Re: Dooglus is supporting ponzis

Quote from: suchmoon on March 28, 2016, 05:16:53 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 28, 2016, 04:03:10 PM

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.

You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust? Someone in dooglus's position can effectively since those criticizing them, and can create an environment in which people may be intimidated about questioning him, or agreeing with those that question him. You can also say that negative trust does not harm a person because it does not prevent them from trading with others.

Quote from: suchmoon on March 28, 2016, 05:16:53 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 28, 2016, 04:03:10 PM

I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though.

At least some of "those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis" seem to not think that dooglus did anything wrong (I think we had cryptodevil and whywefight in this thread already). Not sure what Vod has to do with anything but let me remind you what I stated originally:

Quote from: suchmoon on March 28, 2016, 01:12:35 AM

Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

Especially now that the thread is back in Scam Accusations it would feel really bizarre if negs wouldn't start pouring in. Could it have something to do with the lack of an actual scam, attempt to scam, intent to scam, support for a scam, etc?

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

cloverme --

Quote from: cloverme on March 28, 2016, 06:03:13 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:07:14 PM

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment. I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it. I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all. I think you've made your point, nuff said.

dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars. He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.

MRKYLE --

responding to this in the correct thread

Quote from: MRKLYE on March 28, 2016, 09:34:02 AM

I, for the record never scammed anyone,

Right, "never" lol

Quote from: MRKLYE on March 28, 2016, 09:34:02 AM

Now, I'm not exactly sure where you get off calling out dooglus for giving a hand to a person operating a site that for the record no user ever lost any CLAM on and that all payments were paid out.

--snip--

Given the fact that the clambaker site was closed only after it had fully refunded the remaining waiting payments and no one lost anything on it besides the owner paying out the remaining investments out of pocket your scam accusation and shitposting is absolutely unwarranted and frankly you have no ground to stand on with your accusation.

So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?

Quote from: MRKLYE on March 28, 2016, 09:34:02 AM

Calling out dooglus on this scam accusation was dumb. But calling me out was probably a bad judgement call on your part.
At the very least I'm honest enough to admit I've fucked up and try to rectify what's been done, Same cannot be said for you.

Quote from: MRKLYE on March 28, 2016, 09:34:02 AM

I, for the record never scammed anyone,

Hmmm, it doesn't look like you have admitted very much.

Anyone that has lost money as a result of the clambaker ponzi or any other ponzi that used the same script as listed/referenced in the OP can post here with the amount they lost.