Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Bluto on September 17, 2013, 12:29 pm

Title: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 17, 2013, 12:29 pm
Since everyone within the marketplace is anonymous and it is very easy to create a new account. -I am convinced that certain Vendors are doing nothing more than inflating their ratings by using sockpuppets. It's probably possible for LE to create a vendor account and just inflate their own ratings with sockpuppets in order to entrap as many people as possible in some sort of HoneyPot or reverse-sting.

I'm not sure how to combat this -or even if SR cares about ratings inflation.

I do know that the Vendors are the ones who are paying for SR -so perhaps there is a desire for SR staff to look the other way.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 17, 2013, 02:04 pm
How would that work? The vendor would have to pay a fortune in commissions on all those transactions.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 17, 2013, 02:34 pm
How would that work? The vendor would have to pay a fortune in commissions on all those transactions.

It's basically paying for reputation. In the real world we call this "shilling" -someone is paid to advocate for a particular product.

If it were LE doing this -they wouldn't care because it's all monopoly money to them (quite probably seized Bitcoins)
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: astor on September 17, 2013, 02:49 pm
We've known it's been happening. That's what the buyer stats are supposed to help you catch. If you see a bunch of reviews from buyers with 1+ purchases and 1+ vendors, be suspicious.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 17, 2013, 05:43 pm
I hate to be a gloomy harbinger.

If law enforcement was doing this. They could conceivably keep multiple accounts that sample the wares from multiple Sellers that they are attempting to bust. At the same time they could use these buyer accounts to boost the rating of their own reverse sting operations.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 17, 2013, 08:45 pm
LE has bought from every top tier vendor (and probably many many other) on SR, this is not brand new information.

This is why people should avoid the free sample giveaways from supposed new vendors, we know that LE is not allowed to vend drugs but they can open a vendors account and harvest a shit load of buyers details.

Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: NW Nugz on September 18, 2013, 09:44 am
How would that work? The vendor would have to pay a fortune in commissions on all those transactions.
One way is to list a stealth item at a very low price. Sell a lot of it to your sock puppets, then raise the price a lot and uncloak it for the public.
I occasionally see items listed for huge prices (100k to 50 million) with a bunch of feedbacks from buyers. I still wonder what is up with those listings. Are they hoping a rich buyer will accidently buy it?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: convergedlight on September 18, 2013, 09:52 am
How would that work? The vendor would have to pay a fortune in commissions on all those transactions.
One way is to list a stealth item at a very low price. Sell a lot of it to your sock puppets, then raise the price a lot and uncloak it for the public.
I occasionally see items listed for huge prices (100k to 50 million) with a bunch of feedbacks from buyers. I still wonder what is up with those listings. Are they hoping a rich buyer will accidently buy it?

I think some vendors put an outrageously high price to keep a listing visible when they are out of stock to prevent people from buying it.  I don't think they expect anyone to accidentally buy the listings.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 18, 2013, 02:41 pm
"It's basically paying for reputation. In the real world we call this "shilling" -someone is paid to advocate for a particular product. "

Thanks for the update from the real world.

Seriously, though...you can only do that a few times before the costs start outweighing the benefits.

And I guess it's not impossible that LE could be behind the sockpuppet ratings, but if you actually believe that, I can't help but wonder why on earth you're still here? I wouldn't stick around if I thought the heat had infiltrated this place to such an extent.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 20, 2013, 01:08 am


Seriously, though...you can only do that a few times before the costs start outweighing the benefits.

Yet, companies continue to spend millions of dollars on Advertising. Sometimes they do it for years before they see a ROI.

And I guess it's not impossible that LE could be behind the sockpuppet ratings, but if you actually believe that, I can't help but wonder why on earth you're still here? I wouldn't stick around if I thought the heat had infiltrated this place to such an extent.

You know who would say that? A COP WOULD SAY THAT.

Of course a cop would know that I would think that so he wouldn't say that. But then perhaps he knew that I thought that he knew that he would say that and say it anyways.

Hmmm. So which glass has the poison in it?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: MrMates on September 20, 2013, 03:20 am
At BMR you often go to a vendors page and under all the praise of how great a vendor they are you'll see "Feedback Padding" under about ten buyers as they have been buying their own goods.

So they seem to know when it is happening a lot smaller site though , maybe it is too big here to find out the same.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: anonypunk on September 20, 2013, 05:29 am
NOT NEWS!!!

Geez.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: CHROOT on September 20, 2013, 06:11 am

we know that LE is not allowed to vend drugs...


Really? I disagree. We keep seeing information creep out that counters this claim.

We know for sure that the FBI was selling fake drivers licenses online under a vendor account named Master Splynter and they were running this for two years before having to expose the operation in a German court hearing.

How about Operation Fast and Furious? The ATF was selling illegal high-capacity guns to Mexican drug lords. Clearly a legal violation, but they did it anyway. How is selling drugs that far removed from Fast and Furious? You really think they draw a moral line at drugs, yet they'll go undercover and sell CP, guns, and fake IDs?

I'd bet anything LE has multiple vendor accounts on SR and use them as tool to gather information and stay in the loop. The FBI wasn't selling fake IDs online to bust people buying fake IDs. They just sat back for years collecting data and seeing whos buying what. They played the long game.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 20, 2013, 10:01 am
"Yet, companies continue to spend millions of dollars on Advertising. Sometimes they do it for years before they see a ROI."

Do you see any vendor (even the really big ones) around here who would be willing to spend millions - or even thousands - on a dodgy scam like you mentioned? One that, if it were caught by SR, could well see their vending privileges revoked and the destruction of their operation in one fell swoop? Furthermore, a large vendor with a great rep has a long history of high-rated trades. Let's consider your implied theoretical; a large, reputable vendor who periodically scams buyers. For their phoney sockpuppet ratings to have any impact, they'd have to have left A LOT of them over a long period of time to balance out the negative ratings of the people they'd scammed.  The ongoing cost of paying the commission on all those ghost orders would be a lot higher than the proceeds made from scamming buyers. Consider that they could only scam a small fraction of trades - if that number got too large, it would arouse suspicion. The resolution centre would soon notice an unusually high number of trades going into resolution from that vendor. And a large successful vendor would already be making enough coin to not have to worry about skulduggery.

Sure, a little guy starting out might try it, but they generally wouldn't be willing or able to spend the kind of money required to boost their rep dramatically. Easier and cheaper to grow your business organically, and better for your karma, too.

Overall, I suspect that the phenomenon of vendors using sockpuppets to boost their ratings exists, but the sharp financial disincentive that results from placing enough phoney orders to make a meaningful difference to a vendor's rep would make it rare.

Dodgy vendors are much more likely to trade legitimately and, when they've had enough, pull an FE scam. Nice golden parachute. But someone who wants to make more money on an ongoing basis? Hell, there are plenty of good honest ways to do that here which don't screw anyone over! Why would they bother? Not to mention the fact that a vendor who behaves in such a way always runs the risk of being caught out by the SR management and having their empire dissolved.  It's just not worth it.

Vendor sockpuppets are much more disruptive when they leave bad reviews for their competitors, as opposed to leaving good reviews for the vendor with the hand in the glove.
 
"You know who would say that? A COP WOULD SAY THAT."

You know who would say that? A PARANOID OBSESSIVE WHO FORGOT TO TAKE THEIR MEDS TODAY WOULD SAY THAT. Plenty of good vendors selling what you need, friend.

Listen, bluto. Sorry you got burnt through a dodgy buy. Happens to the best of us. But it's time to move on, no?

Chroot has a point. LE could also bust a vendor, flip them, then use them as puppets. Thus they aren't directly selling drugs.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: RxKing on September 20, 2013, 11:04 am
This was a very very very small problem...

With the new system in place...it makes it so that if you were to do it...it could be spotted right away.

Also for any good vendor it was and still is a total waste of time. As Astor said..it did happen...but it was even easily spotted then. And what they were actually doing is making a listing...then making the price $0 then buying it from schill accounts...then they would re-list the item with a $2k or whatever price...but again this was easily spotted and I do not think that a vendor that fudged his feedback ever really scammed anyone.

The biggest problem will and has always been the vendor that is great for a period of time...and then decides to leave...and they get buyers to FE. That is the #1 scam by a mile...and if you follow the advice of every member in here that has been around for more then 4 months and you DO NOT FE..you can not fall to a scam. PERIOD!

In the past 6 months or so...SR staff along with members of the community have done a fantastic job of catching these scumbags.


The bottom line is you have to use common sense. And if you do, you choose a vendor with a great rep...and you do not FE....YOU will  have a great experience on SR and you will not get scammed.


Vendors padding their feedback...has never been a problem on the road. Stupid buyers has been the problem on the road. And some really smart buyers that made stupid mistakes.

DO NOT FE!!!!
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 20, 2013, 11:57 am
"Yet, companies continue to spend millions of dollars on Advertising. Sometimes they do it for years before they see a ROI."

Do you see any vendor (even the really big ones) around here who would be willing to spend millions - or even thousands - on a dodgy scam like you mentioned?

Again, a properly run business isn't as desperate for early sales as you think. As far as it being a "dodgy scam" -it's no more so than when Tiger Woods stands up and says that he wears Reebocks or tells us that we can be sexual dynamos by using Viagra. It's called advertising. In fact if a successful vendor ISN'T doing this then I'd be surprised. I'm sorry if you disagree, but this is how business is run.

Also the idea that someone is using a sockpuppet to bring down their competitors is only feasible if there are a few competitors. It's kind of like those commercials where Tide compares themselves to Gain. Well, I use Dreft so those commercials don't apply to me. On the other hand there are only a handful of gasoline companies -so I might be persuaded to by gasoline from Exxon vs Chevron. (This assumes that I care and just don't go to the most convenient place.)

As far as being a PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC -I'm a realist. Although, meds like LSD, MDMA and 2C-B help with this -their effects are only temporary (until the Government starts up their SECRET BRAIN RAY DEVICE again.)

Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 20, 2013, 12:01 pm

we know that LE is not allowed to vend drugs...


Really? I disagree. We keep seeing information creep out that counters this claim.

We know for sure that the FBI was selling fake drivers licenses online under a vendor account named Master Splynter and they were running this for two years before having to expose the operation in a German court hearing.

How about Operation Fast and Furious? The ATF was selling illegal high-capacity guns to Mexican drug lords. Clearly a legal violation, but they did it anyway. How is selling drugs that far removed from Fast and Furious? You really think they draw a moral line at drugs, yet they'll go undercover and sell CP, guns, and fake IDs?

I'd bet anything LE has multiple vendor accounts on SR and use them as tool to gather information and stay in the loop. The FBI wasn't selling fake IDs online to bust people buying fake IDs. They just sat back for years collecting data and seeing whos buying what. They played the long game.

LE do bend the rules to suit there purposes agreed and have engaged in criminal activity as part of ongoing investigations e.g. allowing sites to continue to operate after they had taken control and they have also engaged in arms trading, governments have been doing that since they invented gun powder but I'd b fucking surprised to discover LE set up shop on SR, BMR or Atlantis and vended illegal drugs.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Shaggy Shaman on September 20, 2013, 03:12 pm

we know that LE is not allowed to vend drugs...


Really? I disagree. We keep seeing information creep out that counters this claim.

We know for sure that the FBI was selling fake drivers licenses online under a vendor account named Master Splynter and they were running this for two years before having to expose the operation in a German court hearing.

How about Operation Fast and Furious? The ATF was selling illegal high-capacity guns to Mexican drug lords. Clearly a legal violation, but they did it anyway. How is selling drugs that far removed from Fast and Furious? You really think they draw a moral line at drugs, yet they'll go undercover and sell CP, guns, and fake IDs?

I'd bet anything LE has multiple vendor accounts on SR and use them as tool to gather information and stay in the loop. The FBI wasn't selling fake IDs online to bust people buying fake IDs. They just sat back for years collecting data and seeing whos buying what. They played the long game.

LE do bend the rules to suit there purposes agreed and have engaged in criminal activity as part of ongoing investigations e.g. allowing sites to continue to operate after they had taken control and they have also engaged in arms trading, governments have been doing that since they invented gun powder but I'd b fucking surprised to discover LE set up shop on SR, BMR or Atlantis and vended illegal drugs.

It is much more likely that someone like the CIA or another intelligence agency, or one of their off-shoots would set up and sell just for the untraceable money. The CIA alone is known for smuggling and selling tons of cocaine. I've even wondered if any of the Irish vendors were possibly connected to the IRA. Not that I would care, but subversive agencies that need to make their own budgets are much more likely to use these black markets.

SS
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 20, 2013, 03:22 pm

we know that LE is not allowed to vend drugs...


Really? I disagree. We keep seeing information creep out that counters this claim.

We know for sure that the FBI was selling fake drivers licenses online under a vendor account named Master Splynter and they were running this for two years before having to expose the operation in a German court hearing.

How about Operation Fast and Furious? The ATF was selling illegal high-capacity guns to Mexican drug lords. Clearly a legal violation, but they did it anyway. How is selling drugs that far removed from Fast and Furious? You really think they draw a moral line at drugs, yet they'll go undercover and sell CP, guns, and fake IDs?

I'd bet anything LE has multiple vendor accounts on SR and use them as tool to gather information and stay in the loop. The FBI wasn't selling fake IDs online to bust people buying fake IDs. They just sat back for years collecting data and seeing whos buying what. They played the long game.

LE do bend the rules to suit there purposes agreed and have engaged in criminal activity as part of ongoing investigations e.g. allowing sites to continue to operate after they had taken control and they have also engaged in arms trading, governments have been doing that since they invented gun powder but I'd b fucking surprised to discover LE set up shop on SR, BMR or Atlantis and vended illegal drugs.

It is much more likely that someone like the CIA or another intelligence agency, or one of their off-shoots would set up and sell just for the untraceable money. The CIA alone is known for smuggling and selling tons of cocaine. I've even wondered if any of the Irish vendors were possibly connected to the IRA. Not that I would care, but subversive agencies that need to make their own budgets are much more likely to use these black markets.

SS

I doubt vending on Sr could generate the kind of cash the CIA would be interested in, they were flying tonnes of coke into the US to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, they would have to be top tier and selling a shit load of drugs, think of how much effort would be involved in running that operation, nah I'm not buying it.

LE selling drugs won't happen imho, they can sell fake ID's, guns and all sorts of other shit in their pursuit of the perceived bad guys but if it came out they were selling drugs it would destroy what little credibility they have.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: DaFuck on September 20, 2013, 09:00 pm
COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING $200 GROW OP
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 21, 2013, 12:00 am
COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING $200 GROW OP

Can you not use CAPS-LOCK?

And I know for a fact that cops do indeed care about my $200. That was the exact amount in my wallet that time I got arrested for ignoring a jury summons. When I got back my stuff -the money was missing from my wallet and they had no record of it ever being checked in.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 21, 2013, 12:54 am
I doubt vending on Sr could generate the kind of cash the CIA would be interested in, they were flying tonnes of coke into the US to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, they would have to be top tier and selling a shit load of drugs, think of how much effort would be involved in running that operation, nah I'm not buying it.

LE selling drugs won't happen imho, they can sell fake ID's, guns and all sorts of other shit in their pursuit of the perceived bad guys but if it came out they were selling drugs it would destroy what little credibility they have.

I love you dude. I really do. But I have got to disagree with you here.

I have it from a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (meaning someone I know) that the CIA will bring drugs into the USA. They have been caught by another US agency (the department of the Interior - the secret service also known as THE BORDER PATROL) and were told by their superiors to let them pass.

Here is Gary Webb's summary on Wikipedia:

Quote

Webb's "Dark Alliance," a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. In 2004, Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, which the coroner's office judged a suicide.
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

But your real objection to this is THE AMOUNT. I guarantee that it really doesn't take very much money to fund a small contingency in Afghanistan. The US will no doubt give them money directly -but do you know what else will REALLY get them some much needed cash? The CIA or even our armed forces are more than willing to look the other way -when it comes to aiding our allies. Whether or not SR is the market of choice is incidental. The drugs from their shore is coming to ours and the US is letting it happen.

(Oh, and if any of you Heroin users out there just noticed... I am saying that your drug purchases are helping the US in our sacred fight against terrorism. So GO USA!!! Woo Woo woo.)
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: poppermachine on September 21, 2013, 01:45 am
Gram for gram weed actually funds Terrorism more directly than Heroin or cocaine.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 21, 2013, 03:06 am
I doubt vending on Sr could generate the kind of cash the CIA would be interested in, they were flying tonnes of coke into the US to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, they would have to be top tier and selling a shit load of drugs, think of how much effort would be involved in running that operation, nah I'm not buying it.

LE selling drugs won't happen imho, they can sell fake ID's, guns and all sorts of other shit in their pursuit of the perceived bad guys but if it came out they were selling drugs it would destroy what little credibility they have.

I love you dude. I really do. But I have got to disagree with you here.

I have it from a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (meaning someone I know) that the CIA will bring drugs into the USA. They have been caught by another US agency (the department of the Interior - the secret service also known as THE BORDER PATROL) and were told by their superiors to let them pass.

Here is Gary Webb's summary on Wikipedia:

Quote

Webb's "Dark Alliance," a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. In 2004, Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, which the coroner's office judged a suicide.
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

But your real objection to this is THE AMOUNT. I guarantee that it really doesn't take very much money to fund a small contingency in Afghanistan. The US will no doubt give them money directly -but do you know what else will REALLY get them some much needed cash? The CIA or even our armed forces are more than willing to look the other way -when it comes to aiding our allies. Whether or not SR is the market of choice is incidental. The drugs from their shore is coming to ours and the US is letting it happen.

(Oh, and if any of you Heroin users out there just noticed... I am saying that your drug purchases are helping the US in our sacred fight against terrorism. So GO USA!!! Woo Woo woo.)

Isn't that what I said? I know the CIA ran drugs in the 1980's and probably still does to fund it's operations and achieve it's goals. What I said was I doubt LE would set up shop on SR and vend illegal drugs, I do not consider the CIA as LE, the CIA are a rule unto themselves.

 
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: astor on September 21, 2013, 08:23 am
LE do bend the rules to suit there purposes agreed and have engaged in criminal activity as part of ongoing investigations e.g. allowing sites to continue to operate after they had taken control and they have also engaged in arms trading, governments have been doing that since they invented gun powder but I'd b fucking surprised to discover LE set up shop on SR, BMR or Atlantis and vended illegal drugs.

Yeah, it's conceivable that LE might break the law during an investigation. The NSA is doing a lot of illegal shit. But I don't think it's standard practice for drug investigations. Distributing drugs carries a big liability, if people overdose and die. In all of the CDs I've heard about, they make sure to bust the person before he can get away or consume the drugs, and in sting operations they often use fake drugs. Purdue Pharma makes blank OC80's. They look just like the real thing, since they are made in the same presses, but contain no oxycodone. They provide these blanks as a "service" to LE and the community, to stop prescription drug abuse.

LE will allow drug dealers to operate for months while conducting an investigation, because in that case the dealer carries the liability if someone is harmed. There's a difference between allowing someone to distribute drugs and distributing the drugs yourself. More importantly, I have never heard of a case where someone received real drugs from LE and was allowed to keep them, consume them, etc., and only later got busted. If anyone has evidence this happened, that an actual LE agent distributed real drugs, and not just a drug dealer under investigation, I'd love to see it.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: astor on September 21, 2013, 08:28 am
I have it from a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (meaning someone I know) that the CIA will bring drugs into the USA. They have been caught by another US agency (the department of the Interior - the secret service also known as THE BORDER PATROL) and were told by their superiors to let them pass.

Did CIA agents themselves bring the drugs in or did they allow smugglers to bring it in?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 21, 2013, 09:39 am
I have it from a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (meaning someone I know) that the CIA will bring drugs into the USA. They have been caught by another US agency (the department of the Interior - the secret service also known as THE BORDER PATROL) and were told by their superiors to let them pass.

Did CIA agents themselves bring the drugs in or did they allow smugglers to bring it in?

When they were backing the contras they flew the coke in themselves as far as I know, used shell companies to charter planes etc to try to put some distance between themselves and what they were doing but they didn't try to hard. There is a really good docco called last great white hope (I think that's the correct name) that covers this issue, in 1996 Gary Webb wrote a series of articles published in the San Jose Mercury News, which investigated Nicaraguans linked to the CIA-backed Contras who had smuggled cocaine into the U.S. which was then distributed as crack cocaine into Los Angeles and funneled profits to the Contras.

CIA Director John M. Deutch went to Los Angeles to attempt to refute the allegations raised by the Webb articles, and was famously confronted by former Los Angeles Police Department officer Michael Ruppert, who testified that he had witnessed it occurring. It is one of the best moments where someone is called out in the most public way and has nothing to come back with.

Yes I got some of that from Wikipedia but watch the docco, it's very good.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Bluto on September 21, 2013, 01:02 pm
I have it from a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (meaning someone I know) that the CIA will bring drugs into the USA. They have been caught by another US agency (the department of the Interior - the secret service also known as THE BORDER PATROL) and were told by their superiors to let them pass.

Did CIA agents themselves bring the drugs in or did they allow smugglers to bring it in?

Imagine some Border Guard finding the score of his life. His dog leads him to the cargo hold of a plane filled with bricks of cocaine. He calls it in. An investigation is started and soon there are nine members of the US Border patrol looking over this plane. Everything is briefly looked at: the manifest, the pilot's names, the quality of the cocaine.

Then all the border patrol agents are told by their superiors to stop. Do not go any further with it. Leave it alone and let the pilots take the plane. The reason was because that plane belonged to the CIA and the border patrol does not investigate the CIA.

Now, he told me that it happened frequently.

Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 21, 2013, 03:37 pm
"Again, a properly run business isn't as desperate for early sales as you think. "

It would seem you have little idea what I think. I know what you think, though - it's all there in your OP. My point was that the phenomenon you mention of vendors using sockpuppets to boost their reps could only ever have a fairly minor impact on the ratings of those vendors.

"As far as it being a "dodgy scam" -it's no more so than when Tiger Woods stands up and says that he wears Reebocks or tells us that we can be sexual dynamos by using Viagra."

Um, no, actually the sockpuppet thing you suggested is not at all like celebrity product endorsement, and is a lot less ethical. A closer equivalent to what you described would be if Tiger Woods secretly training a bunch of golfers and then stuffing the Masters with them so that he was only ever competing against his ring-ins which he controlled, and they always made sure they lost and he won, boosting his ranking. Everyone watching his games thought they were witnessing a fair game of golf, but Woods's rankings had been artificially boosted by the actions of his own agents (sockpuppets, if you will). That's a much better analogy.

"In fact if a successful vendor ISN'T doing this then I'd be surprised. I'm sorry if you disagree, but this is how business is run."

I don't get it. If you're all fine and dandy with this, why on earth start a ranty thread about how terrible it is? Make your mind up.

"Also the idea that someone is using a sockpuppet to bring down their competitors is only feasible if there are a few competitors."

Um, well I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a few competitors, and then some. Let's say you are a top 5% vendor with heaps of positive stats, and suddenly you start facing stiff competition from another vendor. You have a brilliant idea to set up a sockpuppet account (or five) to do your bidding. What would be the most effective way to use your sockpuppet(s)? Get them to boost your own ratings by 0.0001% (an extra drop of five star praise in an ocean of the stuff) or purchase from your competitor, then lay a few turds in their punchbowl of four and five star feedback? 

Seems pretty obvious to me.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Jack N Hoff on September 21, 2013, 03:43 pm
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: NW Nugz on September 22, 2013, 05:43 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 22, 2013, 05:52 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)

If I was station chief in La Paz or Bogota I would be in serious trouble, "take me to the cartels cocaine factory immediately!.. why sir? are we going to close it down? NO YOU FOOL! to pick up supplies for this Saturday night of course, whose in?"
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 22, 2013, 09:37 am
hahahaha it's funny cos it's true!

(I'm sure at least a few of the feds stationed down there like to party)
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Jack N Hoff on September 22, 2013, 10:06 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)

Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

So is more than 2,900 kilograms. ;D  http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/29/993329-cia-plane-crashes-in-yucatan-carrying-32-tons-of-cocaine
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 22, 2013, 10:44 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)

Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

So is more than 2,900 kilograms. ;D  http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/29/993329-cia-plane-crashes-in-yucatan-carrying-32-tons-of-cocaine

As I said before the CIA really are a law all unto themselves, bringing it in then arresting people for buying it, probably one of the most fucked up contradictions ever to befall a populace.

Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Jack N Hoff on September 22, 2013, 10:52 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)

Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

So is more than 2,900 kilograms. ;D  http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/29/993329-cia-plane-crashes-in-yucatan-carrying-32-tons-of-cocaine

As I said before the CIA really are a law all unto themselves, bringing it in then arresting people for buying it, probably one of the most fucked up contradictions ever to befall a populace.

MURIKA!!

Surely you know that the US government is not the only government doing this correct?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on September 22, 2013, 11:01 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)

Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

So is more than 2,900 kilograms. ;D  http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/29/993329-cia-plane-crashes-in-yucatan-carrying-32-tons-of-cocaine

As I said before the CIA really are a law all unto themselves, bringing it in then arresting people for buying it, probably one of the most fucked up contradictions ever to befall a populace.

MURIKA!!

Surely you know that the US government is not the only government doing this correct?

Of course but the CIA have been more publicly caught out up to its eyeballs is shady, shonky and illegal behavior than most. The British have been in Afghanistan for a lot longer that most people realize, I'm sure there has been plenty of assistance with the opium trade.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: astor on September 22, 2013, 12:54 pm
Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

"Apparently their were four individuals aboard the aircraft but initially only one was captured although later 2 more were also picked up but the authorities haven't released all of their names supposedly there were 3 men and one lady but who really knows this whole thing is just crazy. To be honest with relation to the crew of the Gulfstream II N987SA the Mexican Government is being pretty damn silent."

Yeah, so I wonder if they were CIA agents or civilians. Probably civilians.

Do you think the CIA is dumb enough to ship drugs with its own planes. and have CIA agents piloting them? They know there is a small but real possibility that they could crash or other things could go wrong. Seems to me even if they were involved in drug smuggling, they'd do it with people and planes that didn't make it so obvious.

The article says the plane was "linked to rendition flights", but what's the evidence?

An alternative explanation is that a drug smuggling organization bought or rented a plane linked to the CIA for the lulz. :)
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: NW Nugz on September 23, 2013, 04:07 am
The CIA still does smuggle cocaine and heroin into the US.  Two CIA planes crashed full of cocaine within the last decade.  One of the planes also had US government officials on it too.
Those plane-fulls might have been just personal-use amounts though. The 3-letter agencies probably developed quite a habit back in the 80's/90's :-)
That might also explain why they crashed, lol :-)

Over 3,600 kilograms is a lot of blow for personal use...  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

So is more than 2,900 kilograms. ;D  http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/29/993329-cia-plane-crashes-in-yucatan-carrying-32-tons-of-cocaine
Hell Yaaa ! :-)  LOL

EDIT: Looks like that 2,900 Kilos may have started out as 32 tons and some went missing while they were writing the story. Or, maybe the 2,900 Kilos was estimated to be 32 tons after the pure blow was cut by the CIA. Or maybe the 32 tons was really 3.2 tons (but they did not put a decimal in the webpage address) and I just like to imagine stuff :-) Thinking about having thousands of Kilos of jungle-fresh blow has me a little overenthusiastic about this post, lol.
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 23, 2013, 05:01 pm
A 32 tonne payload? What were they flying, the Hindenburg?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: Jack N Hoff on September 23, 2013, 05:04 pm
A 32 tonne payload? What were they flying, the Hindenburg?

That made me laugh pretty hard.  They found 3.2 tons, not 32 tons. ;D
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: metacontxt on September 23, 2013, 05:10 pm
I reckon a B-52 could swallow 32 tonnes. Just. Although I don't think the Pentagon would be all that keen on loaning one to the CIA. Can you blame them?
Title: Re: SockPuppet Ratings inflate bad vendors
Post by: NW Nugz on September 24, 2013, 05:22 pm
A 32 tonne payload? What were they flying, the Hindenburg?
Maybe it was the Heisenburg :-)