franky1 / tortious interference

[benjamindees]

Normally I am a strict proponent of free speech.  I have, in the past, defended political speech on these forums.

I support the forum moderators in the mechanisms that have been put in place in order to identify and rid the Bitcoin community of scammers.  These mechanisms have made the Bitcoin Talk forums a much better place.

Now, however, I must ask the forum moderators to decide what I think is a somewhat novel case of someone who has attempted to abuse these mechanisms for his own potential commercial gain.  Someone who has made unfounded accusations in an attempt to inject himself, as a middle-man, into business between other parties.  Someone who elevated these libelous accusations to the level of a scammer request, in an attempt to force his position.  And who has failed to retract these claims when they were revealed to be un-supported.

With the influx of moneyed investors to these forums, a new form of commercial speech has reared its ugly head.  And it is one that, I believe, stands in direct opposition to the ideals that Bitcoin stands for and hopes to achieve.

It is that of the hyper-competitive investor, trolling the forum all day long in search of potential deals, and propagating fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to scuttle the business of his competitors, or even potential competitors.

This behaviour is a direct consequence of the system of centralized money-printing.  It is just one means by which the force of inflationary theft is transmitted, used against and imposed upon those who would otherwise wish to have no part in such a system.  This is especially applicable to the Bitcoin economy.

This crime has long been known in commercial law as "tortious interference," the act of attempting to gain commercial advantage by meddling in the business dealings of others.

This type of trolling, beyond just frustrating forum-goers, creates a toxic environment for legitimate Bitcoin businesses.

It would, in my opinion, be in the best interests of the forum and the entire Bitcoin community to be aware of, and vigilant against, such abuse.

So, unfortunately I must stand here today, asking that user 'franky1' be given a scammer tag or, preferrably, banned from the forums, for engaging in such behaviour.  I think it is clear from the record here, here and here what his intentions are.  These false statements and accusations have already caused me and my projects much reputational damage.

If left to continue, malicious, intentional disruptions such as these have the potential to cause significant damage to the Bitcoin economy by striking at the very root of Bitcoin's economic independence.  I hope that the moderators can be aware of this threat, and can take action or perhaps put some mechanism in place to counter it.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Vod]

Normally I am a strict proponent of free speech.  I have, in the past, defended political speech on these forums.

I support the forum moderators in the mechanisms that have been put in place in order to identify and rid the Bitcoin community of scammers.  These mechanisms have made the Bitcoin Talk forums a much better place.

Now, however, I must ask the forum moderators to decide what I think is a somewhat novel case of someone who has attempted to abuse these mechanisms for his own potential commercial gain.  Someone who has made unfounded accusations in an attempt to inject himself, as a middle-man, into business between other parties.  Someone who elevated these libelous accusations to the level of a scammer request, in an attempt to force his position.  And who has failed to retract these claims when they were revealed to be un-supported.

With the influx of moneyed investors to these forums, a new form of commercial speech has reared its ugly head.  And it is one that, I believe, stands in direct opposition to the ideals that Bitcoin stands for and hopes to achieve.

It is that of the hyper-competitive investor, trolling the forum all day long in search of potential deals, and propagating fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to scuttle the business of his competitors, or even potential competitors.

This behaviour is a direct consequence of the system of centralized money-printing.  It is just one means by which the force of inflationary theft is transmitted, used against and imposed upon those who would otherwise wish to have no part in such a system.  This is especially applicable to the Bitcoin economy.

This crime has long been known in commercial law as "tortious interference," the act of attempting to gain commercial advantage by meddling in the business dealings of others.

This type of trolling, beyond just frustrating forum-goers, creates a toxic environment for legitimate Bitcoin businesses.

It would, in my opinion, be in the best interests of the forum and the entire Bitcoin community to be aware of, and vigilant against, such abuse.

So, unfortunately I must stand here today, asking that user 'franky1' be given a scammer tag or, preferrably, banned from the forums, for engaging in such behaviour.  I think it is clear from the record here, here and here what his intentions are.  These false statements and accusations have already caused me and my projects much reputational damage.

If left to continue, malicious, intentional disruptions such as these have the potential to cause significant damage to the Bitcoin economy by striking at the very root of Bitcoin's economic independence.  I hope that the moderators can be aware of this threat, and can take action or perhaps put some mechanism in place to counter it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Why don't you just answer his questions?   

If you want to be on the public internet, you're going to need thicker skin.   

[solex]

Franky1 seems to be polite and asking reasonable questions.

A sound project will have a website and activity outside this forum, other people participating, photos, feedback, a track record of prior success. Is this the case with yours?

[benjamindees]

Franky1 seems to be polite and asking reasonable questions.

Please try reading the original, full comments I linked and not merely his self-selected quotes.  Thanks.

[benjamindees]

For example, his latest attack post:

thank god you also seen through this wacko's plans

he demands $300 from people but is not prepared to answer any questions. the idea of a bitcoin island is to such a magnitude that someone making a second island is not an easy achievement for there to be any competition.

thus the requirement for a NDA is not really required. and with bitcoins ideoloogy being open source and freedom from controls is further reason why an NDA seems like a thing that is not needed.

what kind of competition can an island fear???

this is a blatent SCAM and the use of the sentance "requires an NDA" is this insane persons only brain fart method of making his idea sound legit.

he has no clue what competition there would be to worry about to even require an NDA. and from reading his posts (yes i read every post over the many years of this guy) i can instantly see he has no actual life experience to make this project work.,

much like finshaggy.

why is it always these drug fuelled idiots with no experience that are always the ones trying to head up projects to a scale that it easy to spot that they can't cope with.

Is this really something that the moderators of this site want to stand behind?

[Vod]

Why won't you answer his questions?

[benjamindees]

Why won't you answer his questions?

This has nothing to do with his questions.  It has to do with his libellous attacks.  His "questions" are something he tacked on after the fact in order to make it seem as though he is just being a cautious investor rather than, as I have pointed out, angling for either complete control of the project (which has never been offered) or sabotaging the project entirely and supporting a competing project.  In fact, I would not be at all surprised if he were, in fact, already supporting a competing project.

I've made it clear under which circumstances (NDA, in person, etc) I am willing to divulge more information.  Answering questions publicly from investors who have made their adverse positions known would only cause the Bitcoin Island project harm.

Once again, I am continually shocked at the naiveté of this community.  These tactics are well-worn in the business world.  'Franky1' is obviously versed in investing, as well as libel and tort laws.  Unfortunately, he seems to feel that he is under no obligation to refrain from this criminal behaviour, for whatever reasons.  Likely because this forum and the Bitcoin community tend to tolerate it.

I made this thread because this issue is bigger than just this one example, or my project.  It is fundamental to Bitcoin.  Printed, fiat money has absolutely no value unless it can be used to gain control of valuable assets.  When this can't be accomplished voluntarily, it is achieved through force.  Independent businesses are scuttled, and those beholden to central banks are supported to take their place.  Fiat money "investors" such as 'franky1' serve this purpose.

If this forum wilfully tolerates such behaviour, I will be forced to join the scores of other reputable community members who have already abandoned it.

The next time you wonder why the real Bitcoin economy is stagnating, I hope you realize that one major reason is that you have invited fiat money-printers and their toady investors to disrupt it at such a fundamental level.

[franky1]

basic due diligence is not "naiveté of this community". it is actually standard and recommended process to follow

benjamindees answer to not wanting to give out basic due diligence information before handing over funds to him is to ask his 30 bootcamp attendee's to first of all hand over 3BTC, reveal their real life information to create NDA's, pay for plane tickets and visit him. and then, only then will he reveal his basic information.

the whole idea of due diligence is to gain basic identifiable information to base trustworthiness BEFORE handing ANY money over.

so on the 3rd different thread trying to get the basic information about HIM and not his secret technologies (which only that should remain under NDA) i will leave this:

again we as a community are not asking for your secret technology. we only seek basic due diligence information about YOU and about how trustworthy YOU are to be handling 3BTC-300BTC BEFORE having to hand over 3BTC

DO NOT TELL US THE SECRET TECHNOLOGY

but please reveal:
1)who you are
2)what your knowledge is in these area's:
a)real estate
b)construction
c)utility companies
d)leadership skills
e)laws and permits required for a,b,c
f)laws and permits revolving around local eco-systems of an island (EG rare species protection)

do not answer/ignore the questions purely on the bases of me.. but on the bases of the whole community that may wish for a bitcoin island to actually exist

[benjamindees]

Further response from me would just be repetitive, and muddy the issue more than it already has been.  Hopefully a moderator will take the time to read the threads and respond.

I will clarify that I have been under the impression that this forum still has some, minimal, form of moderation in order to prevent systemic abuse such as this.  If that is not the case, perhaps a moderator can make that clear and I will refrain from using this forum in the future.  Thanks.

[franky1]

Further response from me would just be repetitive, and muddy the issue more than it already has been.  Hopefully a moderator will take the time to read the threads and respond.

I will clarify that I have been under the impression that this forum still has some, minimal, form of moderation in order to prevent systemic abuse such as this.  If that is not the case, perhaps a moderator can make that clear and I will refrain from using this forum in the future.  Thanks.

YOU have a project
YOU requested in 2012 300BTC
YOU requested in 2013 3BTC - to meet people to convince them into spending 300BTC

whenever someon asks for funds it is standard practice to ask due diligence questions BEFORE handing over money

yet your response
SIGN a NDA - this alone requires the payee(s) to hand over their personal information to you for you to then write up an NDA for them to sign.
PAY 3BTC
BAY transport

and then and only then will you reveal your personal information.

what a strange man you are asking investors to give you their information and funds BEFORE any due diligence information can be obtained from you.

no wonder no one invested in you in 2012

[greyhawk]

this post is a post to subscribe to a thread where a crazy person attacks franky for asking valid questions.

The laffocoin potential is immense.

[surebet]

Ground floor!

[malevolent]

this post is a post to subscribe to a thread where a crazy person attacks franky for asking valid questions.

The laffocoin potential is immense.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90136.0

[Lethn]

It's amazing how many proponents of free speech immediately start hating it when they actually get it, being for free speech means that you accept the fact that people will say things you don't like as well as say things you agree with, of course that doesn't necessarily mean you have to listen to it either, it's when you try to silence the other person from speaking publicly that it gets pretty pathetic.

[benjamindees]

If the moderators of this forum have given up completely, no longer distribute scammer tags or ban users, and can't even be bothered to respond to this thread, then don't complain when I use the self-moderation function to rid my threads of obvious trolls.

[Gordon Bleu]

1. Have you answered Franky1's legitemate Questions ? where ?

[shahgarpett]

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/meh.ro10588.jpg

[benjamindees]

I agree that franky1 is kind of a dick, but he does bring up valid points that you should address...

Most of what he posts is inaccurate nonsense.  I've addressed his few valid points.

[benjamindees]

So this forum now has paid moderators, no longer distributes scammer tags, and lets wealthy investors troll with impunity?  No moderator can find the time to comment here?

Something is rotten.

[John (John K.)]

It's amazing how many proponents of free speech immediately start hating it when they actually get it, being for free speech means that you accept the fact that people will say things you don't like as well as say things you agree with, of course that doesn't necessarily mean you have to listen to it either, it's when you try to silence the other person from speaking publicly that it gets pretty pathetic.

This. We pride ourselves to delete the least possible conversation/speech here unless it's too distracting and/or pointless. Examples include '+1', 'yeah', etc. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236572.msg2500824#msg2500824)

So this forum now has paid moderators, no longer distributes scammer tags, and lets wealthy investors troll with impunity?  No moderator can find the time to comment here?

Something is rotten.

If anything, the fact that mods getting paid would give the mods an incentive to remove his posts for the sake of racking up activity. I'm not aware of the situation that letting him post questions, albeit harsh and straight, has to do with his wealth at all. For all it's concerned, we would not give a damn between a billionaire trolling or a pauper trolling.