  

For starters..
I am moving in on his turf.
I am king now.
I am in charge of the Scam section and Reputation section.
This is my turf now.
He can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Your done buddy.. find something else to do with your free time.

Everywhere VOD turns i will be there rubbing his PEDO nose in shit.
Forever.

[o0o0]

just an update to prove a point.

skincoin ann has been locked now by mprep. this is because the bounty thread had provisions for posting in their ann to keep it current. it was against forum rules and shady practice. sig campaign still progressed, ico finished and devs have their eth. ann was locked at end but who cares already over. those in sig campaign posted mainly in the ann for skincoin and took payment even though against rules.

that to me shows untrusted. they all released signityres and profile pics.  do any own skincoin? unlikely. have people been suckered in due to them? likely. this is an example on untrustworthy in my books. if they promote something they themselves dont believe and many will never mention skincoin again then is that not something that should affect trust? skincoin like eboost will go nowhere.