I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.
Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam. Meaning whatever he has done for the community as well as the forum since years shouldn't be counted as well against what was committed now? Couldn't his signature be the requirement by Yobit guys to pay him a good package as I stated before? Read this part again. However, in this case Yahoo actively avoided taking action for a very long time despite pressure and evidences of Yobit scamming / the x10 being a scam/ponzi, etc. This is not acceptable, and does not even come close to occasional errors, but rather a willingness to either consistently sell out (directly, indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - it does not matter, I don't care if one can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).
|
|
|
|
I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.
Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam. |
|
|
|
2. Sure, as soon as Lauda and Vod remove their BS negatives on TS..
If you would like examples of why both of their ratings should be highly questioned due to blatant abuse elsewhere, LMK..
So you're saying that I can write the same stuff, infinite number of times (i.e. even reslap the same rating) as long as it is neutral? Watch what you're preaching for.  One thing that I've read between the lines over the last couple of months that you all explicitly or implicitly agree that there is no such thing as a frivolous neutral rating, even if everything in it is a complete and utter lie which is an interesting (conscious or subconscious) stance to have. 4. You mean all your frivolous positives you have received for non-trade related subjects?
This is incorrect. People are more likely to be actually trustworthy based on these long-standing ratings (i.e. continued display of X) rather than someone who just farms up with pajeet trade-deals. People really need to learn how to exercise caution when giving out positives. counter feedback is the only thing one can do when they see inaccurate/undeserved feedback (besides ~), so nobody should be surprised that it's done.
Again, doesn't exist.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing anything in relation to OP's claim or against it. |
|
|
|
No offence DWM14 and TP.. I just disagree on the preferential treatment stance..
This. Evidently I have also noticed how people shift entirely just based on political disagreements and whatnot (things not relating at all to someone's judgement), i.e. this thing called "long history of trustworthiness" is also only hypocritically used (this does not refer to TP per say, I just used his wording because it was quickly available to make a point). in this case Yahoo actively avoided
Notice he doesn't even have the balls to reply here.. A familiar tactic of avoidance often seen in situations involving financial motivation.. Turn a blind eye, maybe say that you were busy or were at your "gf" and had no internet even though this never happened before, until only.
Here I am, standing on the sidelines, condemning my own (previously-referred to as) "gang members" together with one of my strongest opponents, eddie13, TECSHARE, Quickseller. I would have never thought such a situation would (or even could) come. It is a display of utter failure of DT1, especially the most entrenched individuals. I have yet to see anybody from this ranking to act accordingly because we all (and don't lie to yourself gentlemen and ladies) know that what was done here was wrong on many levels both from a legal and justice view.
Therefore, I shall continue to wait to see if anybody will "redeem" this false illusion that DT1 is trustworthy or has rational/uniform enforcement. |
|
|
|
why did you tell me about it and send me to them? What if I get scammed after they run away with my and many other innocent people's money? Whom should I contact with, then? You, right? I'm not saying that I'm in any support for tagging you or anybody who advertised them but if you were warned, it means that it is not in the interest of both the forum as well as the users of the forum in general. I don't get it why theymos didn't step in when that X10 shit was circulating all over the forum for some days.
"No crime", no problem. The folk where he comes from are still a couple generations behind in (brain) development, you've ought to be a bit more lenient. They are just somewhat better than vispilio et. al. |
|
|
|
If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either.
Maybe the trust numbers created by counters have little meaning, but the information placed is valuable to others who look trying to independently interpret situations.. If there was an actual need for the counter, those "others" (assuming unbiased, and rational) wouldn't need them to find the truth to begin with. The problem is the lack of "unbiased" and "rational" people here. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either. Keep up with the advance of the system that you're using. |
|
|
|
Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.
There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right? I gave you the option to visit the website. Visiting websites is not a crime. Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating. Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.
You're an accomplice, end of story. How about we ask a judge in your country whether you have committed a "crime" or not? At this point I'm considering an uniform action against everyone who gives zero disregard for victims or potential victims in any case (not just Yobit) as that behavior is inherently untrustworthy or can only be acted out by inherently untrustworthy people. |
|
|
|
Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive.
Surprisingly, this might be a first, but I actually agree with you in regards to what DireWolfM14 said. They are essentially giving Yahoo a pass, one which was not given to Hhampuz and many many others. But it's all alright under the pretense of "opinions". This does not excuse or make any of this acceptable, but reinforces DireWolfM14's own and other people's hypocrisy.
I'd be surprised if the bolded part doesn't land more exclusions. I'd also expect both retaliatory ratings and exclusions for whoever goes after Yahoo. But this is all fine since nobody did anything wrong, they just had a (financially-motivated) opinion. I agree also.. You can add TP to that list... I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tag Yahoo62278 anyway
That would be based on his long history of trustworthiness
IMO "reputable" users should be held to higher standards than your average shitposter, but that seems to often be the opposite of the case.. All too often unpopular or average users are destroyed for things the "buddies" would get a pass on.. That's unfortunate.. Well I'd be willing to forgive based on a long history of trustworthiness for errors, but this comes no surprise as I'm offering forgiveness to my arch-enemy Quickseller. However, in this case Yahoo actively avoided taking action for a very long time despite pressure and evidences of Yobit scamming / the x10 being a scam/ponzi, etc. This is not acceptable, and does not even come close to occasional errors, but rather a willingness to either consistently sell out (directly, indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - it does not matter, I don't care if one can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been). |
|
|
|
A joke.
<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!
Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing. Most humans have countless opportunities to steal every day. Please stop quoting this about yourself, because eventually it will be seen in the wrong light. In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.
My view of "justice" is that you actually have to do something harmful to be a criminal. Participating in a signature campaign is not a crime. Right so let me get this: 1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money. 2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise. 3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money. There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right? |
|
|
|
Yobit, on the other hand, started out advertising their competing forum, then sneakily attempted to connive all the participants to advertise their X10 scam. Yahoo62278 didn't apply that signature to his account, and even put in the effort to convince Yobit to retract and replace it. At this point the two; LiveCoin and Yobit signature campaigns can more closely be compared.
I'll only respond to this one, not looking to pick a fight with anyone or cause any drama. I would say that knowing it was YoBits forum it kind of defeats the idea of "Well I only marketed this part of it". We all knew it was yobits forum, we all knew they were pushing their x10 scam on that forum and so I see no reason why it would be acceptable to market their "lesser evil" side. But that's the thing about opinions right? We all have one and sometimes (or most times) we'll disagree  . I'm not defending Yahoo62278's decision to wear the signature himself, I would not have done so in his situation. And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange. If I had to pick the more productive method with which the two scenarios were handled, I believe you handled the LiveCoin debacle with more honor and dignity. But that's not to take anything away from Yahoo62278, he volunteered for a job that would make me cringe, and did it remarkably. I will however defend the choice by DT members to not tag Yahoo62278. I think it shows restraint and care. Like I said, I'm convinced both exchanges are scams, but I won't use my position to force others to agree with me. I will always allow room for disagreement and difference of opinion. Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive. Surprisingly, this might be a first, but I actually agree with you in regards to what DireWolfM14 said. They are essentially giving Yahoo a pass, one which was not given to Hhampuz and many many others. But it's all alright under the pretense of "opinions". This does not excuse or make any of this acceptable, but reinforces DireWolfM14's own and other people's hypocrisy.
I'd be surprised if the bolded part doesn't land more exclusions. I'd also expect both retaliatory ratings and exclusions for whoever goes after Yahoo. But this is all fine since nobody did anything wrong, they just had a (financially-motivated) opinion. |
|
|
|
This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.
It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this. even if it doesn't restore the person's trust score, countering still seems useful where there is disputed negative feedback on someone's trust page. it at least shows there are two sides to the story. an undisputed red mark doesn't convey that. If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either. |
|
|
|
Can't you get over it and just admit that questioning hypocrisy is the right thing to do?
Your post I quoted first gave me hope that you would..
It is, but you haven't really ever actually done it other than selectively, meaning hypocritically, i.e. you haven't done it. That's the distinction between our views on this matter. Once you uniformly apply "questioning hypocrisy" then can it only be actual questioning of hypocrisy, otherwise it's just yet another (disguised) hypocritical action. |
|
|
|
This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.
It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this. |
|
|
|
You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there.
The only one to blame is YoBit and certainly not the people who participated in the signature campaign. In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one. |
|
|
|
This is it. Way more that sufficient for proper referencing and proof that there is no "opinion" here. The word "opinion" is being used to justify or well avoid using the wording 'financial-motivation', i.e. greed. Nice find.
You know Lauda.. This reminds me of a similar situation we had to hash out with some drama over advertising another exchange that was thought to be and turned out to be a scam.. P2PB2B I forced them to start an escrowed campaign. (Still waiting)
There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me).
Thinking it's a scam but wanting it to campaign anyway.. Where many "opinions" thought it was a "scam" but it was going to be advertised anyway, even pushed by those who thought it was a scam themselves (DT1 members), which I found hypocritical and possibly due to "'financial-motivation', i.e. greed" as you say, and in the end it turned out to be proven scam beyond doubt with fake team members and all.. And I took red tags from YOU over that hypocritical situation even though in the end it was definitely a scam and even to this day I have a negative-neutral over it.. Maybe you should get over that situation and admit that me speaking up against the hypocrisy THERE was also the right thing to do and which led to the right outcome.. Wrong. I received $0 and had next to no monetary incentive to help them out. How much did mr. Yahoo receive? You projecting your own belief of hypocrisy on me is your own issue. You speaking out there was one of the vilest displays of spite and hypocrisy (and I surely hope not trolling) that I have been on the receiving end of.
I hereby ask OP to delete any off-topic posts, including those attempting to discuss irrelevant parties. Open your own thread. |
|
|
|
I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above. I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending. It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least. You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there. |
|
|
|
Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".
Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions. He's reply, whilst trying to hide it, is solely based because his own abuse among his own Turkish gang got called out: Blacknavy
Kalemder
Vispilio
Your argument on its own is valid, but in relation to my response is invalid. |
|
|
|
Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior? This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam. If you receive monetary compensation for this and are still willing, then this makes you an accomplice, i.e. a scammer per definition too. Regardless of which view you take on it, this should remain true in every. |
|
|
|
After reading through this thread and seeing livecoin admit to holding the users account "hostage" until he removes all the negative press against them, I've formed the opinion that all users should cease wearing the advertisement for them and the campaign should be closed.
-snip-
Can someone link me to all flags against this exchange, i'll give some support. I would also like to ask community opinion on the campaign continuing?
This is it. Way more that sufficient for proper referencing and proof that there is no "opinion" here. The word "opinion" is being used to justify or well avoid using the wording 'financial-motivation', i.e. greed. Nice find. |
|
|
|
your opinion can be bought for pocket change. If I know I would never scam anyone and I'm tagged as a scammer, what is it left for me to believe other than thinking the policy is wrong? Negative trust rating requirement =/= being a scammer. You don't understand the system properly and I kinda think that you never did (which is fine as it includes the super-majority of the users) and we're discussing something that shouldn't be discussed here. Additionally, there's no policy. Anyone could tag you for being a scammer, even when you're in-fact not a scammer; right this second and we couldn't prevent it. We can only take reactive measures (to alleviate improper tags). Furthermore, there are various perspectives that properly argue that e.g. advertising a scam makes you complicit i.e. a scammer yourself even if there's no malicious intent. We can go into many discussions pertaining to semantics and viewpoints, but this just wastes time (right now, and in this thread - start another).
This whole ordeal has been handled were poorly, to the point that Yobit managed to advertise their "scamBox" for >1 month up to the point that they shut it down, not us. We have failed this time, just failed. This is what the focus should be not who got labeled how in the crossfire or the semantics behind stated words et. al. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
