Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling

[TomUnderSea]

As an outsider, and being bored at work today, I read all of this, and all of the stuff on Matthew's "bet". Now, perhaps I am missing something, but here are the points I see as relevant:

1. Did matthew actually take money form anyone? (from what I could see, he did not)

2. Reading the huge thread on his "bet", I actually found myself laughing quite a bit. How could ANYONE have actually thought that it was serious? It's like watching Reality TV and thinking it isn't all scripted.

3. Where did he "actually" scam anyone? Scamming, to me anyway, would be defined as stealing money in some way. I can't see anywhere this happened.

4. It seems like all the upset people were upset because they didn't get any free money, which they did nothing to get anyway. None "lost" any that they already had. Too me its like giving my friend saying he will put $10 on a horse for me. He ends up not going to the track, so he never bets on a horse. Did I get 10 bucks scammed?

5. Garr OUTRIGHT robbed people. In an ACTUAL auction (in my state anyway) shill bidding is FLAT-OUT illegal. Period. It's like going thru the drive thru, then the cashier adding $5.00 onto your bill and keeping it. Did she hold a gun to your head to make you buy your Doritos Tacos? No. Did she scam you? HELL YES!

6. It is VERY obvious that the apology was a last resort, no way out. "Oh look, I sent a picture of my penis to someone and I am a politician. I can just deny it was me." "Oh look, they tied the picture to my account, shit, no way out of this now." "I am deeply troubled by the penis picture. I am seeking help, and am extremely dissapointed in my own actions." Muhahahah, next time I will buy a disposable cellphone!!

7. Refusing to ban/scammer tag/etc Garr can ONLY be because of some sort of friendship/financial/dating/WOW buddies or some other relationship. I mean what grey area is there here? He scammed, plain and simple, and got caught doing it. And he didn't do it just once either. That Werner account was NOT new.

I am writing this all down though, gonna sell it as the next Netflix Original Series! "The BTC Conspiracy--A 10 part limited series, only on Netflix"

I have the same read on this that you do.

When I came to bitcointalk I was expecting to find a tight group of folks who valued honesty.

Sure, there would be the Josh type of idiot and the ever present crowd of minor thieves and pickpockets but the luminaries of the forum would reasonably be good people.

Theymos, Goat and Garr are not meeting that expectation.  The worrisome part is other folks, even those universally respected (John K.) in the community seem to turn a blind eye to this and support it, if only by association.

The really strange thing is the guy that this forum has branded as "Untrustworthy" is actually the one person here that I do trust.

This is one eff'd up place.

[1714811816]

1714811816

[ThatDGuy]

As an outsider, and being bored at work today, I read all of this, and all of the stuff on Matthew's "bet". Now, perhaps I am missing something, but here are the points I see as relevant:

1. Did matthew actually take money form anyone? (from what I could see, he did not)

2. Reading the huge thread on his "bet", I actually found myself laughing quite a bit. How could ANYONE have actually thought that it was serious? It's like watching Reality TV and thinking it isn't all scripted.

3. Where did he "actually" scam anyone? Scamming, to me anyway, would be defined as stealing money in some way. I can't see anywhere this happened.

4. It seems like all the upset people were upset because they didn't get any free money, which they did nothing to get anyway. None "lost" any that they already had. Too me its like giving my friend saying he will put $10 on a horse for me. He ends up not going to the track, so he never bets on a horse. Did I get 10 bucks scammed?

5. Garr OUTRIGHT robbed people. In an ACTUAL auction (in my state anyway) shill bidding is FLAT-OUT illegal. Period. It's like going thru the drive thru, then the cashier adding $5.00 onto your bill and keeping it. Did she hold a gun to your head to make you buy your Doritos Tacos? No. Did she scam you? HELL YES!

6. It is VERY obvious that the apology was a last resort, no way out. "Oh look, I sent a picture of my penis to someone and I am a politician. I can just deny it was me." "Oh look, they tied the picture to my account, shit, no way out of this now." "I am deeply troubled by the penis picture. I am seeking help, and am extremely dissapointed in my own actions." Muhahahah, next time I will buy a disposable cellphone!!

7. Refusing to ban/scammer tag/etc Garr can ONLY be because of some sort of friendship/financial/dating/WOW buddies or some other relationship. I mean what grey area is there here? He scammed, plain and simple, and got caught doing it. And he didn't do it just once either. That Werner account was NOT new.

I am writing this all down though, gonna sell it as the next Netflix Original Series! "The BTC Conspiracy--A 10 part limited series, only on Netflix"

I have the same read on this that you do.

When I came to bitcointalk I was expecting to find a tight group of folks who valued honesty.

Sure, there would be the Josh type of idiot and the ever present crowd of minor thieves and pickpockets but the luminaries of the forum would reasonably be good people.

Theymos, Goat and Garr are not meeting that expectation.  The worrisome part is other folks, even those universally respected (John K.) in the community seem to turn a blind eye to this and support it, if only by association.

The really strange thing is the guy that this forum has branded as "Untrustworthy" is actually the one person here that I do trust.

This is one eff'd up place.

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

[nimda]

This is one eff'd up place.

Welcome to the cornerstone of the Bitcoin economy

[TomUnderSea]

...

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Yet another person I will NOT have fiduciary dealings with.

This is a very useful thread.  I could not devise a better test for determining who is and is _not_ honest.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Please do not post with a sock puppet for the next 15 minutes, I ran out of pop corn, be right back!

Just now got to this post. You're not going to believe what happened while you gone for 15 minutes.

[twitami1]

As an outsider, and being bored at work today, I read all of this, and all of the stuff on Matthew's "bet". Now, perhaps I am missing something, but here are the points I see as relevant:

1. Did matthew actually take money form anyone? (from what I could see, he did not)

2. Reading the huge thread on his "bet", I actually found myself laughing quite a bit. How could ANYONE have actually thought that it was serious? It's like watching Reality TV and thinking it isn't all scripted.

3. Where did he "actually" scam anyone? Scamming, to me anyway, would be defined as stealing money in some way. I can't see anywhere this happened.

4. It seems like all the upset people were upset because they didn't get any free money, which they did nothing to get anyway. None "lost" any that they already had. Too me its like giving my friend saying he will put $10 on a horse for me. He ends up not going to the track, so he never bets on a horse. Did I get 10 bucks scammed?

5. Garr OUTRIGHT robbed people. In an ACTUAL auction (in my state anyway) shill bidding is FLAT-OUT illegal. Period. It's like going thru the drive thru, then the cashier adding $5.00 onto your bill and keeping it. Did she hold a gun to your head to make you buy your Doritos Tacos? No. Did she scam you? HELL YES!

6. It is VERY obvious that the apology was a last resort, no way out. "Oh look, I sent a picture of my penis to someone and I am a politician. I can just deny it was me." "Oh look, they tied the picture to my account, shit, no way out of this now." "I am deeply troubled by the penis picture. I am seeking help, and am extremely dissapointed in my own actions." Muhahahah, next time I will buy a disposable cellphone!!

7. Refusing to ban/scammer tag/etc Garr can ONLY be because of some sort of friendship/financial/dating/WOW buddies or some other relationship. I mean what grey area is there here? He scammed, plain and simple, and got caught doing it. And he didn't do it just once either. That Werner account was NOT new.

I am writing this all down though, gonna sell it as the next Netflix Original Series! "The BTC Conspiracy--A 10 part limited series, only on Netflix"

I have the same read on this that you do.

When I came to bitcointalk I was expecting to find a tight group of folks who valued honesty.

Sure, there would be the Josh type of idiot and the ever present crowd of minor thieves and pickpockets but the luminaries of the forum would reasonably be good people.

Theymos, Goat and Garr are not meeting that expectation.  The worrisome part is other folks, even those universally respected (John K.) in the community seem to turn a blind eye to this and support it, if only by association.

The really strange thing is the guy that this forum has branded as "Untrustworthy" is actually the one person here that I do trust.

This is one eff'd up place.

Agreed, although I also agree with this :

Matthew: Dude, whether you are right or wrong, your incessant harping on the "injustice" you suffered clutters up nearly ever corner of this forum. I can't even read your posts anymore, as their particular blend of stridency and desperation has become completely repellant. Stop threatening theymos with starting a forum of your own, as he clearly doesn't care. Just fucking do it already. Put everything you have into it, and when it's a success you'll have the redemption that you'll never find here. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy, but you are wasting your time, and everyone else's. Man up and move on.

I feel for ya Matt, and I think what you did was freaking hilarious, and proved what you were tryinbg to point out with the whole thing in the first place. BUT, its over, they overreacted, and you are stuck with the results. I too think you are one of the more honest guys here, and I would buy from you, but suck it up and move on about the scammer thing. Your just squishing the insides of the dead horse around the room at this point.

[ibminer]

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat.     
...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold 

[Plazmotech]

...

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Yet another person I will NOT have fiduciary dealings with.

This is a very useful thread.  I could not devise a better test for determining who is and is _not_ honest.

I'm honest, I wouldn't do an auction and use a sock puppet for it, but I'm saying I see nothing wrong with it, just the method he executed it (Using an anonymous sock puppet) was bad. If I were to do an auction, and I genuinely wasn't happy with the prices I would raise the current bid, however I wouldn't use an anonymous sock puppet, and I would warn people I might do it beforehand.

[TomUnderSea]

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Wait!!!!!

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

You (your forum) refused to violate the sanctity of a deleted post for how long??

Now, just off hand, you quickly confirm that an account that makes Garr look bad _is_ a sock puppet.


Dude, this is REALLY wrong.  You are playing favorites.  You are using your position on this forum to promote your own interests and that of your friends.  You are doing this in a fashion that appears to be underhanded.  

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; it is a duck.

You, theymos, are looking as bad as Garr and Josh.  Perhaps you should look to MNW as a role model of how to do the right thing.

I just considered not posting the above to protect my presence here.  Fuck that.  Go ahead.  Delete this post and ban my account if you think it necessary.

If this forum represents bitcoin, bitcoin will suffer a long time before it succeeds, if ever.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Somebody (no way of knowing who the person is) emailed me the following link and asked if I could post it in this thread.

http://www.freebitcointips.co.uk/apps/profile/106642709/

He (or she, but probably a he) also mentioned a Twitter account with the same name, but didn't provide a link. I found it, but opted to not post it, for I'm still reading this epic thread, of which I think it's about to become more epiccer (not sure if it's 1 c or 2).

[coinsquirrel]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

[RodeoX]

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat.     
...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold 

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

[ibminer]

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Wait!!!!!

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

You (your forum) refused to violate the sanctity of a deleted post for how long??

Now, just off hand, you quickly confirm that an account that makes Garr look bad _is_ a sock puppet.


Dude, this is REALLY wrong.  You are playing favorites.  You are using your position on this forum to promote your own interests and that of your friends.  You are doing this in a fashion that appears to be underhanded.  

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; it is a duck.

You, theymos, are looking as bad as Garr and Josh.  Perhaps you should look to MNW as a role model of how to do the right thing.

I just considered not posting the above to protect my presence here.  Fuck that.  Go ahead.  Delete this post and ban my account if you think it necessary.

If this forum represents bitcoin, bitcoin will suffer a long time before it succeeds, if ever.

He may just be responding more promptly given the situation, and assuming he is actively monitoring this thread... and seeing it is a sensitive situation right now, is attempting to do the right thing by revealing it is not Garr... but it does seem like he, and some others, have a soft spot for Garr, just an observation... but given the reality of this forum right now, every post on this thread right now could be getting made by theymos and other mods. AHHH am I the only actual user here?? am I being scammed??  AHHH!!!

 

[TomUnderSea]

...

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

I know.

What really disappointed me is John K. is taking theymos' coin as a mod.  His reputation was unblemished but now he is answering to theymos.

When (not if) John K. has to either obey his boss, or do the correct and ethical thing, what will he do?  I want to believe he will do the correct and ethical thing but we won't know if he doesn't. Unless of course, Garr is involved with a sock puppet and screws it up.

Until that day, John K. is no longer as clean as he was.  There will always be the doubt that he will put theymos' interests ahead of _anyone_ who employs him for escrow, etc.

yeah, this shit storm is getting worse

[ibminer]

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat.      
...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold  

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

Completely agree... I have seen and experienced it first hand. 'There ain't no rest for the wicked'  ... Just thought I would find something different in bitcoins, I was just being optimistic I guess. I should have realized that people are evil and allowing them to 'cloak' themselves just gives them more freedom to be evil. I know there are some good people out there... just no clue how I would ever find them without putting out a lot of risk with a high chance of getting burned in the bitcoin world.

[Deprived]

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Which victim complained giving you the right to comment on whether the account was someone else's sock-puppet?  How much did that victim lose?  Did you contact this sock-puppet and offer him the chance to pay back whatever he took before you looked at his IP address?

Just to cut off any speculation - that account was NOT mine.  I've never used any account here other than this one - and I freely give permission for any checks admin want to do to check the truth of that statement.

I just want to make sure that sock-pupper was given the same benefit of the doubt as the Werner one was before Theymos checked its IP address and/or did whatever other checks he felt he needed to do to make the quoted statement.

[crumbs]

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat.      
...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold  

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

Completely agree... I have seen and experienced it first hand. 'There ain't no rest for the wicked'  ... Just thought I would find something different in bitcoins, I was just being optimistic I guess. I should have realized that people are evil and allowing them to 'cloak' themselves just gives them more freedom to be evil. I know there are some good people out there... just no clue how I would ever find them without putting out a lot of risk with a high chance of getting burned in the bitcoin world.

There was a pretty dramatic post awhile back, expounding on people losing faith in their currencies, their governments, and now ... Bitcointalk.org.

[Plazmotech]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

[Deprived]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

FYP

[crumbs]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

I agree that what he did isn't morally correct even without these alterations.  I'm kidding, i know, typo i can't read..  If he called it anything other than an auction, the buyers would have no preconceptions, and thus would be *forced* to ask "how exactly does this work."  People assume they know how auctions work, see my point?
edit: strikethrough.