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
Well, well, well!
How about we just ban affiliate programs on LET.
The site owners from about every company on here post their own offers/deals, why do we need extra middlemen on here? I'd prefer all profits going to the host instead of a cut being given to someone who just spams up the forums.
How about only company owners can post their own offers? doesn't that seem reasonable ?
Not psychotic enough.
I am actually surprised some are defending @Traffic when it's clear what his intentions were.
He's just lying to save himself, and we both know it.
As if that's ever gonna happen
Or at least they go in Offers section like the rest of the offers.
Every rule sounds reasonable at the time and there's a new one that sounds reasonable a every week. What I have to ask myself is:
It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to a problem but I have to step back and look at the big picture. In many cases, it makes more sense to resolve the problem itself rather than increase the overhead for all members.
And what's your intentions?
Also: Are you really drmike? If yes, publish a post from his account!
You are continuing to post BS.
TELL US WHAT YOUR REAL LET ACCOUNT IS, PUBLISH A POST FROM THAT ACCOUNT.
In that way, your accusations will have a weight.
From a purely analytical point of view, even you have to admit that @Traffic's explanation is plausible and therefore any conclusion is currently a judgement call.
Well, even if no action is taken at least my efforts were not in vain.
Now @Traffic will be very careful with who he deals with, and will unlikely ever attempt this again.
I would be OK with that, I have never used any affiliate account in anything. But I have suggested some providers in questions like "suggest me something good for this". The hidden affiliates could use their reputation just to "push" providers that way. Using a clear affiliate link is much more clear than hidden affiliates.
...But thread's title is "Proof that @Traffic accepts money for shills". Not so a judgement call...
Changing that seems reasonable, I'd do it for others.
That's perfectly understandable, and I was not willing to pay 200EUR just to seal the deal.
Although, any sane person would know his "trolling" excuse is just pure bs because he had his bitcoin web wallet open as well as providing his BTC address, as shown in the screenshots.
It's funny how some people are this gullible. Thinking that my new reputation makes the screenshots less truthful even after he posted his side.
Pfft.
Aw man, this had to get serious. There's still popcorn up for grabs...
@jarland Also, is it legit for a LET member to admit he opened two false accounts for any reason here, without revealing his real LET account?
By this, he admits he has another LET account and he opened secretly even from admins a couple of new ones, to hide his ID hunting another member.
To top it off, he bragged about how much he made. This is what shows his true intentions were business.
Exactly, his excuse is pathetic and it's funny how some don't see it.
Suggested solutions:
There are two problems:
Both are solved to some extent.
Providers who pay for shilling should not be rewarded. They will still be able to shill for reviews and recommendations in replies, but this closes one avenue. Meanwhile offers posted by people unaffiliated with the provider become more useful because profit is no longer a potential factor for the post (both because there are no affiliate links and because the provider could have posted the offer themselves, so wouldn't have paid the poster to post it).
Currently there are shady reposts of offers where OP is benefiting (even if it is via affiliate system and not direct payment) without necessarily having tried the services and actually thinking the services are good. This violates the implicit assumption when you view a suggestion for service that the poster actually likes the service. At best this means that the forum has more useless posts, at worst it harms people who trust these posts and purchase following that assumption.
I don't see a benefit to allowing affiliate links in offers. I doubt we would lose any useful recommendations as a result -- if someone only posts a recommendation because they would be getting some profit, then I won't trust that recommendation anyway.
I also don't see why offers should be treated differently. If someone wants to write a recommendation and provide ample evidence that the provider is good, they can post a review instead, and this is more useful to the community.
Where did I admit I have 2 accounts?
What if I was a lurker and this was my first account?
Like you keep saying, prove it.
40% according to your screenshot iirc. so 80 Euros. Would've saved a lot of "did he, didn't he". At some point you have to ask whether there is a monetary value in thinking about this and whether it matters enough.
Are you saying @tnkr is not your account?
Then, how did you get the initial pm's with traffic? Are you a whole group of people?
So, a lurker that got pissed off of a member and you opened two accounts in once just to attack him? OK, then! With every answer you are revealing that your true intentions seem not to be so pure...
I may have received these screenshots from outside of lowendtalk.
@QuadHost @i83
Payment accepted, thanks MasterCard (
not sure if I charged to the correct card though, wtfgot lucky, my old card still had some balance. fuck yea!)Instant activation! Nice, quadhost!
Guess someone else did it for you instead.
@theroyalstudent - hide that IP
So, you got them from a third party and it is not you that framed traffic? Because you said that YOU got pissed by his LET threads...
You're getting better and better!
WHAT IS YOUR REAL LET ID?
According to the screenshot, 40% was the sales commission, not the monthly payout.
Anyway, he wasn't worth any money.
We succeeded in what we wanted to do, which is outing him, people can come to their own conclusions.
View 1: He was willing to shill for money, and has done it before.
View 2: He was "trolling" even though he gave a BTC address, showed his previous work, and knew how to work as if he was "recommending".
Those with even half a brain would know which is true.
I would trust any member who has been longer than you... you joined today and want everyone to believe the bullshit you are saying.