What if there's a scam website in my signature?

[erikalui]

It's not ethical to promote a scam website whether in the signature or in the avatar as whatever you promote, it hampers your reputation. I've seen many people wearing scam signatures and they have received a negative feedback for those but from untrusted members and it doesn't make them a scammer. Money does make us greedy but if we have ethics, we shouldn't promote scams.


For example: Tomorrow if anyone offers me money to promote drugs and alcohol and offers me a huge amount which can buy me just anything. It doesn't mean I will promote it.

[1714043546]

1714043546

[1714043546]

1714043546

[1714043546]

1714043546

[1714043546]

1714043546

[tmfp]

....Money does make us greedy but if we have ethics, we shouldn't promote scams....

Sure, but the criteria for leaving negative trust are (as you know)

You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Not: "I believe this person doesn't conform to my code of ethics".

There aren't very many proven scams running signature campaigns.
Someone running a sig from a site which others consider likely to be a scam may reasonably say "Until it's proved that they are, why shouldn't I take the money?"
Does that warrant red numbers and a label saying the above?

[Somekindabitcoin]

For example: Tomorrow if anyone offers me money to promote drugs and alcohol and offers me a huge amount which can buy me just anything. It doesn't mean I will promote it.

This is not the same thing, it's not even similar to it... But I got what you meant with it.

[Xialla]

it is simple moral dilemma in first place and you should think...if you will sleep well even if you know, that others may loose money directly because you are whoring for few bucks.

and yes, correct approach is imho notify whore first (with link to scam acc.) and then paint him red, once he will start to ignore you. anything may happen, just because trust rating system is completely non-moderated.

[erikalui]

....Money does make us greedy but if we have ethics, we shouldn't promote scams....

Sure, but the criteria for leaving negative trust are (as you know)

You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Not: "I believe this person doesn't conform to my code of ethics".

There aren't very many proven scams running signature campaigns.
Someone running a sig from a site which others consider likely to be a scam may reasonably say "Until it's proved that they are, why shouldn't I take the money?"
Does that warrant red numbers and a label saying the above?

There is no defined reason to leave a negative trust and DT members make their own decision while leaving a trust rating. If they find a user to be untrustworthy (for any X, Y, Z reason), they'll leave a negative for him. I've seen people giving ratings for the signature also they promote as it's a scam website. Similarly people promoting ponzi webistes (not owned by them) are also marked as scammers. It can be termed as a trust abuse but that's the way it works and we can't help it even though we disagree or agree with it.