(SCAM ALERT) Lovesmayfamilis/Avirunes/Coolcryptovator - Merit/PROMOTION Scheme

[Joseph R. Cord]

What happened: FREE Merit Collecting SCHEME and Promoting BESTMIXER.IO through Signature

Taking out projects, and pointing random things in trying to get appreciation from the community.


Lovesmayfamilis Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1982152
Avirunes Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=175302
Coolcryptovator Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1980983



FAKE Accusation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126836.msg50426465#msg50426465

Here is what is claimed by Lovesmayfamilis - Plagiarized Whitepaper

This is the said whitepaper - https://web.archive.org/web/20190401065816/https://mayapreferred.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/MAYP-final-2.pdf

We ask EVERY Member here give their views as what is wrong with this Whitepaper.

The genius Coolcryptovator says that it's Plagiarized copying someone's text and putting as your own idea, which is a reference to us having definition of Blockchain and other General aspects. So, basically the problem is (according to them) that we claimed that Blockchain is OUR creation, and with our Whitepaper we are fooling people that we have created the Blockchain technology and other aspects mentioned.

Our Response:

After repeatedly asking to show 1 (ONE) part, which we have copied from other Whitepaper or any aspect of our own project is copied from someone else. But everytime same answer comes up and that is that you have copied.

Any sensible person explain how do we explain our users term Blockchain and other Crypto aspects without using the reputed sources? Every ICO or majority have it and some even have it in their FAQs section as well. So is this really Plagiarized?

Not just that, the ICO phase was FINISHED long time ago. We are ALREADY listed on Exchanges, and more to be added in next few months.

So where exactly is SCAM part comes?

FAKE Feedback: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126836.msg50426465#msg50426465

Next Avirunes - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=175302

This guy is even more AMAZING! He left the Feedback just on the Basis of seeing the thread is created!



So, he basically had no time to review anything but HAD time to leave the feedback. And why not, who is going to listen to someone newbie like me?

And of course, this IMAGE should say a lot -



Maybe BOTH are SAME?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We REQUEST every reputed and sensible member of this Community along with Admin, to kindly find a balance instead with the feedback and allowing people to create threads like that on SCAM Accusations section, as it has become a joke with people opening it just to get MERITs with leaving majority at the MERCY of some of these nut heads, who are running their own shop at the cost of others respect, dignity and reputation.

We are also going to message every other ICO owner facing same issue due to these people who come up with such threads and act like they are Admins. We request ALL ICO owners who are honest and facing this issue to create threads shaming these people and forward message to the Admin.

It's a long process and this post is UNLIKELY to change anything, but at least it will be a start against these people.

[1715112805]

1715112805

[1715112805]

1715112805

[1715112805]

1715112805

[1715112805]

1715112805

[Avirunes]

-snip-

About the screenshot you presented: I at that point(when you send me PM) didn't had time to check again but I did left the feedback after checking. You seemed to have copy/pasted the content so I sent a feedback.

You then PM'ed me about the general things being copy/pasted so I decided to review the case and after checking  at best hand over a chance and send you a PM earlier today how you should ask the community on how to settle things but also asked you to add references to the content you copied.

You only sent me PM's where you only tried to persuade me to remove feedback without making any changes to the Whitepaper.

Guess I was wrong at handing you a chance. You only had made your case worst.

[Joseph R. Cord]

-snip-

About the screenshot you presented: I at that point(when you send me PM) didn't had time to check again but I did left the feedback after checking. You seemed to have copy/pasted the content so I sent a feedback.

You then PM'ed me about the general things being copy/pasted so I decided to review the case and after checking  at best hand over a chance and send you a PM earlier today how you should ask the community on how to settle things but also asked you to add references to the content you copied.

You only sent me PM's where you only tried to persuade me to remove feedback without making any changes to the Whitepaper.

Guess I was wrong at handing you a chance. You only had made your case worst.

I did not PM you to get lucky and get the Feedback removed, I pmed you asking that how you can leave the Feedback so early even when there was not even response from me? Is there a timeframe that Feedback was not possible later on? Or was your intention to give POWER to the thread that was created by your "TWIN".

And how easily you said "YOU SEEMED", so basically your feedback was based upon your thoughts not reality as that was not important. There is NO ONE here aside GOD to look at these things!

You gave me a chance? Buddy who are you at this forum? You are also a member not the ADMIN, which you and some of your TWINs try to be!

MY case, it's the CASE of ALL people who are fed up with people like you bullying them and then act like Angels!

[lovesmayfamilis]

I will repeat to you and here again. Lots of copied material. Here on the forum is not welcome. I do not ask merit from anyone where you saw my request. In addition, there was a question about the team? There was no answer.
All who uses the copied resources, write about the source. You have almost the entire document copied.


moreover i will show you more.
Well, let's blame Coolcryptovator and me for altos.

[Joseph R. Cord]

I will repeat to you and here again. Lots of copied material. Here on the forum is not welcome. I do not ask merit from anyone where you saw my request. In addition, there was a question about the team? There was no answer.
All who uses the copied resources, write about the source. You have almost the entire document copied.


moreover i will show you more.
Well, let's blame Coolcryptovator and me for altos.

Before moving further, have me with some "EVIDENCE" that matches with any other Whitepaper on this planet!

Yes, it's obvious to see what's your intentions are. Why do we give you the team information? Are you the admin of this forum? Just because you are "UNABLE" to "PROOF" yourself right with the Whitepaper, now you want to switch attention to the team? Is it so? Not so easy.

Don't repeat same thing, show the "PROOF".

Anyone with common sense don't need to see MORE with what I already put in!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You asked this in another thread:

So your issue is that we should give reference?

....and you don't seem to understand what plagiarism is, and I'm not sure you will understand or take responsibility for what you did, which is to write text, the content of which was conceived by another person or persons, without citing where you got the text from.  It isn't your own.  Even though many other whitepapers do the same idiotic thing, that doesn't give you a pass. 

The fact is that this happens a lot.  Sometimes my unread threads feed is filled up with scam accusation threads of the same nature.  You cannot convince me that you had to copy-paste any words from somewhere else and pass them off as your own.  You could have paraphrased.  You could have written basically the same paragraph(s) in your own words.  It's lazy and it's wrong to create a document that plagiarizes content, which is exactly what you did.

[Joseph R. Cord]

You asked this in another thread:

So your issue is that we should give reference?

....and you don't seem to understand what plagiarism is, and I'm not sure you will understand or take responsibility for what you did, which is to write text, the content of which was conceived by another person or persons, without citing where you got the text from.  It isn't your own.  Even though many other whitepapers do the same idiotic thing, that doesn't give you a pass.  

The fact is that this happens a lot.  Sometimes my unread threads feed is filled up with scam accusation threads of the same nature.  You cannot convince me that you had to copy-paste any words from somewhere else and pass them off as your own.  You could have paraphrased.  You could have written basically the same paragraph(s) in your own words.  It's lazy and it's wrong to create a document that plagiarizes content, which is exactly what you did.

From the moment this thread was created, whether on PM or here, we agreed that it's important to add reference. But what we have repeatedly pointed out is that the thing is not copying someone's Whitepaper, but instead we used sources to explain general terms like "Blockchain" and others. Which is something done by everyone.

So let me know if I am wrong with this but the fault that is pointed is that we SHOULD have reference right?

Also, I don't know how else to explain but the obvious intention was to explain people the obvious terms using sources that explains them the best like Coindesk and others. And what can anyone get by copying Blockchain? You are saying that maybe we were lazy, that is fine but you should also understand that we wanted the user to understand things properly, IF we had put it in our words then there was always chance people not able to understand it properly.

I ask you that check and tell me If there is even 1% of the actual information copied. I can paste a lot of ICO sites right now having FAQs that are using things like "what is Blockchain" what is Cryptocurrency" and all such, and are taken from reputed sources. It's not because they are lazy because the information they intent to pass needs to be accurate and holding value.

More importantly, we are ALREADY trading on the exchanges, so we are very much not losing or gaining anything by this but I just want to take a stand against these people who consider everyone like their PETS.

[The Cryptovator]

Ah! Another thread against me(Coolcryptovator). Why you don't want to understand that, if you and me write about blockchain technology then it will never match with your writing and my writing even main point will be same. That's was our point. You have no right to copy paste from others, and it's called plagiarism. Look like now everything in your website is fake. This project is totally scam in my opinions. Trading on worst exchange doesn't proof your project is legit.

This is your second thread against us. But it seems good that your negative feedback's are increasing. Not only me, others DT also thinking that you are wrong. You are just calling more DT to tag you by opening each new thread.

[Foxpup]

From the moment this thread was created, whether on PM or here, we agreed that it's important to add reference.

So why don't you? It's been over 48 hours and you haven't updated your white paper to cite your sources. You claim you're being unfairly treated by not being given a chance to correct your error, yet you still fail to do so. Surely you must realise your negative trust would very likely have been removed by now had you just stopped plagiarising instead of going off on these wild rants, which are only likely to earn you even more negative trust by drawing attention not only to your plagiarism, but also to your immature and unprofessional attitude about it, which many people would regard as untrustworthy in and of itself.

[Joseph R. Cord]

Ah! Another thread against me(Coolcryptovator). Why you don't want to understand that, if you and me write about blockchain technology then it will never match with your writing and my writing even main point will be same. That's was our point. You have no right to copy paste from others, and it's called plagiarism. Look like now everything in your website is fake. This project is totally scam in my opinions. Trading on worst exchange doesn't proof your project is legit.

This is your second thread against us. But it seems good that your negative feedback's are increasing. Not only me, others DT also thinking that you are wrong. You are just calling more DT to tag you by opening each new thread.

Yeah, that's your opinion only. We don't have the right to copy from others Whitepaper, but everyone got the right to use certain information as reference. And is it rocket science to know that every website does that in certain way, and that's not because they are cheating, but it's because that's how it's to be done.

I know I am just wasting my time explaining it because it's worth nothing. But I must add now "suddenly" majority of the ICOs are scammed on this basis, as many have it on their FAQs and some on Whitepaper.

So the only reason we are "DECLARED" scam by some of the geniuses here is that we copied, and what we copied? We copied "Blockchain" technology explanation from sites like Coindesk, which is a crime as per some people here.

So basically it was wrong to use the reputed source to explain people the general terms.

Foxpup - Like I said it means little to us as of now because we are looking to gain absolutely nothing from here. I asked countless times from the OP to explain IF his problem was purely that we had no reference to the source we used but instead of having answer to that, he was busy in bashing us.

And I am sure even adding reference wouldn't have made a difference, as some people who desire to create issues, will find some anyway so we are not even bother about these people.

And like I have mentioned, this is least about our PROJECT now, it's about others onwards. As I know we are not the "LAST" victim of these geniuses, so at least help others understand that by staying silent is not going to help. And with hope that SOME DAY Admin MIGHT look into these things seriously.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Please lock this topic as it makes no sense. A plagiarized whitepaper deserves negative feedback, it has nothing to do with a "merit collecting scheme".

[Quickseller]

1 - avirunes has no need to "collect" merit because he is already a legendary member.

I will also repeat what I said in your other thread, at least the important part:

If there appears to be a credible accusation against someone, it is not inappropriate to leave a provisional rating against the person while they wait for additional information to come out.

If you present evidence to show your innocence, OR the accuser (or anyone else) cannot provide sufficient evidence to show that you are a scammer or that you tried to scam someone (or will likely do so in the future) then the ratings can be removed.

The reason for this is so that others will be warned about dealing with a potential scammer.

The purpose of the trust system is to give an assessment of a potential trading partner's ability to trust someone.

It is not uncommon for a scammer to be trying to scam multiple people at a time, and a quick negative rating may prevent additional people from getting scammed after the 1st accusation surfaces if they have not sent the scammer money or property yet, or it will at least cause them to ask questions and take additional precautions to protect themselves.

[...]
If you want to compare the trust system to the legal system, then I would tell you that if there is probable cause that anyone committed a crime, the police can arrest them, and can hold them in jail for a period of time without charging them. The standard of probable cause is very low, but has not been defined by the US Supreme Court to my knowledge. In many jurisdictions, if there is a 51% chance that a crime was committed, the standard of probable cause will have been exceeded.

It is absurd to say there should be a delay from the time when you (allegedly) scam someone until when you should get tahhed.

[Lauda]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have just left you a negative rating.

[Foxpup]

We copied "Blockchain" technology explanation from sites like Coindesk, which is a crime as per some people here.

More importantly, it is also a crime as per international copyright law, and if that means so little to you, what other laws are you willing to break? In any case, your childish response to being called out says more about your professionalism or lack thereof than your initial offence. Thanks for playing, enjoy your prize.

[Joseph R. Cord]

Please lock this topic as it makes no sense. A plagiarized whitepaper deserves negative feedback, it has nothing to do with a "merit collecting scheme".

Did you checked the Whitepaper yourself? Or are you following what you read?

1 - avirunes has no need to "collect" merit because he is already a legendary member.

I will also repeat what I said in your other thread, at least the important part:

If there appears to be a credible accusation against someone, it is not inappropriate to leave a provisional rating against the person while they wait for additional information to come out.

If you present evidence to show your innocence, OR the accuser (or anyone else) cannot provide sufficient evidence to show that you are a scammer or that you tried to scam someone (or will likely do so in the future) then the ratings can be removed.

The reason for this is so that others will be warned about dealing with a potential scammer.

The purpose of the trust system is to give an assessment of a potential trading partner's ability to trust someone.

It is not uncommon for a scammer to be trying to scam multiple people at a time, and a quick negative rating may prevent additional people from getting scammed after the 1st accusation surfaces if they have not sent the scammer money or property yet, or it will at least cause them to ask questions and take additional precautions to protect themselves.

[...]
If you want to compare the trust system to the legal system, then I would tell you that if there is probable cause that anyone committed a crime, the police can arrest them, and can hold them in jail for a period of time without charging them. The standard of probable cause is very low, but has not been defined by the US Supreme Court to my knowledge. In many jurisdictions, if there is a 51% chance that a crime was committed, the standard of probable cause will have been exceeded.

It is absurd to say there should be a delay from the time when you (allegedly) scam someone until when you should get tahhed.

Ok so in short, you mean to say that forget if the person is "CORRECT" or "WRONG", just open the thread and everyone on the forum should leave "FEEDBACK" right away.

Then how about having a "SYSTEM" where the person who "FAILS" to proof his claims right should also be "PUNISHED" with negative feedback for accusing someone falsely? What do you think about that?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have just left you a negative rating.

You are most welcome. You indeed proved how much "VALUE" is of the current feedback system.

We copied "Blockchain" technology explanation from sites like Coindesk, which is a crime as per some people here.

More importantly, it is also a crime as per international copyright law, and if that means so little to you, what other laws are you willing to break? In any case, your childish response to being called out says more about your professionalism or lack thereof than your initial offence. Thanks for playing, enjoy your prize.

Lol, okay. So taking reference is a "CRIME". The only fault we "accepted" from the moment was that we did "NOT" had the reference, which was OBVIOUS error from our side. But I guess even IF the reference was given, some people still would find something to ride through.

Thank you for rewards

[TheNewAnon135246]

Please lock this topic as it makes no sense. A plagiarized whitepaper deserves negative feedback, it has nothing to do with a "merit collecting scheme".

Did you checked the Whitepaper yourself? Or are you following what you read?

Yes I have checked the whitepaper. There is so much plagiarism in there it's not even funny. You obviously:

a) Fail to see what plagiarism is.
b) Continue to lie to everyone, including yourself.

[Joseph R. Cord]

Please lock this topic as it makes no sense. A plagiarized whitepaper deserves negative feedback, it has nothing to do with a "merit collecting scheme".

Did you checked the Whitepaper yourself? Or are you following what you read?

Yes I have checked the whitepaper. There is so much plagiarism in there it's not even funny. You obviously:

a) Fail to see what plagiarism is.
b) Continue to lie to everyone, including yourself.

Ok what lies I have exactly continue with? I would love to hear

I failed to see plagiarism? The very FIRST post/pm was that we "ACCEPTED" that the reference was "NEEDED", because we used reputed sources like "Blockchain" and others, it was done only in interest of people who might not know a lot about Cryptos.

The OP was asked repeatedly, if adding reference would solve the issue, but no reply was given. But yes, I only continue to lie rest are Angels running here. Of course, all is fine till it "happens" with others, the issue will be "Genuine" when these so-called greats suffer. But then that's highly unlikely, these wise heads know IF they target someone of their "LEVELS" they would themselves suffer along with it, and their ACTUAL purpose of "MERIT" Collection and "PROMOTING" their own Bitcoin Mixer type sites will "SUFFER", so what's the BEST and EASY way?

It is to check for "SOFT TARGETS", which 50% won't even be aware of the scenes while rest won't anyway be able to defend themselves while these NUT heads will continue on with their usual scheme.