marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team

[xtraelv]

You see, when it comes to trial, disclaimer really means nothing.

I would go one step further to say - in some cases a disclaimer is a legal hindrance for those that rely on them. If the disclaimer is seen as breaching consumer law, securities law or any other law that specifically prohibits or restricts the use of certain disclaimers it could be illegal to have a particular disclaimer because it misleads the consumer of their legal rights under the particular law / statute.

In some cases a disclaimer could be used as proof of legal non-compliance.

Under UK law -the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - particular disclaimers could be deemed illegal

Most commonwealth countries have laws restricting the use of disclaimers.

Considering that a lot of ICOs now exclude USA residents from participating it is likely that prosecution would occur in the EU or a commonwealth country.

[1714151174]

1714151174

[1714151174]

1714151174

[1714151174]

1714151174

[1714151174]

1714151174

[marlboroza]

If I say he is involved with both project how you will prove me wrong in fact he/she have own ICO LAUNCH SERVICES.
Can you prove me wrong ? Even though we know he/she isn't involved but question is why he/she posting ANN continuously with fake team and still never locked thread even exposed.

How do we know? Of course they are involved, it is their "project":

I think the idea behind this project is new when it comes to many blockchain projects out there, it's success will depend on the team

Regards and be sure we have a serious team and great minds behind this project! Interact with us on social platforms

Not sure about second project  

Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

I don't think anyone here is robot.

You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies

Obviously I didn't. But trust isn't moderate by forum or forum policies.

Bad idea. Stay on topic.

[The Cryptovator]

Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

I don't need to prove wrong any suspicion. That is a weird question

Suspicion thing is deserve for prove. Those is confirmed there "prove" word is useless.

You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies

Obviously I didn't. But trust isn't moderate by forum or forum policies.

How do we know? Of course they are involved, it is their "project":

Obviously that's it accordingly activity.

[phroyRov6]

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this as long as you stop everything related to the project as soon as you're notified/you found out.
Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

Do bounty managers have no responsibilities? I have seen multiple people receive negative trust for participating in a scam bounty campaign, wouldn't the bounty manager be subject to the same treatment? Or is he allowed to "back out" when he learns they are a scam?

So let me get this straight...members are now considered not-trusted for trying to make money? If they are getting paid by the bounty campaign, how does that make them a scammer? Are you saying the masses in the bounty section now have to risk the reputation of their account every time they participate in a campaign? That's absurd, imo.

If you want to label people for participating in suspicious campaigns, give them neutral trust as a warning that the user is participating in that campaign. This way people know where their moral compass stands. Just because you don't care about whether a project is a scam or not doesn't mean that you are a scammer, it just means the user doesn't care about whether other people perform their own due diligence or not. That's not anyones responsibility but the investor.

Soon 90% of the marketplace will have red trust, and the only ones without are the watchdogs calling everyone untrustworthy...eventually the trust rating will be meaningless in the future. You're shooting yourselves in the foot! I would recommend formulating a new strategy rather than the absurdity of negative trusting anyone participating in a campaign that may/may not be a scam.

This forum isn't a childcare centre, we don't need babysitters to sit the babies!

This is my alt account, as I believe my main account would quickly be negative trusted for having an opinion against the powerful players of this forum. I guess that is what this forum has come to.

Point being: Polls are easily cheated and present a useless metric. You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies.

So what are we to do, trust your power-hungry judgement?

Instead, fix that problem, set a ranking limit for polls that determine forum policy. Make a specific board accessible to those who earnt their rank. You can't censor and determine foreign policy based on yours and your common-minded friends. Because that is exactly what is going on here.

I highly doubt that your farming dilema will not be solved or you could continue using that excuse if you set a working ranking limit and beta tested with wide-member feedback over time.

[suchmoon]

Were the agencies used by Madoff to advertise sentenced to anything ? No.

This is, in Lauda's words, an extreme example. A more appropriate one would be this: is it ok (or even legal) for an ad agency to put up highway billboards promoting criminal activities, and how should we react if someone chooses to publicly shame that ad agency for such actions?

What do you mean with promoting criminal activities?

Think of any crime and imagine it on a billboard:

So let me get this straight...members are now considered not-trusted for trying to make money

Nice straw man. Now lets try a full sentence:

"members are now considered not-trusted by some DT members for trying to make money from scam projects"

Nobody is forcing you to make money in scam ICO bounties.

[marlboroza]

Hello Mr. 2014, thanks for stopping by after 4 years of inactivity 

members are now considered not-trusted for trying to make money?

This is not true. Who said that?

If they are getting paid by the bounty campaign, how does that make them a scammer?

It doesn't. Who said that?

If you want to label people for participating in suspicious campaigns, give them neutral trust as a warning that the user is participating in that campaign.

If person A expose scam, persons B,C,D tag scam, persons E, F place warning inside bounty and person G choose to promote it after all that, person G shouldn't be trusted. Stop twisting facts. No one is tagging bounty hunters only because they are advertising ICO's.

To be honest accepting to promote obvious ponzi ICO's shouldn't be different than accepting to advertise any of these sites inside Investor-based games.

Why there is difference?

This forum isn't a childcare centre, we don't need babysitters to sit the babies!

Of course not, just don't come here to whine when someone scams you, steal your money and doesn't pay you for your work.

This is my alt account, as I believe my main account would quickly be negative trusted for having an opinion against the powerful players of this forum. I guess that is what this forum has come to.

This is stupid assumption.

Point being: Polls are easily cheated and present a useless metric. You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies.

So what are we to do, trust your power-hungry judgement?

Why are you trolling?

Instead, fix that problem, set a ranking limit for polls that determine forum policy. Make a specific board accessible to those who earnt their rank.

Who will vote? Farming accounts who become senior/hero/legendary before merit was introduced[1]? Hacked S/H/L accounts[2]? How will you determine who earned rank?

I highly doubt that your farming dilema will not be solved or you could continue using that excuse if you set a working ranking limit and beta tested with wide-member feedback over time.

I would go with KYC for AVC (anti-vote-cheating) because of MFA[1] and MHA[2] 

[xtraelv]

Do bounty managers have no responsibilities? I have seen multiple people receive negative trust for participating in a scam bounty campaign, wouldn't the bounty manager be subject to the same treatment? Or is he allowed to "back out" when he learns they are a scam?

I have a couple of questions too.

If I help someone scam other people and get paid from the proceeds - can I legally keep the money ?

If I promote a scheme that turns out to be a fraud - should I be free to promote similar schemes without consequence ?

If I participate in promoting a scam but it gets stopped before anyone is scammed - am I trustworthy ?

If someone is part of a group when a crime is committed they can be tried as an accomplice - even if they didn't commit the crime.
People have been convicted of homicide for selling the gun to the gunman or driving them to the scene of the crime.

Fake team = investor fraud.

Investment decisions are made on the information provided. If you promote a fake team with the intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage then you have committed fraud.

Tagging isn't even about that person necessarily - it is a warning to others to be careful with dealing with them. A neutral simply does not give that warning.

It is also a message to others to be careful and not do the same.

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one)

[Lauda]

Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

I'm not interested in tagging people for that; talk to marlboroza.

Obviously I didn't. But trust isn't moderate by forum or forum policies.

It is; user-decided (and *accepted*) forum policies. If it weren't, you'd fly out of DT tomorrow.

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one)

That doesn't even remotely apply. Please don't quote random things.

[Mazzza]

I do not understand how marlboroza was allowed to perform or forgive.
And it's not about getting negative trust, but about deceiving us, and then ignoring.
He needs to paint trust. I will fight with him.

[Lauda]

He needs to paint trust. I will fight with him.

Seems about right.

[Mazzza]

Tell me. When the seller in the bakery sells bread. He must go to the factory and watch how bread is baked?
He should monitor the owner of the company to find out what kind of person he is? NO
And if the company was accused of selling non-consumable bread, the seller is not to blame for this.
He, as well as the buyers, was deceived by the company. He, as well as the buyers ate this bread.
Also, the seller has no competence in the study of companies.
Thanks to those who know how to do this, BUT, why the seller is guilty, and not the supplier, who also deceived the seller.
This is a standard form of prosecution. Blame the weakest and those who are the easiest to blame.
We are already paying time spent for work with a scam project, and then marlboroza deceives and we get negative trust instead of guilty.
marlboroza to this person a separate distrust. It's not right when a person says one thing, but does the opposite. And then ignores without explanation.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Your made-up-fantasy missed out the bit where someone comes in to the bakery, shows the seller with undeniable proof that the bread is non-consumable, puts up warnings in big red letters all over the bakery, but the seller ignores all this and continues to sell the bread.

You were not tagged for being part of the campaign. You were tagged for continuing with the campaign after it was proven to be a scam, exactly as marlboroza's post said you would be. The fact that you didn't bother to read it before posting your bounty hunting spam is no one's fault but your own.

[marlboroza]

~

You promoted scam which has been exposed, you ignored scam accusation thread, you ignored -ve feedbacks from 3 DT members and 2 non DT members, you ignored scam warning in that thread, you ignored their excuses in their topic in marketplace-->exchange, you ignored their lies in bounty topic, you ignored everything. And you keep following me around forum and posting lies:

Warning: this project is scam
 ~
[/color][/size][/center]

Be careful and do not trust this person.
He draws, and not everyone returns a neutral trust.
Gives the conditions in the fulfillment of which he promises to return neutral trust,
Then not everyone comes back.
Who does not return - without explanation adds ignoring.
He says one thing, but the floor is not done.

I blocked your PM's after few times I've sent you what to do and after you lied couple of times. Besides, it was you who choose to promote exposed scam - so don't blame anyone else for your own actions.

Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

I'm not interested in tagging people for that; talk to marlboroza.

Are you guys still talking about this account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1813710?

Thank you please do join our community on telegram for quick updates

Thank you, its an idea we've brain-stormed and likely we are ahead of our planned roadmap outline currently doing the beta platform development keep in touch for more information

Regards and be sure we have a serious team and great minds behind this project! Interact with us on social platforms

WARNING  - THIS IS A SCAM - FAKE TEAM

Talk to marlboroza? What's that suppose to mean?

I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. What if I posted an account sale with a disclaimer that said "I am only hosting this sale, am not involved in the sale, don't endorse this sale, and won't be held liable for this sale"? What if I hosted a Bitcoin Doubler with a similar disclaimer?

There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant.

Why is this extreme?

Someone accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Why is this different than anything else with disclaimer?

The example was a clear appeal to extremes. Get a hold of yourself; the above conjecture is just pure silliness.

Hashkon is ponzi

[BOUNTY] Hashkon- Only Staking Platform with Withdrawal Trust- 💲571k$ POOL💲

This wasn't example. Why is this extreme? They accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Should washib be tagged for running bounty for obvious investment fraud?

[Lauda]

Are you guys still talking about this account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1813710?

If you're known for tagging people for a particular thing, then people should *talk to you* (i.e. send reports your way). Similarly, account sellers should be sent my way (or to The Pharmacist).

Hashkon is ponzi

[BOUNTY] Hashkon- Only Staking Platform with Withdrawal Trust- 💲571k$ POOL💲

This wasn't example. Why is this extreme? They accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Should washib be tagged for running bounty for obvious investment fraud?

Disclaimer: I have not looked into the specifics of this "platform" (website is dead anyways). You can make a "high return" project/coin without it being a ponzi by deploying POS (although 1-1.5% daily is too high for any sane POS). However, was it something with its own coin and POS then I wouldn't label it as 'obvious investment fraud'.
In this particular case: He should have known better given that there is a pattern.
This is an extreme example that tries to circumvent sane understanding of my initial argument as I told o_e_l_e_o earlier. The case being: BMs can protect themselves with disclaimers in most cases[1]; you can't expect a BM to come to the same conclusions about something as yourself in most/all cases; you can't expect a BM to find out proof of something being fake in the same time-frame as you.
[1] Meaning, you can't do that e.g. if you run a bounty for 'XYZ Ponzi Platform' and put a disclaimer on it.

[Mazzza]

-snip-

Your made-up-fantasy missed out the bit where someone comes in to the bakery, shows the seller with undeniable proof that the bread is non-consumable, puts up warnings in big red letters all over the bakery, but the seller ignores all this and continues to sell the bread.

You were not tagged for being part of the campaign. You were tagged for continuing with the campaign after it was proven to be a scam, exactly as marlboroza's post said you would be. The fact that you didn't bother to read it before posting your bounty hunting spam is no one's fault but your own.

I agree that your side looks like this, but ......
I have a resource for which I select companies and this resource is used by a lot of people. Since January 25, we have not a single scam company. I myself have a bad attitude towards them. For 8 months, this is the first company that deceived my trust.
Yes, I did not see the message, but ......
I flipped through 5 pages in a branch before making a report, but the message turned out to be very far away. I always check companies with a red trust. Today I have only 2 companies with a negative trust and before all people take the report I check them every week.
Ok, I'm in trouble, but .....
Now it's not about this, but about the fact that I received a message from marlboroza what should I do so that I marlboroza  returned a neutral trust. I did it. Then he introduced me to the blacklist. I started writing to him in his branch on the return of the neutral trust. There, not explaining why I do not deserve to return the route, forbade me to write in the branch.
It turns out he directed me to action, but did not fulfill what he promised everyone.
Not only did he return the neutral trust, but for some reason he ignored me.
That's what I do not understand. Usually said - do it.
And I do not care much about the negative trust, since I do not make a pod. I'm worried that people like marlboroza  do not follow their words. They should not be at the helm.


Another time. If I were important, the rank or trust I gave would become Junior or Full. Yes, and I know that it is not difficult to buy them.
I'm against people who do not follow their words.

[marlboroza]

~

You have been tagged because you promoted exposed scam in social network after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.
Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

[Mazzza]

~

You have been tagged because you promoted exposed scam in social network after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.
Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

Thank you for showing that I found not all messages to delete, I was sure of the opposite. This I learned only today from you. I think it would be simpler if you helped us, and did not ignore.

[Lauda]

-snip-
...after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.
Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

Just ignore the troll and his bakery nonsense; your time is better spent elsewhere.

[Mazzza]

-snip-
...after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.
Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

Just ignore the troll and his bakery nonsense; your time is better spent elsewhere.

Is ignore this way out? Always so squealing questions?
 where did you get that I'm a troll? I do not want to waste time on you, but I had to. If the problem had been solved, you would not have heard me.

[marlboroza]

Flag type 1 is created:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=798632

Ups, flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=83