Injustice while Tagging

[Scambuster03]

Hello All.
My Question is that Why there is real injustice here from DT members while they give Negative feedback to someone.

Recently we checked that MetaMallVerse White paper has been Plagiarized. Check  Full Detail Plagiarized Whitepaper - MEMV MetaMallVerse
While Royse77 Still Promoting this project and launched Second Round of Bounty after First Round (4 weak)

Same kind of Whitepaper Plagiarized was happen with the Project UKAN Promoted by Mr Crank and was given 3 Negative feedback. check Detail UKAN Plagiarized Whitepaper
[/ur]
Now My question is if [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=908376]Mr crank has been tagged then why Royse77 not or
If Royse77 has not been tagged then why Mr crank has been tagged?
Where is FatFork Rikafip JollyGood who make comments on this situation or there negative feedback for just innocent and honest person

[Rikafip]

First of all, I had no idea about this MetaMallVerse plagiarism case (you can check that I wasn't active in their scam accusation topic) and even less about Royse777 hosting their bounty campaign. Or you think we should all be aware about each and every scam accusation case?

I am surprised to see that no one in MetaMallVerse scam accusation topic mentioned their ongoing bounty campaign and warned Royse777 about this situation as it looks like a clear scammy shitcoin project with anonymous team and plagiarized whitepaper. Anyway, I will contact him and let him know about it and if he still continues with bounty campaign he will bare the consequences. Although I don't understand how he missed that project he is promoting for a month has been tagged and flagged.

Same kind of Whitepaper Plagiarized was happen with the Project UKAN Promoted by Mr Crank and was given 3 Negative feedback.

I guess you are an alt account of MrCrank? Since at first it looks like you were only the bounty manager there, stopped bounty campaign upon discovering plagiarism and didn't have previous tags for something else, I will look into it a little bit further and if everything checks out I might change negative to neutral.

[Poker Player]

Well, well. Another mess Royse777 is in, why is it that I'm not surprised.

OP, first tell you this is in the wrong place, it should be in the Reputation section, you can move the thread yourself, but I will report it to be moved.

Now My question is if Mr crank has been tagged then why Royse77 not or
If Royse77 has not been tagged then why Mr crank has been tagged?

I will analyze the case better after this but in general, Royse777 is a person who has been on the forum for a long time and with his signature campaigns has handed out a lot of money, and still continues to do so. Red tagging him, usually closes the doors to work with him, so people are more reluctant. Plus he has a group of friends on the forum who believe in him no matter what.

[FatFork]

Where is FatFork Rikafip JollyGood who make comments on this situation or there negative feedback for just innocent and honest person

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I had completely forgotten about this plagiarism case and wasn't familiar with their bounty campaign as I don't regularly check that board. I'll definitely take a look at it now. My thoughts are that any bounty manager should always do their own research before promoting a project. If they continue to actively promote a project despite clear indications that it's a scam, then they should be held accountable.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I am surprised to see that no one in MetaMallVerse scam accusation topic mentioned their ongoing bounty campaign and warned Royse777 about this situation as it looks like a clear scammy shitcoin project with anonymous team and plagiarized whitepaper.

So am I right in my understanding that the main wrongdoing here is the plagiarized whitepaper?  That's certainly wrong to do and doesn't reflect well on the integrity of whoever's behind the project, but that doesn't say much about how legit MetaMallVerse is or to what extent Royse777's reputation ought to be sullied.

I don't condone plagiarism by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: it's a thing that's accepted in certain parts of the world, something that people wouldn't think twice about and certainly wouldn't believe it would cause problems (especially if those people were young and/or naive).  We've seen it happen so many times with ICOs that I can't imagine project owners would continue plagiarizing if they knew they'd be held to task for it.

Anyway, we'll see if Royse777 knew about the whitepaper.  If he's doing the campaign manager job properly, I don't see why OP is making a fuss because he hasn't been tagged.

[Rikafip]

So am I right in my understanding that the main wrongdoing here is the plagiarized whitepaper?  That's certainly wrong to do and doesn't reflect well on the integrity of whoever's behind the project, but that doesn't say much about how legit MetaMallVerse is or to what extent Royse777's reputation ought to be sullied.

Beside some other red flags like having anonymous team while conducting ICO and generally looking like very little effort and thought has been put into this project, you are right, the reason why MetaMallVerse account got tagged and flagged is due plagiarized whitepaper. Combine those two things and its pretty obvious how this is going to end up.

I don't condone plagiarism by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: it's a thing that's accepted in certain parts of the world, something that people wouldn't think twice about and certainly wouldn't believe it would cause problems (especially if those people were young and/or naive).  We've seen it happen so many times with ICOs that I can't imagine project owners would continue plagiarizing if they knew they'd be held to task for it.

Its been a month since they got caught having plagiarized whitepaper, and so far they haven't done absolutely anything to sort that out. They didn't rewrite those parts, or maybe even included reference links for copied part and everything stayed as it was month ago. To me that tells that they absolutely don't care as they are here for a quick scam. I can't imagine a legit project that is here for the long not doing absolutely everything that they can to clear their reputation.because if

Anyway, we'll see if Royse777 knew about the whitepaper.  If he's doing the campaign manager job properly, I don't see why OP is making a fuss because he hasn't been tagged.

The right thing to do here is to stop the bounty campaign immediately and I hope he will do that.

[Edwardard]

Its been a month since they got caught having plagiarized whitepaper, and so far they haven't done absolutely anything to sort that out.

Surprised to see that MetaMallverse are already tagged red by some DT members but nobody in the bounty noticed it since a month lol. Seems like Royse missed to see it as well.

The right thing to do here is to stop the bounty campaign immediately

He has haulted it already, just saw this on the top of the the round #2 campaign thread.

Campaign suspended until a new update is posted. You will be notified via Telegram group about the new status of the campaign soon. Sorry for any inconvenience.

He also updated the same in the telegram channel.

[FatFork]

So am I right in my understanding that the main wrongdoing here is the plagiarized whitepaper?  That's certainly wrong to do and doesn't reflect well on the integrity of whoever's behind the project, but that doesn't say much about how legit MetaMallVerse is or to what extent Royse777's reputation ought to be sullied.

Beside some other red flags like having anonymous team while conducting ICO and generally looking like very little effort and thought has been put into this project, you are right, the reason why MetaMallVerse account got tagged and flagged is due plagiarized whitepaper. Combine those two things and its pretty obvious how this is going to end up.

Not only the whitepaper, but also the website (and most of the content in the ANN topic) is also plagiarized from various sources, but mostly from the Cypherdog project: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5430836.msg61635556#msg61635556

It's clear from a simple five-minute Google search that this project is nothing more than a simple copycat scheme. They take bits and pieces from other projects without any original ideas or concepts, just to deceive uninformed investors and make a quick buck before disappearing in a month or two.

[Yawa2020]

Account created yesterday is already familiar with the happenings in the forum? Lol.! I am not surprise thou but the hate game is obvious in your post. Royse 777 is a reputable manager and he already announced the suspension of the ongoing round two bounty. I believe that perhaps he was not aware of the plagiarism accusation. I don't know what seeing him tagged will earn you.

[Scambuster03]

I guess you are an alt account of MrCrank?

Absolutely not, I don't know who he is but I know that he created new account with the name of Onenuts and still managing compaign with new Account

Since at first it looks like you were only the bounty manager there, stopped bounty campaign upon discovering plagiarism and didn't have previous tags for something else, I will look into it a little bit further and if everything checks out I might change negative to neutral.

If both matters are the same then I think there should be justice. I have no personal enmity with anybody

OP, first tell you this is in the wrong place, it should be in the Reputation section, you can move the thread yourself, but I will report it to be moved.

Thanks it's already moved before my action. I think your report did work.

I will analyze the case better after this but in general, Royse777 is a person who has been on the forum for a long time and with his signature campaigns has handed out a lot of money, and still continues to do so. Red tagging him, usually closes the doors to work with him, so people are more reluctant. Plus he has a group of friends on the forum who believe in him no matter what.

I am thinking Same about Mr crank. At the time when he was tagged he was launching most altcoin bounties other than any manager and most the reward was escrowed there. Even Ukan( Pilgrized Whitepaper) has been paid to hunters for their half work. This negative tag closed the door for him. You can check his profile that how much altcoin he managed. I respected both but rules should be same for all

I,ll definitely take a look at it now. My thoughts are that any bounty manager should always do their own research before promoting a project. If they continue to actively promote a project despite clear indications that it's a scam, then they should be held accountable.

What will you say about your action against Mr Crank

Tagged and flagged the user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2939

It is common knowledge here that all projects that plagiarize whitepapers are fake and likely to scam people.

You did not wait for one day. He clearly said that he will clarify everything tomorrow but you flagged him and here in this case you are bid silent .

So am I right in my understanding that the main wrongdoing here is the plagiarized whitepaper?  That's certainly wrong to do and doesn't reflect well on the integrity of whoever's behind the project, but that doesn't say much about how legit MetaMallVerse is or to what extent Royse777's reputation ought to be sullied.

I don't condone plagiarism by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: it's a thing that's accepted in certain parts of the world, something that people wouldn't think twice about and certainly wouldn't believe it would cause problems (especially if those people were young and/or naive).  We've seen it happen so many times with ICOs that I can't imagine project owners would continue plagiarizing if they knew they'd be held to task for it.

I think it will not work. Here is another example if Qi Blockchain Project Which Whitepaper was Plagiarized. Even this project token is now listed in two big exchanges XT(No 2 in volume) and bitmart exchange and still project alive but compaign manager Jawadu has been tagged for running compaign
Here is the Qi Blockchain Pilgrized Detail

I don't see why OP is making a fuss because he hasn't been tagged.

I want justice. I think in this matter Legendary and newbie should Be treated equally.

Account created yesterday is already familiar with the happenings in the forum? Lol.! I am not surprise thou but the hate game is obvious in your post. Royse 777 is a reputable manager and he already announced the suspension of the ongoing round two bounty. I believe that perhaps he was not aware of the plagiarism accusation. I don't know what seeing him tagged will earn you.

I am really sorry for Royse777. I wished that it was anybody other than Royse but we should do our work. I will be more happy if Mr crank  tagged change to neuterel because he had been also stopped bounty while Jawadu didn't.

[YOSHIE]

Hello All.
My Question is that Why there is real injustice here from DT members while they give Negative feedback to someone.

What kind of justice do you mean, what is warning: Trust which exists, not enough according to you, I often see several Bounty campaign managers who get warnings from DT, but are still running campaigns, but the bounty hunters still participate in the campaign, in fact they know the risks, is it not a problem, why don't the bounty hunters assess it.

In my opinion, in cases like this, those who should be blamed and warned are the owners of certain companies, which are banned because of plagiarism.
To be more fair, if managers don't pay tokens to bounty hunters, after tokens are distributed to managers they don't distribute to bounty hunters, maybe it's worth warning with red paint, because managers are cheating campaign participants.

I think if @Royse77 is responsible for bounty hunter in terms of token/distributing not one real justice to mark it, Who owns a company that must be tried in this case, besides they / the owner has been tried here.
Is I say fair enough in your opinion or vice versa.

Then Why Mr Crank,Jawadu,Prasagta has been tagged? Who will be responsible for their reputation?

I have said elsewhere, we here have different understandings of fraud and Reputation judgments.

In the case of @MrCrank, it is more severe on behalf of Ukraine's humanity, they make projects other than plagiarism, they also sell the name of assistance to Ukraine for personal gain.

And one more thing, @MrCrank distributes UKAN tokens to participants or not.

[Scambuster03]

Hello All.
My Question is that Why there is real injustice here from DT members while they give Negative feedback to someone.

What kind of justice do you mean, what is warning: Trust which exists, not enough according to you, I often see several Bounty campaign managers who get warnings from DT, but are still running campaigns, but the bounty hunters still participate in the campaign, in fact they know the risks, is it not a problem, why don't the bounty hunters assess it.

In my opinion, in cases like this, those who should be blamed and warned are the owners of certain companies, which are banned because of plagiarism.
To be more fair, if managers don't pay tokens to bounty hunters, after tokens are distributed to managers they don't distribute to bounty hunters, maybe it's worth warning with red paint, because managers are cheating campaign participants.

I think if @Royse77 is responsible for bounty hunter in terms of token/distributing not one real justice to mark it, Who owns a company that must be tried in this case, besides they / the owner has been tried here.
Is I say fair enough in your opinion or vice versa.

Then Why Mr Crank,Jawadu,Prasagta has been tagged? Who will be responsible for their reputation?

Mr Crank had distributed Usdt to all participants

[Stalker22]

~
Then Why Mr Crank,Jawadu,Prasagta has been tagged? Who will be responsible for their reputation?

I am not familiar with the specific cases you mentioned, however, you can likely find the reasons for the negative tags in the reference links. It is important that every negative tag is properly referenced.

From my observation, those who manage bounties and promote scams are tagged for a valid reason when they persist in promoting despite warnings and the concrete evidence of the scam. It is their responsibility to conduct basic due diligence and to be accountable for the projects that they promote.

[hugeblack]

I can guess for several reasons:

 - @Royse77 uses Telegram a lot, so he will not notice the negative of the team's trust.
 - @Royse77 runs several signature campaigns which makes the time spent checking fraud little.
 - Participants in bounty campaigns acts like bots, most of them are looking for profit, so much so that they do not bother to check ANN of the project.

There may be many reasons, but @Royse77 now knows and then, within 24 hours, we may hear a response from him and an explanation of what happened, because I do not think that he will lose his reputation because of such Bounty campaign.

[Cryptomiles1]

Account created yesterday is already familiar with the happenings in the forum? Lol.!

It is already said by @Rikafip

I guess you are an alt account of MrCrank?

But I doubt, this may likely be MrCrank supporter because I believe too well that every managers has their team of supporters, those who truly believes in them. Don't think Royse777 is aware of this because I know too well he might not promote that project if he knew they plagiarized whitepaper, with lot of happening around him he won't get involved in any.

[yahoo62278]

We do need to start treating everyone the same when it comes to tags. Members who have built a reputation do get a little exception, but if they do not stop the campaign then they are helping advertise a scam so to speak and should be tagged before people lose money.

[Scambuster03]

We do need to start treating everyone the same when it comes to tags. Members who have built a reputation do get a little exception, but if they do not stop the campaign then they are helping advertise a scam so to speak and should be tagged before people lose money.

I think  same exception should given to BM who distributed more than 20 bounty payment but did not recieved and trust from DT members because no DT member join Altcoin bounty signature. Participants of bounty are usually newbie and their trust has no value.

[FatFork]

Then Why Mr Crank,Jawadu,Prasagta has been tagged? Who will be responsible for their reputation?

I gave @MrCrank negative for promoting a fake humanitarian project. Exploiting human suffering and crisis in Ukraine for personal gain is one of the most unethical actions imaginable, and that's why I don't trust such a member. Anyone who disagrees with my judgment is free to remove me from their Trust list.

I recognized @Jawadu from a previous case where he accepted to promote a project that the previous manager had labeled as scam and refused to work with them. Here is the reference. After the QI Scam was exposed for plagiarism, he persisted in defending the project for his personal benefit, as you can see here. A few months later, the token's value to plummet from $0.4 to $0.02. So basically, I'm still waiting for him to prove me wrong. 

As for @Prasagta, I don't know who that guy is and I don't think I've ever tagged him.

[Woodie]

Before it comes to tagging of a CM, I think it's the responsibility of the participants as well to check if everything checks out from a project, if not they should be the first whistle blowers for such irregularities! Btw history as shown that even projects that have looked viable with their well written whitepapers have ended up scamming its marketing agents by not paying the bounties . IMO to protect campaign managers from any oversight and bounty participants from investing their time in such projects... Before a project is entered for a bounty some kind of whitelisting process should be introduced on the forum to ensure whitepaper is plagiarism free and to protect all parties interests which is also a huge ask tbh because end result might be a not successful project...So basically plagiarism can be brought toba minimal but bounty success isn't guaranteed!

[Crypto-DesignService]

...responsibility of the participants as well to check if everything checks out from a project, if not they should be the first whistle blowers for such irregularities...

That's what paid Campaign Managers are for.
Though I agree that participants can voluntarily check the contents if it's plagiarized, you cannot hold them liable when things turned out bad if they miss the red flags.