ㅤ

[Symmetrick]

ㅤ

[jackg]

Scams are not moderated.

Moderators are free to work at their own discretion. Generally (some), moderators try to remove obvious scams or known scam trends but it shouldn't be relied on.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So, after all, the scam was moderated before, or was it the arbitrariness of a particular moderator, who in fact did not have the right to make such changes to the topic name and in the topic itself?

That's what it looks like to me, because mods usually don't call out scams or potential scams like that.  It's definitely unusual, though I have to say I applaud LZ for doing that.  One of the things I've always found so bizarre about bitcointalk is the fact that scams aren't moderated, because on most other discussion forums if there's even a whiff of dishonesty, you'll get booted with no option to appeal.

Moderators are free to work at their own discretion.

Do you know that to be true for a fact?  I honestly have no idea how much discretion moderators have when it comes to situations like this.  If scams truly aren't moderated, then I would think Theymos wouldn't approve of what LZ did on this one.  I'd be curious to hear from a mod (or Theymos) for clarification.

[Upgrade00]

So, after all, the scam was moderated before, or was it the arbitrariness of a particular moderator, who in fact did not have the right to make such changes to the topic name and in the topic itself?

If a certain number of users report a particular member or support a flag against that member, a warning would be shown for newbies and guests and older members would see a '#' sign in their trust, this is a direct forum warning, acting on the reports of the community and is very similar to what this mod did;

There are user complaints about fraud.

Moderator

The mod is referring to complaints from other members and putting up a warning that everyone who visits the thread can easily see, similar to the forum's scam warning message.

[Delightcrypto1]

So, after all, the scam was moderated before, or was it the arbitrariness of a particular moderator, who in fact did not have the right to make such changes to the topic name and in the topic itself?

If a certain number of users report a particular member or support a flag against that member, a warning would be shown for newbies and guests and older members would see a '#' sign in their trust, this is a direct forum warning, acting on the reports of the community and is very similar to what this mod did;

There are user complaints about fraud.

Moderator

The mod is referring to complaints from other members and putting up a warning that everyone who visits the thread can easily see, similar to the forum's scam warning message.

There is something am not cleared of, Are you directly or indirectly saying scammers are allowed to carry out any cybercrime related activities with them being mod? I don't think scams aren't mod because this forum is to encourage it's users and not devastating from the forum

[Upgrade00]

There is something am not cleared of, Are you directly or indirectly saying scammers are allowed to carry out any cybercrime related activities with them being mod? I don't think scams aren't mod because this forum is to encourage it's users and not devastating from the forum

The forum has the trust system and flag system features (you can search them up). These systems are meant to check and prevent scams by warning other members of potential scammers, there's also the scam accusations board, where you can report potential scam situations; However there is no official forum rule about scams because,
• it can have so many grey areas and be difficult to prove,
• members could have a false sense of security.

[LTU_btc]

Interesting case. I see that it happened quite long time ago - mod edited this post in 2017. But as I remember, there was no change in rules since then, back in 2017 scams weren't moderated, same like today. So, it's not job for mods to edit such posts and give warnings about potential scams.

[Pmalek]

If that service is really a danger to the community, I support LZ's decision to put that warning for all members to see. That's the way it should be. Actually the way it should be is that scammers shouldn't be part of this community at all, but if we can't have that, this is the next best thing. 

There is something am not cleared of, Are you directly or indirectly saying scammers are allowed to carry out any cybercrime related activities with them being mod? I don't think scams aren't mod because this forum is to encourage it's users and not devastating from the forum

Let me make it easy for you. I can scam you of your money and I wont be banned from Bitcointalk even if you have proof of me being a scammer. I can only be banned if I broke one of the Bitcointalk unofficial rules (scamming is not a bannable offence). If I were to share a malware infected file, plagiarize the post that lead to the scam, spam with ref links etc., those things could result in my being banned, but not the scam itself.   

[tranthidung]

I am on the forum not so long ago and have little knowledge of the previous rules. For 2 years of being on bitcointalk, I constantly read posts that moderation and trust are two different things, that scams are not moderated and moderators do not interfere in proceedings regarding scams.

Neither scam not trust are moderated per (un)official rules

19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse).

Additionally, each moderator has own perspective and own way to interpret rules and handle specific cases.

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e]

So, after all, the scam was moderated before, or was it the arbitrariness of a particular moderator, who in fact did not have the right to make such changes to the topic name and in the topic itself?

I think the rule 19 says clear enough.

• Sometimes, the fact can not be found too easily.
  
  • A good service can be a scam until proofs are clear. Honestly, in the past, I participated in the Livecoin exchange's signature campaign, because I believed it is not a scam. Last year, Livecoin did a scam exit.
  • I did not regret about my participation and my wrong belief in their service. I did not say they are scam and participated in their campaign, LOL.
• The forum is not a court of justice and proofs here can not be enough per local laws. It also does not make sense if the forum tries to be a global court for all services, companies on Earth.

Same for the request or unofficial votes from community for special account title, such as Memoriam. theymos emphasizes that he does not want to involve in such cases too much or make it as a traditional process when one member passes away. It is hard to verify that one person actually dies.

[Pmalek]

In fact, there is a benefit in this. I would be glad if such marks in the topics of scammers became the norm on this forum.

Me too. There is a rule that says that moderators don't make the decisions what is a scam and what isn't, but there is no rule that prevents them from warning the community of what they believe to be a possible scam. It would be a move in the right direction if we see more of the same by other mods as well. These updates by LZ were made in 2017, are there any more recent cases?

Honestly, in the past, I participated in the Livecoin exchange's signature campaign, because I believed it is not a scam. Last year, Livecoin did a scam exit.

It's not your fault they did so, nor could you have predicted it. You participating in a Livecoin campaign before they turned evil isn't the same thing as putting on a signature by 1xbet and not caring that there are hundreds of users who got scammed and had their winnings or deposits stolen by that same casino. 

[tranthidung]

Honestly, in the past, I participated in the Livecoin exchange's signature campaign, because I believed it is not a scam. Last year, Livecoin did a scam exit.

It's not your fault they did so, nor could you have predicted it. You participating in a Livecoin campaign before they turned evil isn't the same thing as putting on a signature by 1xbet and not caring that there are hundreds of users who got scammed and had their winnings or deposits stolen by that same casino.  

In fact, I did not participate in that campaign in the first phase that was managed by Hhampuz. After Hhampuz stopped managing it and the community separated about Livecoin is scam or non-scam, I joined it because I believe they are not scam. That's it. It is my tough decision honestly but I do not regret because my understanding is inaccurate for that case.

[Matic]

I think here users have to define scam themselves

[icopress]

There is a rule that says that moderators don't make the decisions what is a scam and what isn't, but there is no rule that prevents them from warning the community of what they believe to be a possible scam. It would be a move in the right direction if we see more of the same by other mods as well.

This is a very subjective statement ... in the sense that if a similar precedent is created ^{[apart from the case under discussion]}, then theoretically, the mods will have to mark or delete 95% of all existing ANN ICOs, etc. One by one, users will begin to refer to such precedents, insisting on adding admin/mod tags or removing certain threads. The second side of the coin lies in the possible accusations of incompetence of the moderators, since a false sense of security at the end of the day will make itself felt. I will not go into details, but to all this will be added the protests regarding censorship.

And finally, at the moment, the mods and the admins are busy solving pressing problems ... therefore, even if we do not touch upon the issues of objectivity in decision-making, there remains a problem in hiring volunteers, (since only at first glance it may seem that this will not be a big burden for the mods).

[nutildah]

Cases where outright theft can be easily proved should result in moderation, IMHO. I know: who decides what "theft" is and what "easily proved" means... its a dilemma but uh, waiting for a definitive legal judgment (from the U.S. no less) before actually deciding to ban somebody, lock their threads and edit/delete their posts may be waiting a step too long sometimes.

I've never really bought the rationale "We don't moderate scams because we don't want to create a false sense of security."

People share links with malware, virus-ridden wallet clients or whatever regularly. When caught, they get banned pretty quickly, but I don't think anybody here has a false sense of security because they do. We realize there are inherent dangers in clicking shady looking things (most of us).

[Pmalek]

then theoretically, the mods will have to mark or delete 95% of all existing ANN ICOs...

Not necessarily. An ICO isn't a scam just because it's an ICO. Many are, probably the majority is. I wouldn't like to speculate on the numbers because I don't know. I think it's necessary to distinguish those that exit scam or just outright take their investor's money without any aspirations from creating anything, and those who fail for lack of interest, quality of the product, other reasons. If they refund their investors, they aren't a scam. They are just a failed project for this or that reason. 

Cases where outright theft can be easily proved should result in moderation, IMHO. I know: who decides what "theft" is and what "easily proved" means...

Theft and breaches of contract or any other written agreement can be easily proven. If you make a deal with me where I have to send you money after receiving certain goods or services and I don't, it's a clear case of a scam. That makes me a treat to the community and I shouldn't be here. The proof can be emails, PMs, crypto addresses that were funded or not, etc. That's why it is important to document everything when you do business with someone via the forum and avoid using things like Telegram where any side of a PM exchange can delete everything.   

[icopress]

Not necessarily. An ICO isn't a scam just because it's an ICO. Many are, probably the majority is. I wouldn't like to speculate on the numbers because I don't know. I think it's necessary to distinguish those that exit scam or just outright take their investor's money without any aspirations from creating anything, and those who fail for lack of interest, quality of the product, other reasons. If they refund their investors, they aren't a scam. They are just a failed project for this or that reason.

Just to clarify ... crypto companies conducting ICO / IDO / IEO are mainly divided into several types: "Outright Scammers", "Nominal Scammers", and and those who follow the "Fake it till you make it" rule. There are no more than 20 projects that truly represent something, and their investors are really interested in the legal and technical aspects of the project in which they invest real money. The rest of the projects are projects whose founders are engaged in shameless speculation or projects that publish legal information with a complex ambiguous structure on their websites.

One way or another, I can confidently tell you that even if it seems to you that the project is real and the technology behind it works, this does not mean that there is no nominee director behind this project, (the person who allocated 10% of the collected funds for the two-year maintenance of the project). This is done so that people like you and I would eventually say that the project was not a scam ... it just didn't work out. We can talk about this for a long time, but if you invested in something other than Bitcoin or in those 20 projects that I mentioned, consider that you have lost money.

[ChuckBuck]

I've never really bought the rationale "We don't moderate scams because we don't want to create a false sense of security."

I think the difference here is probably between moderation and accusation/removal. Personally, I understand it in terms of separate aspects. Moderation means mods have to go through every post, every user transaction on this forum to see if they're trying to scam, and obviously mods can't do this, and no responsibility either. On the contrary, for accusing or removing users, that is when the scammer has been detected, it can be detected by other users and reported by them, or experienced by the mod itself during the transaction. So, obviously, with accusing scammers with existing evidence, mods can do it, but for censorship, it's impossible, right?

We cannot ask anyone to protect our safety when we are active on a forum, so it makes no sense to claim scam moderation 

[Cryptojurnalist]

It really comical for not moderating the scam and their various activities. This makes it easier to bugs someone account. Though it is rule that scam should not be mod and thus rule. cannot be underestimated.