I appreciate the information kazkaz27!
as to Mitchell, I was not saying he is wrong, he is a mod for the forum, he has been very helpful so I don’t want anyone thinking I’m taking a dig on him or what he is saying.
I brought this up because it is factual and anyone who cares to look can see the flag thread, it had photos attached in the past with proof. Also many here can attest to it, I’m pretty open about showing the information and proof to anyone interested, my coins that were supposed to be loaded are now with a trusted member of the form as well, they had no tampering. Exactly as received.
I think it is important to have reminders of who people are when they have stolen Members money and are still trying to sell on here… that’s the main reason for this post if I’m being honest.
This happend to me because I was new to crypto, if new members are consistently stolen from and no one posts a warning this market will never grow.
Sure you have flags and trusted feed back but when your new to this you might not know some of these things and having the member scammed shouldn’t be a “you should have known better” unless their is clear and obvious warnings including on the sales thread of the maker.
Thanks agin kazkaz27! I do appreciate your input on this
I am happy to share it with you.—Just for the record I generally agree with your main points and would like to see things improve. Especially in the ways you just expressed.
I would go as far as advocating users who are proven to have scammed members get banned (Example: Yogg without a doubt would be on that list). That would have to be a new rule implemented and would have to be discussed on the meta board. But the thing is proof would have to be concrete and beyond any reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the mafia and groups that rule over this forums narrative would inevitably use and abuse it with conjecture.—Ultimately, massacring those they deemed unworthy or competition.
Maybe a 3 strikes your out kinda thing.—I am not sure how to implement a fair rule on this. I haven’t thought much on it but there is a grave risk in implementing a new ban method. There is even large risks in implementing a new muting/silencing method.
Time would also have to be a factor—Maybe a person accused of a scam is attempting to amend a mistake perceived as a scam. It’s situational and hard to blanket over all scenarios and cases. That’s likely why the reputation board exists.
Lastly, too many users tend to just jump on the bandwagon. A rumor tends to spread faster than the truth.
Here is another thing to chew on. Even Casascius “scammed” some people. Because he left his website up and it allowed users to send bitcoin to purchase coins that they never actually received.—Would/does this merit his ban, silencing or legitimacy?
Intent has to be discovered.—This is likely why it’s left to users better judgment themselves.
Good points!
It’s refreshing to see that even someone who has negative trust and accusations against them is interested in this stuff leading to members being banned, that would clear up a lot of unwarranted negative trust if proven to be untrue.