New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Calling people with different opinion names, just makes you a passenger of that train.
What did I do exactly? Reveal what he is actually willing to do? How is that wrong?
Do you want to donate the money for my next sting? Sounds like 200EUR is not much to you.
That's besides the point and is moot.
In this context, you are misinterpreting the word frame. I am not lying about anything, it's all true.
I was going to read this, but seriously 9 pages already? wow...
Let's say, for the sake of passing time @rkd that you are 100% true and honest about this. What's your motive, because I see 2 outcomes. You've kind of said already, but I wanted to clarify.
You have an axe to grind with that member
You're doing it for the benefit of the community.
If it's the latter, why the anonymity? All you've done (IMO) is make him look bad (for what that is worth, here) and that he might have done what you were asking him to do. Clearly it wasn't worth 200 EUR for you to clinically prove it. Seems like you wanted to do what he's (allegedly) doing
@rkd Either you don't get it or your intentions are really dark and you don't want to get it.
Compare it to the real world: If you bashed publicly someone without having proof but only sufficient evidence, and you did all that hidden, then, this guy could sue you for libel and he would earn the case. You can bash someone only if THERE ARE proofs and by face him, not trying to hide and protect your real name's reputation.
I don't want people's decisions to be influenced by me. It's better if they come to a conclusion purely based on the evidence in front of them. That is all.
OK. I take a different view... if you're going to pipe up and say something, you can stand by what you say. Things hold more weight that way, statements should be attributable to people. YMMV.
I've provided the proof. He was interested, he was willing to do it provided he was paid.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's clear to many of us, yet some people believe his story tale.
You know, once upon a time you were a useful forum member. Nowadays you are just looking for an opportunity to say 'cunt' as much as possible. Are you OK, mate?
Like I've said many times, this isn't about reputation or weight.
Nothing changes the fact that it happened and the evidence wouldn't have been different if someone else posted it.
Consider this: The users who are focused on you legitimately do not care about whether @Traffic is a shill, and are literally only concerned with who would perform this sting operation against him.
That's what it comes down to, there are several people here who are perfectly fine with the idea of shilling and are far more interested in you hiding your identity.
I'd mentioned before that I wouldn't take personal recommendation from most people here either. So we can agree on the 'doesn't matter about reputation or weight', when one of LET's hallmarks is a healthy dose of scepticism, in that regard. No extra sales from me.
But if you truly believe that, then why bother with the thread at all? All it's really saying is that Traffic may have gave the moderation team the runaround. They're the spam cops here, and you too apparently.
Sigh. I got tired.
Indeed, it does not improve the sense of community when someone does that.
Just putting it out there for them and the community to know.
Should also deter @Traffic and potentially others who were/are interested in this illicit behavior.
I can tell.
You missed the whole point. At least for me, it is far more dangerous to try to destroy a member using a hidden ID, without proofs but only using sufficient evidence. OP my have right, or Traffic can be true when saying he did this to reveal a trap. What is sure is that OP set up a trap and he did not go to the end. So, he didn't collect proofs, just some evidence.
But you already calling members to sting each other for shilling. This is a dangerous path. It can lead to ghost hunting and encourages anyone having personal issues with another member to try to frame him...
I really like you a lot, both as personality and as a community leader. But in this, I would expect from you better...
Hmm. Illicit vs antisocial. Perhaps I'll start a poll.
Alternative theory: It can lead to everyone immediately shutting down anyone who messages them about shilling, resulting in an environment where everyone is too afraid of being outed and losing their reputation. After all, reputation is necessary for shilling to be of value, otherwise the host can just create their own accounts and advertise away for free.
lol, that's a good one.
sure it's just not a sensitive area that it "may have" happened under your watch?
i haven't notice you commit to a guilty verdict but it seems like that's what you're thinking.
Reputation is necessary only for this? Isn't necessary when accusing someone and destroying him?
Maybe, but I remain confident that the primary issue here is the idea of shilling rather than the idea of who reported the possibility of it.
I do lean toward a guilty verdict but lack sufficient evidence to take action, given that the counter argument is plausible. I think my solution was creative and crazy enough that it just might work. I expect nothing visible to come from it, nothing but a lack of reputable members available for shill.
No, reputation is not necessary for providing screenshots. Reputation IS necessary for a paid shill to be worthy of receiving payment. I don't think that's even debatable. Evidence is evidence, it is either true or false, it needs no reputation. A new account with 1 post being a paid shill... that is absolutely worthless.
FWIW I do agree, and it shouldn't be tolerated.. but it's also difficult to enforce.
On the online marketing forum I've been involved in since the 90s... there's simply an outright ban on mentioning anyone's products that isn't well known to the community, because it's just impossible to tell what a genuine recommendation is. The 'paid review' / 'reputation management' / 'negative review' thing is an industry. This one guy is hardly a revelation, and TBF I can't see anyone endorsing the behaviour.
The OP is either jealous or dislikes the member, though...
When you work on the staff team, you interact with members that have broken rules or stepped out of line. This may influence our perspective on the situation, but not one we have solid proof to take action on.
Was just replying to jarland's idea that people were endorsing shilling TBH. Sounded defensive.
I don't think it's been an oversight by you or anyone, no one has said anything til now (apart from the OP who obviously had the idea). Anyways I've said far too much and I'm probably too anti-drama to be worthwhile here
...
Oh, no. I was just clarifying as to why we're on the fence about this
Not you, but there are totally people here that are perfectly fine with the shilling, and not fine with who presented the evidence. Honestly, I get that not everyone thinks alike but that just blows my mind
Well, I think you guys have it spot on. Looks like a duck, walks like one, but the proof ain't quite there. That's why I'm wondering about OP's motive. It wasn't worth the money to prove it, yet here we are.
Do you really think his membership here is worth 200EUR to me?
We got the information we needed from him for free.