Quote from: JoelKatz on September 10, 2012, 08:35:54 PM

Quote from: danieldaniel on September 10, 2012, 08:27:27 PM

Sorry, but everyone in the situation knew what was happening. There was no murder, in which the murdered person didn't know he was going to be murdered. This is therefore an invalid argument.
The investors knew that it may be a scam.

You kind of just contradicted yourself. First you say that everyone knew what was happening. Then you say the investors knew that it may be a scam. Did the investors know it was a scam?

Are you saying everyone who claimed it wasn't a Ponzi was lying and that everyone really did know that it was a Ponzi scheme all along? If so, the PPT operators who didn't say they knew it was a Ponzi were lying, just like Pirate. Right?

Quote

If someone comes up to you and says "I will steal your money if you give it to me, but I will fake very high interest rates to make it look as if you're making money." and you give him money, when he steals the money, did he really scam you? Scamming is lying/not fulfilling a contract. If, as you said, it was so blatantly obvious that it was a scam, then the PPT operators didn't scam anyone. They merely offered a service that they knew no more about than we did.

If it's your position that everyone knew it was a Ponzi scheme all along, then the PPT operators were knowingly participating in a Ponzi scheme. They're as deserving of scammer tags as Pirate.

Ok, let's turn the situation around then. Let's assume you are right, and EVERYONE knew this was 100% a scam and a ponzi.

Then why do the pass through operators get their reputation dinged again? For servicing the people who wanted to gamble their money on the scam? Uhh, not in my book! They held up their end of the bargain, which was to pay out as long as pirate was paying out.

And I don't see how "knowingly participating in a Ponzi scheme" makes someone a scammer. There are plenty of openly-ponzi "investments" or "services" or whatever you want to call them on this forum. Are you saying that every one of those operators should also receive a scammer tag?

To me, the scammer tag is a result of someone not holding up to their word or contract. Pirate should receive it, since he promised to pay out, and did not. The insured PPT's that didn't pay out should receive it, since they promised to insure their deposits, and haven't paid them out. The uninsured PPT's should not receive it, because they did what they said they would do. They didn't scam anyone.

Now, certainly, I'm not saying that participation in a Ponzi scheme is legal, or morally "good", but I fail to see the connection between that and the scammer tag. As long as the PPT's were up front about what they were investing in and upheld the terms of the agreement they stated, they did not scam anyone.