yahoo62278 and Yobit

[nullius]

In several recent posts, I have vaguely alluded to quiet, behind-the-scenes preparations that I was making to take on the Yobit scam.  My planning was preempted by such public outrage as has been brewing for months, but only broke forth with force within the past 24 hours.

For my part, I am sick of seeing the Yobit scam-company not only advertised, but inexplicably advertised by many decent, otherwise respectable posters.  This last is a significant problem for the health of the forum, insofar as it gives the Yobit ads more credibility than garden-variety sigspam.  And I know that I am not the only one who wants to stop this!

But my planning on this point ran into a significant problem.

Whilst catching up and researching the topic, I noticed that yahoo62278 is currently wearing a Yobit ad.  On the basis of mere common sense, I doubt that that is for the principal purpose of receiving direct payment for the ad; that would be relative chump change for someone whom I reasonably infer must have a long-term business relationship with Yobit.

yahoo62278’s own profile “Yobit Yodollars” signature has the effect of making it wrongly socially acceptable to advertise a scam site; and as a practical matter, others wearing Yobit ads now cannot be tagged without, in fairness, also tagging yahoo62278, plus potentially ~excluding him to help support a mass-tagging action.

I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one.  However, the Yobit scam advertising must be stopped one way or another; and whereas I recently said that Yobit advertisers will make their own choices and bear their own consequences, yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment.  Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards.

yahoo62278’s general dealings with Yobit, and the impact thereof on this forum, may present further issues.  I will simply start with the foregoing.


Note:  Archive sites are misbehaving from where I sit.  I think that my pertinent snapshots will eventually show up; I may thereupon edit this post to add appropriate links, and/or to add other links.  Of course, if I substantively edit this, I will first archive it.

Local rules:  To be moderated in my sound discretion.  I believe that in the foregoing, I have set an appropriate tone for addressing a serious problem involving a widely trusted forum member.

[1715282622]

1715282622

[1715282622]

1715282622

[nullius]

Forward references:

• 2020-01-24: My elaboration on the reasons for the creation of this topic
• 2020-01-29: yahoo62278’s reply
• 2020-01-31: Conclusion and topic lock, with statement of conditions for unlock.

[wolwoo]

he can't defend the yobit now

instead I am defending
yobit is a stock market just like bittrex-binance-houbi!

I don't care what yahoo, suchmoon etc are thinking!

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/sistemkoin/
$1.022.634.531 USD
122.009 BTC

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/catex/
$861.144.482 USD
102.677 BTC

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/hcoin/
$812.509.931 USD
96.745 BTC

........................
There are stock exchanges showing massive counterfeit trading volume like these. There are also very famous ones among them.


https://hackernoon.com/fake-volumes-and-wash-trades-on-exchanges-what-should-we-believe-ps2xr38nb

https://hedgetrade.com/what-is-wash-trading-on-crypto-exchanges/

yobit is trading with real volume, you can even see this by eye.

$22.886.074 USD
2.731 BTC

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/yobit/

[eddie13]

Not only is yahoo narrowly rescuing the campaign from being banned for continually spamming without regard for anything but their own advertising success, showing their utter disrespect for this forum, but he is also even himself promoting it in his signature right along with the rest of them..

If ALL Yobit advertisers are to be tagged on the basis of advertising a scam then yahoo himself should indeed expect no special treatment..

But.. I believe that all tagged advertisers, if tagged, should be untagged upon their cooperation and removal of such advertisments, including yahoo, all who heed the warning, as is the usual practice..

[wolwoo]

Who are you to declare someone scam-scammer?Are you Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan representative of bitcointalk.org?


I would sue anyone who said "scam" here if I was yobit's place.

[TECSHARE]

Not only is yahoo narrowly rescuing the campaign from being banned for continually spamming without regard for anything but their own advertising success, showing their utter disrespect for this forum, but he is also even himself promoting it in his signature right along with the rest of them..

If ALL Yobit advertisers are to be tagged on the basis of advertising a scam then yahoo himself should indeed expect no special treatment..

But.. I believe that all tagged advertisers, if tagged, should be untagged upon their cooperation and removal of such advertisments, including yahoo, all who heed the warning, as is the usual practice..

Why would anyone pressure yahoo6278 to stop supporting Yobit when they can just use the pretext of stopping Yobit to lord over thousands of random users and use this activity to boost their own "scambusting" profile? I mean, yahoo62278 washes all the right balls, and acheiving their stated goals of stopping Yobit doesn't seem that great compared to all the random users they can lord over and have beg them for forgiveness instead of targeting the one person most able to stop Yobit on this forum. How are they going to exploit thousands of users with arbitrary enforcement if they go after one of their pals? Nah, they will just stick to harassing random unsuspecting users for some shit they excuse their buddies from.

[nullius]

The following is the substantive content of a PM that I recently sent, lightly edited for privacy and small bugfixes.  It is still raw and conversational; but it sets forth my position with a clarity which I believe should be made of record.

And for the record, almost immediately after I opened this topic, I did PM a link to yahoo62278 as a courtesy.  If he wants to respond to what I have said about him, then in all fairness, I would want to see that.  Whereas if he chooses not to reply, well—my objective here is about Yobit, so we’ll see about Yobit.

I will now wrap up a few other things, and then take a few days’ forum break.  When I return, I will check to see whether or not Yobit really just suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke, as if inexplicably smitten by the rage of the gods.

Moderation note:  I will soon archive this page, then delete an idiotic zero-substance post as off-topic.


Thanks for your analysis.  I think that I can best explain whence I come by explaining how I arrived at this point, so to speak.  Why am I, of all people, suddenly keying in on Yobit when I have bigger fish to fry Re: Project Anastasia, etc.?

I actually knew nothing about Yobit, until a few weeks ago.  Whilst catching up after my long “sleep”, I happened across some of o_e_l_e_o’s posts incisively sticking a fork in Investbox, the same way he did to alia’s allegedly EV+ gambling script scam.  This first made me aware that Yobit is a scam site—and it’s a scam site per se:  You know that the Gambling forum would never accept the excuse that a site offers some services with non-mathematically-impossible claims, if some of its games (and indeed, its heavily-pushed flagship games) boldly claim EV+ when they are not.

I think that’s a fine analogy, when Yobit’s defenders seem to like to claim that it’s just a gambling site which happens to call itself an “investment” site or an “exchange”.  OK:  Set aside that that would be blatantly false advertising.  Let’s apply the same standards that we apply to gambling sites—and apply those standards to the site as a whole, as would be done to a partly-scamming (and wholly sleazy) gambling site!

After I became aware of Yobit’s nature as a Ponzi shop, I noticed that I was withholding or minimizing merits on good posts due to the Yobit signature.  Yes.  Thus, this is not correct, or at least, is not seeing the forest for the trees:

...in the case of Yobit where most of the participants are farmed sockpuppets anyway...

Due to this, I gave johhnyUA only a +1 (and a terse reply) on a post that I otherwise would have bombed with +10:  He was the first to publicly call for a PGP-signed statement from me after my 20-month absence, at a time when Faketoshi is a big issue needing more public awareness that you must always demand a digital signature at the threshold.  (That gets my respect, johhny!  Except for the “free YoDollars” ad. Edit 2020-01-27:  I noticed that johhny removed his Yobit ad, and is currently wearing an unpaid signature promoting Bitcoin ideals and privacy.  I have accordingly topped that post up to a total of 10 merits, as I originally thought it deserved.  WHEN IN DOUBT, ALWAYS DEMAND A DIGITAL SIGNATURE!)  And I have flatly ignored some good posts by him and others:  Not only not merited them, but attempted to avoid replying.  My plan has been to post a PSA thread, PM it around on friendly terms to people whom I actually otherwise appreciate, publicize it with my unique Nullian knack for that, and then, on principle, tag the hell out of anybody still wearing a Yobit signature of any kind.  —Hopefully with some DTs onboard, though that is not a strict necessity for me.

I am not only concerned about cleaning up spam.  Shitposters give little credibility to the ads beneath their drivel.  Whereas for reasons (or perhaps, unreasons) which perplex me, there are people in the Yobit campaign who are advertising Yobit on good posts—on posts with substance, which people may actually read and like.

This gives Yobit credibility.  That credibility will, in turn, seduce newbies and casual users who know exactly as much about Yobit as I did three weeks ago, and who will not know (as I do) how to check reputation before “investing”.  The good users in Yobit’s campaign make the whole thing worse!

Having reached that point, I rammed head-on into the yahoo problem.

I do NOT buy the argument that it’s better to have yahoo running a scam-ad campaign for spam-control purposes.  In terms of actual harm, that is tantamount to saying that if a drug-pusher will be on the corner next to a schoolyard, it’s better to have a drug-pusher who politely checks ID for 18+.  Excuse me for being underwhelmed.

Of course another option is to go after yahoo directly, coerce him to abandon the campaign...

yahoo is running a campaign for a site that runs Ponzis.  Period.  He is wreathing them in his own credibility, which is cheapened accordingly—and he is wearing their signature himself, as a DT-sized human shield so that nobody can mass-tag Yobit advertisers without potentially igniting a DT war.

I will reserve further exploring my opinions on what that makes me think of yahoo himself.  Though I would not be deterred by the inevitability of drama, I don’t want the drama—and if I did, Faketoshi has more of it anyway, with the added “benefit” of being so much slimier and more disgusting.

PEOPLE ARE LOSING MONEY BECAUSE OF THIS.  People are clicking those ads, clicking on the “free Yodollars!” that some here seem to be thoughtlessly accepting, and getting sucked into the “Investbox”.  If you suppose that just distrusting X10/Investbox signatures is adequate, then Yobit’s shell game has you fooled just like they are fooling their “investors”.


You know that I am a loose cannon, even moreso than Lauda.  In the long term, I do not intend to let this go; and there is no way to shut me up, short of me being banned for stating true facts and persuasive arguments in an appropriately courteous and professional manner (if deserved by the target of my exposition).  Hey, I suppose that Vispilio can dream; well, all he has achieved is to very much not improve my existing mood toward Yobit and its supporters.

I hope that we can find a suitable means to achieve the objective of actually obliterating Yobit ads, i.e. per se scam ads, from the forum entirely—not merely keeping them under yahoo’s control and thus, under his shield.  I am dipping my toe in the water here, but I don’t mind diving when I have the time for it; and although I often seem to fall behind on my own threads, I am a patient man who is in it for the long haul, not the drama splash.

Cheers.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Yobit have & will continue to have shitposters who spam the fuck out of this place. At the very least, with a good campaign manager like yahoo the sig campaign participants are on a leash & the worst shitposters are not allowed in his campaigns.

I’m not interested in tagging Yobit participants myself but unless theymos bans Yobit from advertising here then I think with yahoo in charge it certainly won’t get any worse.

It could be a hell of a lot worse for us here if Yobit employed a shitty campaign manager.

[o_e_l_e_o]

At the very least, with a good campaign manager like yahoo the sig campaign participants are on a leash & the worst shitposters are not allowed in his campaigns.

I do agree with this, but there are other things to consider here.

When yahoo62278 initially took the job, it was to advertise CryptoTalk, not YoBit. There was a general consensus that if they were going to spam the hell out of the forum, then there should at least be some sort of oversight, as you state, and I pretty much agreed with that. CryptoTalk, although a cesspit of spamming, isn't a scam and no one has ever lost money on it. At some point along the line, two things have changed.

Firstly, the advertising is no longer for CryptoTalk, but for YoBit. YoBit's InvestBox (their initial signature) is 100% a scam, and no one can seriously argue otherwise. Because of the uproar surrounding this, they changed from InvestBox to an AirDrop signature. Marginally less worse, sure, but I still have major issues with users promoting a company which makes products and services designed to steal from other users, even if they are not promoting those exact products. As a random example, if people started advertising a Bitconnect lending service but said "It's OK, I'm not advertising the Bitconnect coin", I suspect negative ratings would be pretty quickly forthcoming.

Secondly, at some point yahoo62278 transitioned from simply having a role banning the worst of the spammers, to wearing the signature himself and apparently enrolled in the campaign, which as pointed out by nullius, lends an air of legitimacy due to his (yahoo's) trusted and respected status to what is an otherwise very shady/borderline scam campaign.

As also pointed out in other threads about this, however, the majority of altcoin signature campaigns fall in to pretty much the same category. Much like the coins on YoBit's InvestBox, the vast majority of altcoins are entirely fake, designed only to make the owners money and are then never heard from again.

I think given the first point I have made above, the correct course of action now for individuals is to leave the campaign and remove the signatures, but given that the campaign is due to finish in two days' time, then that decision is going to made for them.

[blurryeyed]

It could be a hell of a lot worse for us here if Yobit employed a shitty campaign manager.

Yeah, a shitty campaign manager wouldn't screen applicants for promoting their scam & let anyone join.

Oh wait.....

I have 0 control over who joins.

Easy money this scam promoting eh?

[Kimi80]

Yahoo62278 is such respected member of the forum and I doubt he would join to promotion of any garbage or scam project. He has enough work to not cowork with who knows what just to earn a little bit of money. The other words, that fact that yahoo62278 rules YoBit campaign already says that the project is clear.

[Hhampuz]

All this brings me back to is the overwhelming consensus the forum were in regarding the Livecoin campaign that I was managing.

There was one user with one complaint labeling it as a scam and it seemed to only be fit that I would no longer manage such a campaign - I tried to find a solution to the issues but after no success I was more or less forced to end it.

Now I won't draw any parallels here since these are two different cases with two different issues but it does baffle me somewhat that nobody is taking a similar position as they did with the Livecoin debacle.

[bitmover]

Secondly, at some point yahoo62278 transitioned from simply having a role banning the worst of the spammers, to wearing the signature himself and apparently enrolled in the campaign, which as pointed out by nullius, lends an air of legitimacy due to his (yahoo's) trusted and respected status to what is an otherwise very shady/borderline scam campaign.

The other words, that fact that yahoo62278 rules YoBit campaign already says that the project is clear.

Lol kimi80
You are the proof that what nullius and oeleo are talking about is correct.

Yahoo as a manager is better for the forum than without him.

However, in this specific case, I believe theymos should have banned yobit and crypotalk signatures. There are too many problems, and the whole design of the campaign and the companies are harmful for the forum imo.

[PrimeNumber7]

All this brings me back to is the overwhelming consensus the forum were in regarding the Livecoin campaign that I was managing.

There was one user with one complaint labeling it as a scam and it seemed to only be fit that I would no longer manage such a campaign - I tried to find a solution to the issues but after no success I was more or less forced to end it.

Now I won't draw any parallels here since these are two different cases with two different issues but it does baffle me somewhat that nobody is taking a similar position as they did with the Livecoin debacle.

I have been calling for yahoo to resign as YoBit campaign manager:

I will repeat my previous call for yahoo to stop managing the YoBit campaign. If someone else gets hired to manage the campaign, so be it and that new person would receive calls from me to step down. I get that YoBit pays well and this is why so many people are willing to advertise for YoBit, but I don’t think anyone should accept advertisements from YoBit (don’t wear their signature). If yahoo steps down, we might see a few days of mega spam, but I am okay with this because it means their signature will get banned at the end of the few days and probably several of the spammers who are willing to whore out their signatures to a scam exchange will too.

Yahoo should do the right thing and step down as campaign manager and everyone advertising for YiBit should do the right thing and stop wearing their signature.

I think wolwoo should stop promoting YoBit so everyone can move on. As a side note, I think the same is true for Yahoo, including him managing (or whatever he is calling it)   

Yahoo has no power to close the campaign because YoBit could let it continue on autopilot or hire someone else. I am just a lowly single person and cannot force anyone to do anything. I think you did the right thing by closing the LiveCoin campaign. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear the same can be said about the YoBit campaign, but it is currently unclear why specifically YoBit closed their campaign. There was some talk about tagging everyone wearing the YoBit signature and that may have influenced their decision.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I wasn’t aware that yahoo has/had no say in who gets/got enrolled into that campaign 

[Lauda]

All this brings me back to is the overwhelming consensus the forum were in regarding the Livecoin campaign that I was managing.

There was one user with one complaint labeling it as a scam and it seemed to only be fit that I would no longer manage such a campaign - I tried to find a solution to the issues but after no success I was more or less forced to end it.

Now I won't draw any parallels here since these are two different cases with two different issues but it does baffle me somewhat that nobody is taking a similar position as they did with the Livecoin debacle.

You tell me how I can tag Yahoo without causing massive retaliation even though in this case an tag is more than appropriate[1][2], or tagging a massive partitioning in the DT system (i.e. chaos) and I will. This situation has shown two things:

• The DT system is selectively hypocritical (as outlined by you in your argument). Actually, I'm certain that Yobit is by far a worse scam than Livecoin is and that if we assessed the metrics this would be objectively proven true.
• Almost nothing can be done against highly entrenched DT1 members that are financially motivated, especially if there are also other notable members on the payroll (merit source, DT2, other).

As a consequence of this, we have shown complete disregard for all the victims and have pushed the boundary to some scamming behavior is okay because someone's opinion is that it's actually not a scam. Beyond disgusting what money is capable of invoking in humanity.
[1] Actually the appropriate proportionate action is to get tagged by several DT members. Not because he was part of it, but because he failed/refused to act based on nothing other than financial motivations while third parties spent tens of hours debating and looking into the case.

[DireWolfM14]

All this brings me back to is the overwhelming consensus the forum were in regarding the Livecoin campaign that I was managing.

There was one user with one complaint labeling it as a scam and it seemed to only be fit that I would no longer manage such a campaign - I tried to find a solution to the issues but after no success I was more or less forced to end it.

Now I won't draw any parallels here since these are two different cases with two different issues but it does baffle me somewhat that nobody is taking a similar position as they did with the Livecoin debacle.

As other members have mentioned, the two scenarios have some similarities, and some dissimilarities.  I think the two fiascos are actually being handled with consistency by most DT members.  

The LiveCoin campaign started out looking legit, and so no one gave it a second thought when when they saw high ranking respected members wearing that signature.  As their policies started coming into question and many left the campaign on their own accord, and many, including some members for whom I have a lot respect decided to defend them and remain in the campaign.  I didn't feel it was appropriate to tag those folks, even though I disagreed with them.

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'm convinced that both exchanges are scams, but that doesn't mean that I need everyone to agree with me.  There isn't enough solid evidence of scamming by either exchange, but most of the circumstantial evidence certainly points that way.  As such, I (and I assume many other DT members) felt it was appropriate to tag the exchanges' main accounts, but refrain from tagging the signature campaign managers and participants.  In that regard I don't see any difference between the way the two scenarios are being handled.

[Hhampuz]

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 .

[DireWolfM14]

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.

[Hhampuz]

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.

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.

Yeah I don't care about someone wearing a signature and I'm not calling out for people to tag yahoo or participants in the yobit campaign. I will however question why there is no pressure on yahoo to stop managing the campaign (As I got extremely pressured regarding Livecoin) - most influential members even take the route of saying it's good he is managing the campaign due to fear of what would happen otherwise.. that can't be where we are at as a forum, can it?

[Lauda]

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.

[eddie13]

This situation has shown two things:

• The DT system is selectively hypocritical (as outlined by you in your argument). Actually, I'm certain that Yobit is by far a worse scam than Livecoin is and that if we assessed the metrics this would be objectively proven true.
• Almost nothing can be done against highly entrenched DT1 members that are financially motivated, especially if there are also other notable members on the payroll (merit source, DT2, other).

I thought just accepting/ignoring the campaign was hypocritical after seeing before so many campaigns forced out for less and have seen so many users tagged up for "advertising scams"..

Then it became too blatantly hypocritical when many in DT were in favor of selectively tagging some advertisers but not others for the same thing..

Just before chaos ensued to find consensus discovery of this situation they coincidentally and conveniently decided to call the campaign quits right in the nick of time..
Hmm..

I suppose it's good that the chaos has been avoided but it leaves some questions unanswered..

______________________________________________-

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..

___________________________________________


Once again, ME pointing out this case of hypocrisy in this Yobit campaign is what lead to this thread, and possibly their closing up shop here.. Just the same as my voicing similar concerns played a large part in stopping P2PB2B..

You're all welcome for my fine community services of questioning hypocrisy at great risk to my own reputation to keep DT straight.. Here, there, and elsewhere..

Wither you like it in one situation but not in another, I don't know what to tell you about that..

[TECSHARE]

This is what allowing arbitrary enforcement of rules gets us. Endless punitive punishments, disputes, selective enforcement, manipulation, and abuse of the system. Unless it is clear cut and demonstrated directly with facts, not suspicions, not guesses, not theories or association. Facts.

[Lauda]

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.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I will however question why there is no pressure on yahoo to stop managing the campaign

I'm pretty sure there was pressure put on him to stop managing it--but as of right now the campaign is closed anyway if I'm not mistaken, so no more pressure need be applied.  I'm actually glad Yobit decided to end it before this issue blew up more than it needed to. 

I've had mixed feelings about members getting tagged because of what they're advertising in their signature space and with this Yobit thing I've been going back and forth in my mind as to whether there's an actual Ponzi scheme going on with the investbox--and yes, I've read posts made by o_e_l_e_o and others about it and it's started to look and quack like a duck if you know what I mean.

I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tag Yahoo62278 anyway, even if he wore the Yobit signature.  That would be based on his long history of trustworthiness and the little doubt in my mind that remains that Yobit is approaching full scammer status. 

And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange. 

Yeah, this has been a weird situation all around.  They definitely were sneaky when they switched from the cryptotalk sig to the investbox one, and I'll bet a lot of people didn't even know what it was they were advertising exactly.  Ah....it's making my head spin.

[eddie13]

Wrong. I received $0 and had next to no monetary incentive

I wasn't necessarily talking about you having the monetary incentive there.. More about the user I quoted the hypocrisy of there..

BTW you're welcome for me keeping YOU out of near the same situation that yahoo got himself into here..

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..

I hereby ask OP to delete any off-topic posts, including those attempting to discuss irrelevant parties. Open your own thread.

My posts questioning hypocrisy are STILL too dangerous to be allowed to exist eh?

[Lauda]

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.

[eddie13]

It is, but you haven't really ever actually done it other than selectively

How about you ask JollyGood if he thinks I was selectively attacking him over this selectively tagging specific Yobit advertisers VS all debate..
We have mutual respect, mutual inclusions, and he can take some good debate without getting all offended over it..

without causing massive retaliation .. . . . (i.e. chaos)

Retaliation for doing the right thing is a bitch isn't it..

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Lauda]

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. 

[eddie13]

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..

[Lauda]

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).

[Quickseller]

Yahoo was saying that he supports the campaign shutting down and that he would support flags against Yobit. I noticed that he kept wearing his signature but any pressure he had to shut down the campaign went away. At or around the same time, he also said he was no longer the campaign manager, but that was quickly shown to be false.

For some of the participants, it may not be unreasonable to argue that they believe Yobit isn’t a scam (I would strongly push back against this assertion), but yahoos statements reflect this is not the case for him. He acknowledged that Yobit is a scam exchange but not only kept the campaign open, but wrote misleading statements that he was closing the campaign and continued to personally advertise for them.

Conclusions I have come to regarding these changes.

1. looks as though the cryptotalk campaign is over
2. my contract with them has ended

Two days later...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188047.msg53431322#msg53431322

Other new updates, I now have direct contact with yobit account via telegram. This should help with getting the balance refilled faster when it empties. No guarantees of course but it was a requirement for me to continue.

[eddie13]

No offence DWM14 and TP.. I just disagree on the preferential treatment stance..

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..

[Lauda]

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.

[Stedsm]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[Stedsm]

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?

[Lauda]

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).

[suchmoon]

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.

[DireWolfM14]

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you guys feel that I'm being hypocritical in this situation.  I'm open to having my mind changed, and I mean that sincerely.

I strive to be consistent and restrained, and I feel like this is a demonstration of that effort.  I haven't had nearly as much interaction with yahoo62278 as I've had with Hhampuz, and I think of Hhampuz as a friend.  I really don't know yahoo62278 well enough to apply that label to him.  Yet, I've given both the benefit of the doubt, and attempt to treat them equally in what I think of as analogous scenarios.

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag, while those who supported LiveCoin don't.

@TECSHARE, I know you've been upset with me for the last few months, but if you can please stick to this particular subject and not conflate it with our other disagreements I'd like you to explain as well.  Who do you think I'm telling to "go fuck themselves?"

[Stedsm]

--snip--
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 person can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).

I got your point there, but can you deny the fact that Yahoo also stood up against Yobit itself when they came up with their X10 shit without letting him know while they directly asked the users to immediately change their signatures when he was not online (or I can't say if that was all intentionally done). Yahoo asked Yobit guys to either change the signature back or he'd stop managing the campaign. Nonetheless, I don't think that if users are going to be tagged, yahoo will, by any means, be left by DTs though I'm seeing many DT members in favor of not tagging Yahoo and even the users because it was all a dubious act to make money 'on the verge of getting people's nerves stressed' as all I see it. It was all "Yobit" that I couldn't see any other signature as most members who posted in any threads in some highly-active-yet-spammed sections of the forum were wearing that X10 signature, the whole Bitcointalk forum was in Yobitious colors.

[Lauda]

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag, while those who supported LiveCoin don't.

Here are some:

• False equivalency. LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations. Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo. Therefore:
  He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].
• False equivalency #2. Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.
• Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.
• [1] See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

See the following two points:

IMO "reputable" users should be held to higher standards than your average shitposter, but that seems to often be the opposite of the case..

A familiar tactic of avoidance often seen in situations involving financial motivation..

For the above, please don't waste my time with nonsense such as "active avoidance doesn't mean he's guilty". Of course it does not, but there has to be a strong reason to do so.

Update, see the following too (thanks Quicksie  ):

LiveCoin did not start out as a scam. After it turned out that LiveCoin was acting in an untrustworthy/scam manner, and once LiveCoin had the opportunity to defend itself, pressure was given to those who were advertising for LiveCoin and after a discussion, Hhampuz ended the campaign.

In the case of yahoo/Yobit, yahoo acknowledged that Yobit was a scam and decided to continue advertising for them. The difference is that those who were advertising for LiveCoin had not taken the position that it was a scam when they were advertising.

You can't seriously argue that this not only doesn't warrant negative ratings, but doesn't warrant exclusions either.
Also side note (not related directly to topic so I apologize): Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me). There's no bias here, and all DT1 members are properly assessing the situation, right?

[TECSHARE]

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.

You say this like it is a joke, but this is the exact logic being used to tag anyone who wears specific signature banners people decide they don't like for whatever reason. It is just as retarded in that case. The solution? Stop justifying people being punished by guilt via association across the board.

@TECSHARE, I know you've been upset with me for the last few months, but if you can please stick to this particular subject and not conflate it with our other disagreements I'd like you to explain as well.  Who do you think I'm telling to "go fuck themselves?"

I am very much sticking to the subject. You are either a hypocrite with malleable constantly shifting standards to fit whatever suits you, or you are a useful dupe for others doing the same. It has nothing to do with being "upset" with you. I don't trust your ability for reason or judgement, and you are being treated as such.

[Quickseller]

LiveCoin did not start out as a scam. After it turned out that LiveCoin was acting in an untrustworthy/scam manner, and once LiveCoin had the opportunity to defend itself, pressure was given to those who were advertising for LiveCoin and after a discussion, Hhampuz ended the campaign.

In the case of yahoo/Yobit, yahoo acknowledged that Yobit was a scam and decided to continue advertising for them. The difference is that those who were advertising for LiveCoin had not taken the position that it was a scam when they were advertising.

[eddie13]

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.

Doing the right thing against the flow of your peers is admirable..

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag

The argument I think you are referring to is not wither or not to tag yahoo.

The argument that you cannot tag Yobit participants, even though you probably think you should, but can't because then you would also have to tag your buddie yahoo, is the point..

The "They deserve to be tagged but not yahoo because I like him" line of though is hypocritical because it is basically protecting your own buddies while you would otherwise have tagged them to hell..

If any Yobit advertisers should be tagged for advertising Yobit, yahoo should be the FIRST to be tagged, not the last or not tagged because of whatever excuses..
The same should be applied to all, and if anything, the most "reputable" users should be held to the highest standards, not excused from them..

My point is/was that if anyone should have been tagged for advertising Yobit (other than the X10ers), they should all be tagged equally including yahoo..

No preferential treatment.. You shouldn't tag someone you don't like while excusing your friend of the same actions..

[Stedsm]

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged. But what about those who were either banned by Yahoo or left the campaign themselves either before or after that X10 advertisement arrived? As they were also a part of Yobit's campaign some time before, should they also be tagged for advertising Yobit or they are set free? If so, how will they be found now?

[eddie13]

Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me).

I'm used to it..
I get a share of merits here and there but I have found that posting dangerous opinions is definitely not the way to get merits from the usual sources, who don't want to be seen supporting or agreeing with said dangerous positions, no matter how high quality or high effort the posts are..

Widely agreeable posts get the merits.. Not minority opinions usually..

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged.

EXACTLY my point this entire time..

[Lauda]

Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me).

I'm used to it..
I get a share of merits here and there but I have found that posting dangerous opinions is definitely not the way to get merits from the usual sources, who don't want to be seen supporting or agreeing with said dangerous positions, no matter how high quality or high effort the posts are..

Widely agreeable posts get the merits.. Not minority opinions usually..

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged.

EXACTLY my point this entire time..

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

[Stedsm]

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

Can it be done what's said by suchmoon, Lauda?

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.

Could this be the best practice according to you? Because theymos is the first person who can be called as the "Father" of this forum and nothing here is being done under his nose, everything is transparent. Why didn't he react? Why didn't he stop Yobit this time? Or even when they started spreading their X10 shit over here? I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos but when it's all about justice, he also needs to be scrutinized for allowing such ponzis here, no?

[Lauda]

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

Can it be done what's said by suchmoon, Lauda?

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.

Could this be the best practice according to you? Because theymos is the first person who can be called as the "Father" of this forum and nothing here is being done under his nose, everything is transparent. Why didn't he react? Why didn't he stop Yobit this time? Or even when they started spreading their X10 shit over here? I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos but when it's all about justice, he also needs to be scrutinized for allowing such ponzis here, no?

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. Again, false equivalency where Yahoo actively avoided to act when he should have due to financial motivation and nothing else. Theymos did not and does not act for completely different reasons, reasons which do not make him untrustworthy.

[suchmoon]

what do you do?

Do: tilde the shit out of them and make a strong case for others to follow.
Don't: red-trust for disagreements.

Come on, it's not rocket surgery. There are 100 users in DT1 but in most cases you need only like 5 or 10 to make a difference. Yahoo is +14 so 8 flips would do it. I haven't heard anything to convince me to flip yet so don't count on me. From what I've seen he put a lot of effort to clean that campaign up, including removal of the X10 signature, so I still trust his judgement.

Nor would I red-trust anyone for carrying the Yobit signature. It's safe to assume that most campaign participants are just being unmitigated lemmings, like iluvbitcoins helpfully showed us.

[Lauda]

what do you do?

Do: tilde the shit out of them and make a strong case for others to follow.
Don't: red-trust for disagreements.

Come on, it's not rocket surgery. There are 100 users in DT1 but in most cases you need only like 5 or 10 to make a difference. Yahoo is +14 so 8 flips would do it. I haven't heard anything to convince me to flip yet so don't count on me. From what I've seen he put a lot of effort to clean that campaign up, including removal of the X10 signature, so I still trust his judgement.

Nor would I red-trust anyone for carrying the Yobit signature. It's safe to assume that most campaign participants are just being unmitigated lemmings, like iluvbitcoins helpfully showed us.

So what can I draw out as a conclusion based off of this post:

• Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam is okay (one that to this day, continues to selectively scam its users)? Yes we failed to stop this much earlier, but the discussion is valid.
• Keeping a ponzi scheme advertisement in your signature (knowingly or not) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative?
• Defending the above (ponzi schemes, and in particular their advertising) is not compromised judgement/untrustworthy behavior?
• Advertising a scam in your signature (or any other profile fields?) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative? I could just claim to be an "unmitigated lemming" and it would prevent me from having my reputation wrecked?

Please clarify as I personally can't see how I could answer any of those questions with a yes myself. However, I am trying to understand the implications and the precedence that this situation sets for the future.

[Stedsm]

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. --snip--

Ok, keeping it irrelevant as it is. I've got a question for you again.
This forum doesn't run on charity not donations, but advertisements (read the whole statement carefully before mixing it up with signatures), those banner advertisements we see in between our posts. So based on your statement, theymos would "also just allow Yobit to advertise here by bidding for one or more slot(s)" for the ^financial motivation^ and it is good, why? Because theymos did it in the interest of forum. But wait, Yobit is a scam exchange. So what, he needs money to run this forum 24/7/365 uptime and it doesn't matter if any slot taken by any websites are scammers or turn out to be scammers, it's neither theymos' liability nor the forum's liability if you lose anything by visiting and investing anything over those websites "which were advertised here". Is it so?

[Lauda]

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. --snip--

Ok, irrelevant as it is. I've got a question for you again.
This forum doesn't run on charity not donations, but advertisements (read the whole statement carefully before mixing it up with signatures), those banner advertisements we see in between our posts. So based on your statement, theymos would "also just allow Yobit to advertise here by bidding for one or more slot(s)" for the ^financial motivation^ and it is good, why? Because theymos did it in the interest of forum. But wait, Yobit is a scam exchange. So what, he needs money to run this forum 24/7/365 uptime and it doesn't matter if any slot taken by any websites are scammers or turn out to be scammers, it's neither theymos' liability nor the forum's liability if you lose anything by visiting and investing anything over those websites "which were advertised here". Is it so?

Theymos banned Yobit from advertising and generally runs decent checks on the to-be-advertised entity. I don't think he'd accept a bid from a known-scam, thus your argument vs. theymos (and suchmoon's) fails. It's fine, some people just aren't aware of all the things that have happened here over the years and developed misguided views of justice.

[suchmoon]

~

I think I explained myself quite clearly so I'm not answering any of your loaded questions, sorry. I consider X10/Investbox a blatantly obvious scam and I warned users promoting it the best I could at the time. I consider Yobit a scam too but a less obvious one so I'm willing to give signature wearers the benefit of the doubt on that one. Had this gone on longer I might have lost my patience at some point so I'm relieved that this campaign has ended and I hope it won't come back.

I would probably advocate against anyone helping manage it if it does come back. Unfortunately there is no consistent forum policy about shitty campaigns (e.g. Yobit campaign was banned in April 2019 but a similarly shitty Stake campaign around the same time wasn't) so it's a tough choice between letting them flood the forum with spam or having someone manage it. It shouldn't be our decision and it shouldn't be about the trust system to begin with, so I disagree with burning yahoo at the stake (pun definitely intended) because muh libertarian anarchist something-or-other.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

Theymos banned Yobit from advertising and generally runs decent checks on the to-be-advertised entity. I don't think he'd accept a bid from a known-scam, thus your argument vs. theymos (and suchmoon's) fails. It's fine, some people just aren't aware of all the things that have happened here over the years and developed misguided views of justice.

You're confused my dear friend Lauda.
Once again, let me reiterate my words here that I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos and he's just being used as an example ONLY. The main motive was the fact that nobody knows what is right and what will be wrong in the future as we can't predict future but can only experience when the time comes. In Yahoo's case, however I admit that he knew the position of yobit on the forum, but let me summarize it all for you:

- Yobit came here after their 6 months ban was over
- They tried to lure users with their "20 posts per day policy" and let them start spamming this forum again
- DTs came ahead (including Yahoo) and warned users not to spam wearing their signature or they will be tagged
- After seeing a strict stance of everyone here boycotting against Yobit, Yobit officials decided to go for a campaign manager after getting several suggestions for the same
- After that, they chose Yahoo and made him their campaign manager
- Yahoo started showing his banhammer power by banning a lot of spammers, while also getting Yobit down to their knees and made them reduce the max paid posts per day from 20 to 10 (at first) and then 5, which saved a lot of spam from happening
- Yobit, without any message to Yahoo about changing their signature, straight away came here and asked users to change it to the new X10 signature
- Yahoo was not online during that day and I noticed many users were asking (fighting hard) to either change the content in the signature or they'd leave and a few "honest" users left too
- Yahoo, on the other side, was trying hard and convinced them to change it as quickly as possible or he'd stop managing their campaign, once again a defeat to Yobit's scammy intentions and our forum's victory
- Even when their wallet remained empty for around 2 weeks, Yahoo managed to communicate and get it refilled for the users
- After that, the happy ending of that campaign

So, during all these instances, see what Yahoo has done and if you still think that it was all just done having financial motives alone in his mind, you can go ahead and tag all those who participated including Yahoo.

[Lauda]

~

I think I explained myself quite clearly so I'm not answering any of your loaded questions, sorry. I consider X10/Investbox a blatantly obvious scam and I warned users promoting it the best I could at the time. I consider Yobit a scam too but a less obvious one so I'm willing to give signature wearers the benefit of the doubt on that one. Had this gone on longer I might have lost my patience at some point so I'm relieved that this campaign has ended and I hope it won't come back.

What do you mean by "loaded"[2]? Those are just some precedences[1] that I considered that our collective behavior up until today can or will set. Alternatively, we can treat this as a very isolated case but this supports all arguments of selective enforcement/hypocrisy which I don't like either. You can't argue that it won't set any precedence or hypocrisy, so I'm just trying to understand what the conclusion of this is (not what the resolution is which as per your post, for you, is to not tag anybody).
[1] Half of those I didn't even consider until I started responding to your post.
[2] Please note that without proper discussion of implications, all kinds of groups will interpret and set their own precedences which will create even further chaos, more divide which will be abused by bad actors like Yobit. This is why I am asking you for input on my own concerns, not "loading questions"..

So, during all these instances, see what Yahoo has done and if you still think that it was all just done having financial motives alone in his mind, you can go ahead and tag all those who participated including Yahoo.

I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths). You should also point out that I as a DT2 member can't even tag Yahoo as within a very short period of time I would no longer be a DT2 member even though tagging him is very appropriate for this should one choose to.
My relationship before nor after tagging would remain unchanged, but it seems people around here can't separate these things and thus we are where we are: Politics. I think theymos unintendedly created a something which nowadays quite resembles a democracy, and we all know how well those function...  

[suchmoon]

What do you mean by "loaded"

Example: the first question starts with "Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam..."

I don't think that was the intent of accepting that job. Including an unjustified presumption like that makes it a loaded question.

[Lauda]

What do you mean by "loaded"

Example: the first question starts with "Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam..."

I don't think that was the intent of accepting that job. Including an unjustified presumption like that makes it a loaded question.

But why do you assume my question is malicious? Now with this clarification, it makes me realize that the writing itself is flawed.. The question is accepting a job which directly/indirectly helps actively advance the efforts of a known-scam, which if I'm not incorrectly writing my thoughts here again is exactly what a campaign manager does. A campaign manager actively advances the efforts of some entity in different ways. I did not mean to say that the job itself was to advance the scam.

None of those questions were meant to look "loaded" or anything, sorry..

[DireWolfM14]

@Lauda and @eddie13,
Thank you for your civil and thoughtful responses.

LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations.

I don't think that's accurate.  IIRC there were more than one accusation, but one particular user was persistent in his claim.

Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo.
Therefore:
He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].

I think this is a misrepresentation.  Yahoo didn't start the campaign, and it wasn't exactly "taken over" by Yahoo.  He had no control over who joined the campaign, and his participation was largely encouraged by many who wanted someone (anyone) to curb the spam that was bound to result from Yobit's off-site sign-up feature.

Lets not forget that very important fact; many of us, including me encouraged him to take on the roll he filled.  How hypocritical would be for me to tag him for something I encouraged him to do?

Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.

I won't argue with this; I was taken aback when I first saw Yahoo wearing the cyrptotalk signature, even more so when I saw saw him wearing the most recent Yobit signature.  I won't try to defend what I believe was a lapse in judgement.  

But I will defend my own consistency on the matter.  I didn't tag anyone for wearing either signature.  I also didn't tag anyone for wearing the X10 signature. I very likely would have, if that whole debacle hadn't happened around Christmas time when I was busy with family and didn't really have much time to spend on the forum.  But I would have given everyone notice first, and given them the opportunity to remove the signature before I tagged them.  By the time I had more time to look into it, the signature had been replaced with the most recent one.

Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.

See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

I must admit you're making a compelling argument here.  I will also admit that when I first saw him donning the cyrptotalk sig I was tempted to remove him from my trust inclusion because I felt that was a lapse in judgement.  I will give it some more thought before I come to a decision.

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag

The argument I think you are referring to is not wither or not to tag yahoo.

The argument that you cannot tag Yobit participants, even though you probably think you should, but can't because then you would also have to tag your buddie yahoo, is the point..

Yahoo isn't my buddy.  In the post you partially quoted in your reply I mentioned that he and I have had very little interaction, and I don't apply the label of "friend" to yahoo.

The "They deserve to be tagged but not yahoo because I like him" line of though is hypocritical because it is basically protecting your own buddies while you would otherwise have tagged them to hell..

Again, you are misunderstanding me or misrepresenting my comments.  I don't think any of them should be tagged for wearing the signature, just like I didn't think it was right to tag those who wore the LiveCoin signature.  It has nothing to do with who was wearing the sig.  If it did don't you think I would have tagged wolwoo and Vispilio, two people with whom I've had disagreements, and don't consider to be my friends?

If any Yobit advertisers should be tagged for advertising Yobit, yahoo should be the FIRST to be tagged, not the last or not tagged because of whatever excuses..
The same should be applied to all, and if anything, the most "reputable" users should be held to the highest standards, not excused from them..

My point is/was that if anyone should have been tagged for advertising Yobit (other than the X10ers), they should all be tagged equally including yahoo..

No preferential treatment.. You shouldn't tag someone you don't like while excusing your friend of the same actions..

I understand your line of thinking that some should be held to higher standards, and I agree.  A seasoned member like Yahoo probably should have known better than to wear any of Yobit's signatures.  But my argument is and always has been that it's inappropriate to tag anyone for doing so (except the ponzi sig.)

[Side chain]

What is the difference in advertising yobit as a whole and advertise the X10 signature of yobit?

My understanding, no difference because both is pointing to the same platform. No?


Advertising cryptotalk was different than advertising yobit. Although technically cryptotalk turned out to be a forum from yobit to promote yobit itself but one could argue that it was just another forum who advertised here in bitcoinTalk.

Yahoo was given the job to manage campaign for cryptotalk which was okay for this community but this community did not suggest him to advertise yobit.


Going against Yahoo means you are losing your chance to get accepted in any of the campaign that is managed by yahoo. So another financial motivation working behind this subject not to see many response from forum users.


Just curious to know, how much yahoo exactly got paid a week to drag this into him?

I bet a lot that he could not help his greed. No?

Someone is pointing theymos, why?

Are we so stupid not to see that theymos as an admin is giving the control to us than manipulating the community by his thoughts? He could easily take the whole control of the forum in his hand if he wanted however in this case a lot of us would left this place long ago of course.

Yahoo gets a pass for promoting Ponzi actively. Even he was a kind of shield for this campaign participants to protect this Ponzi.

How it was different for aTraz, mdayonliner, cryptohunter, Thule and others who made some mistakes but hardly got any pass?

Saving forum from spamming is an excuse here. In fact yahoo hardly done much job here. Most of the bans were called by the forum users who actively reported the spammers and yahoo just forwarded the names to the yobit management to ban them from the campaign. As a reward some of them got some tiny stash from yahoo which obviously in total was not even much compering the amount yahoo got a week from yobit and it seemed everyone was really happy about it.

We all are hypocrite here. Don't just blame yahoo.

Everything in this forum is about financial gain for yahoo. Without campaign management yahoo has very less interested about this forum. Wrong?

So when we talk about yahoo's judgement towards the forum users or forum affairs, we need to understand who we are listing.

Yahoo is just a businessman here and he will try everything to keep his business safe. In most cases he use the influence of some well established DT members to keep his ground smooth.

Easy guess of me posting from an alt. I don't want to be blacklisted by yahoo of course. Call me coward, I have nothing to lose from this alt.

[suchmoon]

Easy guess of me posting from an alt. I don't want to be blacklisted by yahoo of course. Call me coward, I have nothing to lose from this alt.

Coward.

[Gyfts]

Going against Yahoo means you are losing your chance to get accepted in any of the campaign that is managed by yahoo. So another financial motivation working behind this subject not to see many response from forum users.

Perhaps this may be true but I haven't seen any particular evidence of someone being denied from a campaign he's managed based upon a personal vendetta. Then again, it'd be kind of hard to prove because any applicant can be denied for any arbitrary reason. It is bizarre to see the love letters people post about Yahoo in hopes they'll be accepted in future campaigns for flattering him like this or the people that bump his campaign management services thread. It's almost all less established members that post this garbage too so I don't think any high ranking members whose words actually carry weight would be afraid to speak out as they don't have any issues getting accepted to signature campaigns.

Going against Yahoo means you are losing your chance to get accepted in any of the campaign that is managed by yahoo. So another financial motivation working behind this subject not to see many response from forum users.

Perhaps this may be true but I haven't seen any particular evidence of someone being denied from a campaign he's managed based upon a personal vendetta. Then again, it'd be kind of hard to prove because any applicant can be denied for any arbitrary reason. It is bizarre to see the love letters people post about Yahoo in hopes they'll be accepted in future campaigns for flattering him like this or the people that bump his campaign management services thread. It's almost all less established members that post this garbage too so I don't think any high ranking members whose words actually carry weight would be afraid to speak out as they don't have any issues getting accepted to signature campaigns.

I will not disqualify anyone from a campaign for having an opinion. There are several users I have hired whom I disagree with on certain things. People should not fear any backlash from me if they speak an opinion and if they do I apologize. We are not all going to agree on the same things and we shouldn't. We were born with free will and the right to choose.

I figured this to be the case as I have not seen evidence that any users that offer vouches to your services threads being given preferential treatments in your current campaigns. Nonetheless, it's almost exclusively lower level members that attempt to sway your judgement.

[yahoo62278]

I wasn't going to respond in this thread at first due to the nature of the thread being basically an attack and some attacks require no response. Then when I woke up today and logged in I started seeing an agenda of sorts being pushed, so I figured why not take some time to think about my response before posting in a heated capacity and looking like a prick.

I don't want to go through this whole thread and quote tens of users and reply, instead i'll make a statement covering most of users concerns.

This thread was made way back in April of last year where I asked for community input on a PM I had received regarding managing Yobits campaign. Notice the words used here YOBITS CAMPAIGN. There was no mention of cryptotalk because the forum had not existed yet. So all the members (20+) who said a manager is better then no manager should walk away from this discussion and move on. You spoke your piece in that thread.

Now let's fast forward to September 2019. I was again approached by yobit in regards to pushing their forum. I had no issues with that being as it was not considered a scam in any capacity. The campaign quickly filled up over 600 users in record time being as their were no registration requirements minus must be Sr member or higher. There was no selection process. No fear of using alts. No merit requirement. Nothing. You just go to the link and add the signature and do the other requirements and you're in. I was not a manager in any capacity either really, just a quality checker.

Then, fast forward to December 24th 2019, I woke up to the whole campaign changing. No communication from Yobit regarding any changes, just woke up to a pm stating here's the new sigs, change them please. When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying, mentioned it at least a couple times in other threads. The reasoning for me wearing the sig was to test it at first, then I decided i'm not under contract with any other sites at the moment, I may as well keep it on. The offer was tested and worked so I personally did not see it as a scam.

I've read all the comments in this thread to this point and disagree with a few of you, while also agreeing with some points. Bottom line, the campaign is over. Everyone wants to form a lynch mob at Laudas request, feel free. You can ~me or distrust me or even tag me if you feel it is necessary. Life will go on. I feel like I did a fair job and held users to at least some sort of standard in the campaign.

Final point, everyone thinks being on DT is special or something and here lately it's not. It's really just a joke anymore. Seems like everyone is DT is some shape or form and the system is shit. Being on DT or off Dt makes no difference to me any longer. The old system, although still broken, was much better and way fewer wannabes looking to get noticed.

Going against Yahoo means you are losing your chance to get accepted in any of the campaign that is managed by yahoo. So another financial motivation working behind this subject not to see many response from forum users.

Perhaps this may be true but I haven't seen any particular evidence of someone being denied from a campaign he's managed based upon a personal vendetta. Then again, it'd be kind of hard to prove because any applicant can be denied for any arbitrary reason. It is bizarre to see the love letters people post about Yahoo in hopes they'll be accepted in future campaigns for flattering him like this or the people that bump his campaign management services thread. It's almost all less established members that post this garbage too so I don't think any high ranking members whose words actually carry weight would be afraid to speak out as they don't have any issues getting accepted to signature campaigns.

I will not disqualify anyone from a campaign for having an opinion. There are several users I have hired whom I disagree with on certain things. People should not fear any backlash from me if they speak an opinion and if they do I apologize. We are not all going to agree on the same things and we shouldn't. We were born with free will and the right to choose.

[poptok1]

If theymos can do it, so can other people.
Moralists remain moral, principles gonna be strong but reality remains coherent, it's all about money.

[giammangiato]

When a person is successful he is usually always hated by others who are unsuccessful or unwilling to work.
I have read many personal accusations, we can always speak civilly without falling into accusations and try to solve things.

Speaking in a civilized way works always. My two cents.

[Lauda]

LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations.

I don't think that's accurate.  IIRC there were more than one accusation, but one particular user was persistent in his claim.

Please re-read what you just quoted. The pressure on Hhampuz did start with that one persistent accusation. There were a couple more, but nothing significant i.e. not much different than what exchanges have on average (i.e. nothing "sticking outo").

Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo.
Therefore:
He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].

I think this is a misrepresentation. Yahoo didn't start the campaign, and it wasn't exactly "taken over" by Yahoo.  He had no control over who joined the campaign, and his participation was largely encouraged by many who wanted someone (anyone) to curb the spam that was bound to result from Yobit's off-site sign-up feature.

Well, I didn't write that he started it did I? I wrote that he took it over, i.e. took a management aspect of it over. Maybe I should have clarified there about his limited power in comparison to a normal management position, but both you and I know this thus I had not pointed it out. Others and I have been in similar positions, so it's not exactly a big caveat.


I'm using a line break here because the following reference confirms both points (i.e. Yobit being significantly worse than Livecoin) by any conceivable forum metric (we couldn't measure in a better way):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0

Lets not forget that very important fact; many of us, including me encouraged him to take on the roll he filled.  How hypocritical would be for me to tag him for something I encouraged him to do?

I know, and this is why we have jointly failed! We have chosen one evil over another when we could have chosen none. I might be guilty of this too as I don't remember.

Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.

I won't argue with this; I was taken aback when I first saw Yahoo wearing the cyrptotalk signature, even more so when I saw saw him wearing the most recent Yobit signature.  I won't try to defend what I believe was a lapse in judgement.  

But I will defend my own consistency on the matter.  I didn't tag anyone for wearing either signature.  I also didn't tag anyone for wearing the X10 signature. I very likely would have, if that whole debacle hadn't happened around Christmas time when I was busy with family and didn't really have much time to spend on the forum.  But I would have given everyone notice first, and given them the opportunity to remove the signature before I tagged them.  By the time I had more time to look into it, the signature had been replaced with the most recent one.

Correct, and I'm not arguing to tag Yahoo alone either. I'm arguing pro-everyone tag, and also arguing that the entrenchment involved in DT1 does not allow this due to financial motivation, nepotism, and selective enforcement, without account suicide. I strongly insist at this point that this statement is objectively correct (other than the descriptive words being used ("due to") - those are debatable) - In case of doubt: Would a less ranked account manager be wrecked for this by now? Yes.

Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.

See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

I must admit you're making a compelling argument here.  I will also admit that when I first saw him donning the cyrptotalk sig I was tempted to remove him from my trust inclusion because I felt that was a lapse in judgement.  I will give it some more thought before I come to a decision.

The silence in combination with the hypocrisy is really bothersome. I don't see, if he wasn't guilty of what I and others claim (actively keep looking the other way for money) then I see no reason not to fight it.

I understand your line of thinking that some should be held to higher standards, and I agree.  A seasoned member like Yahoo probably should have known better than to wear any of Yobit's signatures.  But my argument is and always has been that it's inappropriate to tag anyone for doing so (except the ponzi sig.)

The implication of this "ruling" over this situation: Anyone can advertise any kind of scam in their signature and any kind of enforcement over it would be selective enforcement, i.e. abuse by DT. You do realize that, right? It can not be anything other than this, because you either disallow people to promote scamful entities or you don't. Just because a collective lapse of judgement was made with Yobit, that doesn't correct this error or prevent the precedence from happening (or DT turning into a complete hypocritical show).
Factor in the following: Do you think that I want to tag Yahoo for the sake of tagging? For fun? For some gain? Because I'm an evil witch? I want to tag him (and everyone else) because I need to, i.e. we need to. The situation is what it is, time can't be undone, and thus we can't change the moment of telling him to take it into telling him to stay away from Yobit. The very least that should be done is not trust his judgement (which is even more fair than the negative). If I'm in strong agreement with my biggest proponents (which has almost never ever agreed with any of them, let alone all of them), combined with my streak-record over the years (which has not been too inaccurate, I hope), then you really need to start to ask yourself: Why? I'm not saying that it logically follows that due to that combination that we are right, I'm just asking you to question how this could be.

I wasn't going to respond in this thread at first due to the nature of the thread being basically an attack and some attacks require no response.

I'm sorry you see it this way, but it's not even remotely close to an attack. I still consider you an overall relatively trustworthy person, but that does not excuse this or allow for DT to be riddled with selective enforcement and nepotism.. Had it been any other manager it would have been handled the same (well, they'd already be tagged were they a low positioned manager is my belief).

[eddie13]

If it did don't you think I would have tagged wolwoo and Vispilio, two people with whom I've had disagreements, and don't consider to be my friends?

It seems you've missed the point..
It's not right to tag someone you disagree with while not tagging someone you generally agree with while they are doing the exact same thing..
In that case you would just be using it as an excuse to tag someone you don't like while giving a pass to users you like for the same actions..


@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

@yahoo
All you did was keep them from getting banned for spamming again.. The no manager option would have been better and just have let them get themselves banned again..

Now let's fast forward to September 2019. I was again approached by yobit in regards to pushing their forum. I had no issues with that

No issue with advertising a spammer forum made for the purpose of competing with this great forum, by a company that has blatantly disrespected this forum to the point of being banned for paying absolute scammers edit spammers to shit up these boards..

And what did they do? The same thing again with the exception of getting you to narrowly keep them from being banned again..
Another round of as much spam as possible from Yobit but this time barely staying under the limit of being banned..

When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying

So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots..

This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not?

So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine"..

All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature..
Everything is fine..

I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with, after being banned, after trying to pull a switcheroo to directly advertise their scam..
But naw, everything is just fine..

I'm not arguing for you to get a red tag for it, but that shit's greasy AF..
Might as well be advertising a competing forum for CSW or Ver..
Yobit is only the most prolific shitcoin associate causing multitudes of new crypto users to get scammed by the worst-in-the-world shitcoins they list, and even arguably scammed by their exchange manipulated markets and/or exchange created predatory coins/markets designed to fleece the value from new crypto enthusiasts.. Not to mention their investboxes with ridiculous terms forcing their users to buy into these absoluteshitscamcoins and even to roll dice on their site that I have seen claims of being a rigged game..

They are absolutely gross, but yeah let's just advertise for them and everything is fine..

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. Being such a well regarded user wearing their badge of dishonor lends a lot of credence to the legitimacy of their exchange and "scams" to less-informed users who would trust your vouch for them..
I wouldn't feel good wearing that crap..

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

[Lauda]

@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Re: yahoo62278 and Yobit
Today at 08:07:29 AM
Merited by suchmoon (7), cabalism13 (5), Foxpup (4), KnightElite (3), examplens (1), TimeTeller (1), Bezobraznike (1), DireWolfM14 (1)

This is also good evidence for what I'm talking about. Agree with a post or the poster? Merits! Don't agree, no merits. Not all users on this list are guilty of this of course, but this just gives mounting evidence that both systems got heavily politicized in recent time. However, you're well familiar with this issue as your posts are lacking merits too..

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

[FIFA worldcup]

Easy guess of me posting from an alt. I don't want to be blacklisted by yahoo of course. Call me coward, I have nothing to lose from this alt.

You should be brave enough to write from your main account else your opinion does not matter.  Everyone can express his feelings and opinion and people have enough patience to listen to everyone.

[Quickseller]

I don’t think “someone said it was okay” is a valid reason to do something wrong. You need to think for yourself to know what is right and use good judgment even if someone is giving bad advice.

Additionally, even though Yobit was shady when yahoo started managing their campaign, additional negative information came to light after yahoo started managing their campaign. New information about a company being a scam is exactly why someone should immediately leave a job, especially if their group is involved in the shadiness.

Some people are going to push back on saying yahoo is in the wrong, probably in part because yahoo is paying for their signatures.

[DireWolfM14]

If it did don't you think I would have tagged wolwoo and Vispilio, two people with whom I've had disagreements, and don't consider to be my friends?

It seems you've missed the point..
It's not right to tag someone you disagree with while not tagging someone you generally agree with while they are doing the exact same thing..
In that case you would just be using it as an excuse to tag someone you don't like while giving a pass to users you like for the same actions..

Maybe I missed the point, but this is exactly what I feel I'm being accused of.  Tagging someone because I don't like him, while not tagging someone I like despite the same behavior.  

My point is that I feel it's wrong to tag anyone for wearing a signature, unless it's a slam dunk, no question about it, proven scam.  And even then, I'd give that person ample warning.  

We all need to earn a living, so I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt.  If my children were hungry and someone offered me a job, I may not question too closely what that job implies.  I understand that may not be the best attitude to have for society in general, but I'm empathetic enough to put myself in such a situation.  Luckily I've never had to compromise my ethics to feed my children, but I'm not so naive to suggest that no one ever would.

I'll take this opportunity to use the words of one of my most vociferous critics to help illustrate my point:

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point. You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam. This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags. Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.

This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily. At the end of the day, what does any of this excessive tagging behavior accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except for destroying users reputations, and causing tons and tons of disputes of course. Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.

[Lauda]

I'll take this opportunity to use the words of one of my most vociferous critics to help illustrate my point:

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point. You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam. This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags. Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.

This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily. At the end of the day, what does any of this excessive tagging behavior accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except for destroying users reputations, and causing tons and tons of disputes of course. Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.

Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0.

[eddie13]

I'm being accused of.

My point is that I feel it's wrong to tag anyone for wearing a signature, unless it's a slam dunk, no question about it, proven scam.  And even then, I'd give that person ample warning.  

I don't mean to directly accuse YOU of anything.. Sorry if it came off like that but I don't recall it having anything to do with anything you did..
It's about the concept..

I also respect and tend to mostly agree with your 2nd line I quoted there..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Speak up if you see it.. Bring attention to it.. Call out whatever you see for whatever it is..

[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0.

Scam accusations=90
Major accusations=27

Yobit is a leading exchange in one aspect atleast..

[suchmoon]

If theymos can do it, so can other people.
Moralists remain moral, principles gonna be strong but reality remains coherent, it's all about money.

Theymos also says this:

Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. No ICOs^[1], loggable mixers^[2], banks, funds, or anything that a person can be said to "invest" in; I may very rarely make exceptions if you convince me that you are ultra legit, but don't count on it. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

[poptok1]

Theymos also says this:

Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. No ICOs^[1], loggable mixers^[2], banks, funds, or anything that a person can be said to "invest" in; I may very rarely make exceptions if you convince me that you are ultra legit, but don't count on it. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

O, so that's why we have the matrixport ad, now I get it 

Look, I don't mind and I don't care, all I'm saying is that people should have brains of their own.
We can't save the world, trying is futile. Everything else is some social crap.

[suchmoon]

O, so that's why we have the matrixport ad, now I get it 

Maybe he made an exception. I'm just pointing out that he screens ads AND has a warning. If there was screening for signature ads AND a warning next to each one I could probably justify the ignorance of some signature wearers claiming that they don't need to bear responsibility for what they put in their signatures. As it stands now they should be as responsible for their signature content as they are responsible for the content of their own posts.

[TECSHARE]

Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0.

This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects.

[Lauda]

Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0.

This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects.

Irrelevant, wasn't responding to that. Read:

@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

[TECSHARE]

Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0.

This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects.

Irrelevant, wasn't responding to that. Read:

@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

No, relevant. I don't give a shit what you were responding to. I am responding to you.

[2double0]

Either tag them or stop the discussion, because stretching it like a piece of rubber will only bring in highly nonsense sensical comments when we all know that the end conclusion will remain in favor of users and yahoo collectively to 'let go' them once. I don't think there is any law of the forum or DTs that allows such a universally punishable act here, so if you [Lauda] don't want that 'next time' to happen and if it happens, will tag even the campaign manager with all the involved users - why don't you open a poll for DTs to support you on that law which you are trying to enforce here right now?

[eddie13]

will tag even the campaign manager with all the involved users

It happens from time to time in "slam-dunk" cases..

[martyMC]

How do you explain that hundreds of members are wearing the signature for free if they dislike Yobit and think it's a shady exchange?

[suchmoon]

How do you explain

unmitigated lemmings

[metenjean]

Some one try to make bad reputation other bounty campaign manager like yahoo62278, You have show your self is recommendation bounty campaign manager without make sense with talking the other bad manager, if their campaign still running and paid on the time whats going on.

[dkbit98]

Let the one who has no forum campaign sin throw the first stone at Yahoo

[Lauda]

I don't think there is any law of the forum or DTs that allows such a universally punishable act here,

What I am advocating for has always been a standard practice in DT. Just because people choose to look the other way at past ratings that confirm this, and look the other way because it is Yahoo, is not my problem.

so if you [Lauda] don't want that 'next time' to happen and if it happens, will tag even the campaign manager with all the involved users - why don't you open a poll for DTs to support you on that law which you are trying to enforce here right now?

I've thought about that before, and it's a very naive proposal when you think about it. Do you really think that people who are financially motivated to vote against my "proposal" are going to vote for it even if it is just? Do you think that Yahoo's friends will vote for my proposal even if it is just? Give me a break. This is one of the fundamental flaws in democracy, which this system most closely now resembles to.

[ChuckBuck]

skip

Anyway, I still believe that voting will create a fair outcome. There are thousands of people on this forum, how many people do you think are Yahoo's friends   Apart from him being respected by many people here, I don't think he has many friends. Therefore, theoretically, the voting rate is still fairly fair  

EDIT: If the obstacle isvotes from people who participated in Yobit campaign, it should be discarded. This might be a bit of a trouble, but it should be a manual vote by posting in your thread. You can ignore easily  the votes from Yobit posters

[Lauda]

skip

Anyway, I still believe that voting will create a fair outcome. There are thousands of people on this forum, how many people do you think are Yahoo's friends   Apart from him being respected by many people here, I don't think he has many friends. Therefore, theoretically, the voting rate is still fairly fair  

Voting with random users is useless. Hundreds were being paid from the campaign, thus are direct benefactors and would vote for him. The voting that I was referring to is a vote of consensus between DT1 members, and even there it would be very difficult to win such a vote. It does no longer matter. We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached.

@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

The end.

[AbelBaricStevenson]

In several recent posts, I have vaguely alluded to quiet, behind-the-scenes preparations that I was making to take on the Yobit scam.  My planning was preempted by such public outrage as has been brewing for months, but only broke forth with force within the past 24 hours.

For my part, I am sick of seeing the Yobit scam-company not only advertised, but inexplicably advertised by many decent, otherwise respectable posters.  This last is a significant problem for the health of the forum, insofar as it gives the Yobit ads more credibility than garden-variety sigspam.  And I know that I am not the only one who wants to stop this!

But my planning on this point ran into a significant problem.

Whilst catching up and researching the topic, I noticed that yahoo62278 is currently wearing a Yobit ad.  On the basis of mere common sense, I doubt that that is for the principal purpose of receiving direct payment for the ad; that would be relative chump change for someone whom I reasonably infer must have a long-term business relationship with Yobit.

yahoo62278’s own profile “Yobit Yodollars” signature has the effect of making it wrongly socially acceptable to advertise a scam site; and as a practical matter, others wearing Yobit ads now cannot be tagged without, in fairness, also tagging yahoo62278, plus potentially ~excluding him to help support a mass-tagging action.

I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one.  However, the Yobit scam advertising must be stopped one way or another; and whereas I recently said that Yobit advertisers will make their own choices and bear their own consequences, yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment.  Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards.

yahoo62278’s general dealings with Yobit, and the impact thereof on this forum, may present further issues.  I will simply start with the foregoing.


Note:  Archive sites are misbehaving from where I sit.  I think that my pertinent snapshots will eventually show up; I may thereupon edit this post to add appropriate links, and/or to add other links.  Of course, if I substantively edit this, I will first archive it.

Local rules:  To be moderated in my sound discretion.  I believe that in the foregoing, I have set an appropriate tone for addressing a serious problem involving a widely trusted forum member.

This idea from nullius more sensible. All person promote are bad or none are bad. I agree this one of his red trust.

[amishmanish]

When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying

So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots..

This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not?

So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine"..

All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature..
Everything is fine..

I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with,

The logic is quite simple. Yahoo has been an active, successful manager. There was a time when he was the only one managing campaigns and his judgement has almost always been based on the commercial aspect. Keeping track of money is almost always easier than maintaining a stand when it comes to things like honor, loyalty, work-ethic etc etc which Lauda, Nullius etc are trying to shove down everyone's throats...

Yahoo's claims about becoming the Yobit manager so the campaign got cleaned up may hold some weight but he was not doing it for free. I wore the signature myself initially as it was pay per post. I hadn't worn a signature for a long time as i did not fulfill the background needed mostly. I removed it a week or two later. When the X10 thing happened, that is when Yahoo could have taken a stand instead of enabling/ managing them. It comes down to the question that should the seemingly well known/ respected members be held to a higher standard?

Personally i think Yahoo is a decent manager and he spends a lot of time managing these campaigns and it maybe a big operation for him. It'd be all fine if he was treated just that way. A good money manager. All this pretense about him being a respectable member and having done a lot for the forum should be dropped. (amplified by all the people fawning over him to get into his campaigns, which is something he should probably try to discourage). This is just another one of the instances when people doing business at the forum have shown that it is money that matters to them over the ambiguities of taking a stand or being the bigger person. An instance i myself know about is when he almost tried to wrangle an upstart by catching a "bug" he already knew about.

Nobody is above the lure of money/ power. Everybody has a price. It just depends on the level you are at. DT was probably meant to be a sort of group of conscience-keepers but with the current system it is always going to be about letting people make their own decisions and let it play out. I would prefer if it maintained some semblance of ethics and was free from the effects of commerce. We can dream, right?

[ChuckBuck]

Do you think this discussion should end here and this topic should be locked, Nullius    We have achieved the final result as Lauda said

We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached.

The problem of Yahoo and Yobit has ended, there is no reason for this topic to continue to be bumped by such boring analysis or silly posts as above.

[FIFA worldcup]

Do you think this discussion should end here and this topic should be locked, Nullius    We have achieved the final result as Lauda said

We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached.

The problem of Yahoo and Yobit has ended, there is no reason for this topic to continue to be bumped by such boring analysis or silly posts as above.

This thread was started on January 23, 2020 and lucky the campaign ending was announced soon after that and the campaign was offline on Jan 27,2020. If the campaign was still continue, people might thought otherwise but now since the campaign has ended, the Yobit haters have been half cooled down and the intensity is quite less now.

[TECSHARE]

Do you think this discussion should end here and this topic should be locked, Nullius    We have achieved the final result as Lauda said

We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached.

The problem of Yahoo and Yobit has ended, there is no reason for this topic to continue to be bumped by such boring analysis or silly posts as above.

This thread was started on January 23, 2020 and lucky the campaign ending was announced soon after that and the campaign was offline on Jan 27,2020. If the campaign was still continue, people might thought otherwise but now since the campaign has ended, the Yobit haters have been half cooled down and the intensity is quite less now.

While I am not a particular fan of Yahoo, I think he has some self control issues, but I don't think any of this was about hating on Yahoo. This was more about the fact that people are running around tagging a bunch of lower ranked users aimlessly but giving Yahoo a pass even though he ran the same campaign. I think this is a great example of the arbitrary and selective enforcement used in the trust system, and why we shouldn't be tagging anyone unless we can establish clear and objective standards regarding what is worthy of a tag. It is a pretty widely accepted legal standard that unless a person is made aware that a specific act is a crime, they shouldn't be penalized for it. It is a bit like police making up secret rules as they go that you are subject to. What could go wrong there?

[JollyGood]

When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying

So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots..

This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not?

So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine"..

All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature..
Everything is fine..

I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with,

The logic is quite simple. Yahoo has been an active, successful manager. There was a time when he was the only one managing campaigns and his judgement has almost always been based on the commercial aspect. Keeping track of money is almost always easier than maintaining a stand when it comes to things like honor, loyalty, work-ethic etc etc which Lauda, Nullius etc are trying to shove down everyone's throats...

Yahoo's claims about becoming the Yobit manager so the campaign got cleaned up may hold some weight but he was not doing it for free. I wore the signature myself initially as it was pay per post. I hadn't worn a signature for a long time as i did not fulfill the background needed mostly. I removed it a week or two later. When the X10 thing happened, that is when Yahoo could have taken a stand instead of enabling/ managing them. It comes down to the question that should the seemingly well known/ respected members be held to a higher standard?

Personally i think Yahoo is a decent manager and he spends a lot of time managing these campaigns and it maybe a big operation for him. It'd be all fine if he was treated just that way. A good money manager. All this pretense about him being a respectable member and having done a lot for the forum should be dropped. (amplified by all the people fawning over him to get into his campaigns, which is something he should probably try to discourage). This is just another one of the instances when people doing business at the forum have shown that it is money that matters to them over the ambiguities of taking a stand or being the bigger person. An instance i myself know about is when he almost tried to wrangle an upstart by catching a "bug" he already knew about.

Nobody is above the lure of money/ power. Everybody has a price. It just depends on the level you are at. DT was probably meant to be a sort of group of conscience-keepers but with the current system it is always going to be about letting people make their own decisions and let it play out. I would prefer if it maintained some semblance of ethics and was free from the effects of commerce. We can dream, right?

I like the way in which you articulated your point. There were and are lots of questions raised regarding exactly what was going on during that period but yahoo62278 did rid the spammers and low-level quality posters that were simply posting to increase their post count for the sake of getting paid courtesy of their Yobit signature. Does that negate everything else related to Yobit? The answer is subjective and highly contentious.

In my most humble of opinion, the failure of DT members to get to grips with Yobit and their campaign should be considered a watershed moment for the forum but the lack of agreement will only allow for other scams to be promoted here in future without a care in the world because nobody is above the lure of money as you rightly stated (there are exceptions to the rule). The petty squabbling over whether all of Yobit was a scam if just the x10 was a ponzi scheme, did not help the situation. I read arguments for and against Yobit banners being allowed in the forum and read lots of posts where users were expressing their views about tagging all or some users displaying just x10 or all Yobit banners.

Sadly in the future the lack of consensus surrounding the next scam or any return of Yobit will only continue the infighting between members here.

[TECSHARE]

When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying

So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots..

This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not?

So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine"..

All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature..
Everything is fine..

I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with,

The logic is quite simple. Yahoo has been an active, successful manager. There was a time when he was the only one managing campaigns and his judgement has almost always been based on the commercial aspect. Keeping track of money is almost always easier than maintaining a stand when it comes to things like honor, loyalty, work-ethic etc etc which Lauda, Nullius etc are trying to shove down everyone's throats...

Yahoo's claims about becoming the Yobit manager so the campaign got cleaned up may hold some weight but he was not doing it for free. I wore the signature myself initially as it was pay per post. I hadn't worn a signature for a long time as i did not fulfill the background needed mostly. I removed it a week or two later. When the X10 thing happened, that is when Yahoo could have taken a stand instead of enabling/ managing them. It comes down to the question that should the seemingly well known/ respected members be held to a higher standard?

Personally i think Yahoo is a decent manager and he spends a lot of time managing these campaigns and it maybe a big operation for him. It'd be all fine if he was treated just that way. A good money manager. All this pretense about him being a respectable member and having done a lot for the forum should be dropped. (amplified by all the people fawning over him to get into his campaigns, which is something he should probably try to discourage). This is just another one of the instances when people doing business at the forum have shown that it is money that matters to them over the ambiguities of taking a stand or being the bigger person. An instance i myself know about is when he almost tried to wrangle an upstart by catching a "bug" he already knew about.

Nobody is above the lure of money/ power. Everybody has a price. It just depends on the level you are at. DT was probably meant to be a sort of group of conscience-keepers but with the current system it is always going to be about letting people make their own decisions and let it play out. I would prefer if it maintained some semblance of ethics and was free from the effects of commerce. We can dream, right?

I like the way in which you articulated your point. There were and are lots of questions raised regarding exactly what was going on during that period but yahoo62278 did rid the spammers and low-level quality posters that were simply posting to increase their post count for the sake of getting paid courtesy of their Yobit signature. Does that negate everything else related to Yobit? The answer is subjective and highly contentious.

In my most humble of opinion, the failure of DT members to get to grips with Yobit and their campaign should be considered a watershed moment for the forum but the lack of agreement will only allow for other scams to be promoted here in future without a care in the world because nobody is above the lure of money as you rightly stated. The petty squabbling over whether all of Yobit was a scam if just the x10 was a ponzi scheme, did not help the situation. I read arguments for and against Yobit banners being allowed in the forum and read lots of posts where users were expressing their views about tagging all or some users displaying just x10 or all Yobit banners.

Sadly in the future the lack of consensus surrounding the next scam or any return of Yobit will only continue the infighting between members here.

I agree 100% with this post. My argument is guilt via association regardless of what Yobit did is a completely arbitrary distinction, and that is the source of endless conflict. Lets stick to burning people at the stake one at the time at least people, please?

[eddie13]

My argument is guilt via association regardless of what Yobit did is a completely arbitrary distinction, and that is the source of endless conflict. Lets stick to burning people at the stake one at the time at least people, please?

Would you be against tagging accounts that were advertising "24 Hour Bitcoin Doubler - Just Send To This Address" in their signatures, and refused to remove it after a warning?

[mindrust]

Nobody is above the lure of money/ power. Everybody has a price. It just depends on the level you are at.

Everybody doesn't have a price.

I'll go with a braindead example: How much money would you ask to kill your own mother? How much do you think they offered theymos to leave the forum to Roger Ver? What is your answer? Not enough?

Maybe It will come as a surprise to you, but some people do what they do just because they think it is the right thing.

[JollyGood]

~snip~

While I am not a particular fan of Yahoo, I think he has some self control issues, but I don't think any of this was about hating on Yahoo. This was more about the fact that people are running around tagging a bunch of lower ranked users aimlessly but giving Yahoo a pass even though he ran the same campaign. I think this is a great example of the arbitrary and selective enforcement used in the trust system, and why we shouldn't be tagging anyone unless we can establish clear and objective standards regarding what is worthy of a tag. It is a pretty widely accepted legal standard that unless a person is made aware that a specific act is a crime, they shouldn't be penalized for it. It is a bit like police making up secret rules as they go that you are subject to. What could go wrong there?

Well I was told that yahoo62278 was effectively requested by the general consensus to take the role of Yobit campaign manager in order to bring some control and order to the chaos after Yobit was allowed to return to the forum. In the end it seems there was an option of allowing Yobit to run-riot therefore an out of control scenario where spammers would have taken over but a campaign manager did manage to help reduce spam.

Where some have decided to take issue with matters was when yahoo62278 himself started displaying the Yobit banner along with when the initial cryptotalk forum campaign he was getting involved with transitioned in to x10 investbox and then in to $700 YoDollar campaign. it was after all pointed out that he did get paid for the job and was not operating for free. And as another user asked above, was it worth it for yahoo62278 concerning the possible damage to the reputation to get involved with Yobit?

Regarding clear objective standards to ascertain what might be worthy of a tag - I agree with you entirely. The problem however was (and still is) the lack of general consensus. If there was a uniformed stance against Yobit nothing would have made me happier and if there will be a uniformed stance for all present and future scams then it would be a great way to proceed.

[eddie13]

The problem however was (and still is) the lack of general consensus. If there was a uniformed stance against Yobit nothing would have made me happier and if there will be a uniformed stance for all present and future scams then it would be a great way to proceed.

Yobit is not a clear-cut enough example of a "scam" for general consensus to be made easily on the situation.. (sorry, but it isn't)
A less debatable example of a "scam", like a proven ponzi, will get all tagged up before their is even time to debate about it..

I see this changing nothing as president going forward from here, but this as actually a good example of the community finding a conclusion..

This debate is probably responsible for the stopping of the Yobit campaign, and their has been plenty of exposure of the many examples of shadiness all around..

[nullius]

My due apologies to the community for my having fallen behind on this thread.  Some recent “attacks” on me sapped the limited forum time which IRL considerations have permitted to me in the past few days.  I see that others have said most of what I would have, anyway—mostly by eddie13 and Lauda.  Funny thing, that!

At this point, for the reasons with which I conclude below, I think that only a few collateral points remain to be addressed—foremost, yahoo’s aspersions cast on the motives for this thread, which seem almost designed to deter others from making honest assessments of such behaviour in the future.

I wasn't going to respond in this thread at first due to the nature of the thread being basically an attack and some attacks require no response.

I am not sure how you could be so mistaken, when I opened with the following statement in OP:

I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one.

If you disbelieve that, consider:

• My sole interest in this topic was and is to call on the community to enforce the highest standards for the most-trusted people.  Consistently with all I said in my OP and followup, if I had mass-tagged Yobit advertisers, I would have started by tagging yahoo62278 first as a matter of principle.  Nobody should get special treatment in such matters.
  
  It’s hard to miss my own statement of my intentions in OP, which was written at a time when I was preparing imminently to mass-tag numerous ordinary users:
  
  

  yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment.  Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards.

• Although involvement in a competing signature campaign should never disqualify anybody from speaking the truth from sound reason, I am ideally suited to approach such an issue judiciously; for I have no financial interest in any signature campaign.  I have never worn a paid signature.  I have no current or foreseeable future intent to wear a paid signature.  And for those who may be wondering:  I even explicitly disclaimed interest in a Chip slot to DarkStar_.  (I reached out to him, not vice versa—just to let him know that I am genuinely doing that unpaid signature thing to promote privacy, and not as a ploy to inveigle my way into his campaign.)
• My action in this matter was solely at my own initiative, and neither requested nor suggested by anybody else.  No, not even Lauda.
  
  

  Everyone wants to form a lynch mob at Laudas request, feel free.

  
  That is unfair both to me, and to Lauda.  Lauda did not ask me to create this thread—and in fact, it was Lauda who first asked me to lock it as moot a few days ago.  (It is a suggestion that I did not immediately take, only because unreasonable distractions diverted my attention whilst IRL matters have left me little forum time.)  And though you don’t know me, I surmise that you should probably know Lauda better than to deal her such calumny:
  
  

  I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths).

  
  As for me, and my habit of principled independent, I am the last one to join any of the lynch mobs which Lauda has no interest in forming:
  
  

  You know that I am a loose cannon, even moreso than Lauda.

Then when I woke up today and logged in I started seeing an agenda of sorts being pushed,

What agenda, praytell?  If you are accusing me of having any ulterior motive in creating this thread, it would only be fair for you to plainly state what you think it is.

I did not make vague insinuations about you, yahoo.  I forthrightly stated what I thought you were doing wrong.  Please be likewise fair.

[url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134119.msg50692188#msg50692188]This thread was made way back in April of last year [2019] where I asked for community input on a PM I had received regarding managing Yobits campaign. Notice the words used here YOBITS CAMPAIGN. There was no mention of cryptotalk because the forum had not existed yet. So all the members (20+) who said a manager is better then no manager should walk away from this discussion and move on. You spoke your piece in that thread.

Now let's fast forward to September 2019...

Then, fast forward to December 24th 2019...

That line of argument may apply to some others; whereas I, who started this topic, was off the forum from April 2018 to January 2020:  Not posting, not lurking, gone.

Others have already answered, for their parts, with some more or less different views of the events you describe.  I will now speak for myself:

You spoke your piece in that thread.

I didn’t.

Although, of course, it is impossible to prove what I would have done, anybody who knows me will know that I would have argued against the yahoo-plus-Yobit proposition vehemently in the thread you cite.

I have some modicum of experience at spamfighting, going back to Usenet in the 90s (n.a.n.a.e., etc.).*  I hate spam, I know the devious ways of spammers, and I would never have accepted the argument that it’s better to let a spammer advertise under the “control” of a reputable manager than to ban the spammer, period.  It is an argument which would have been incinerated with extreme prejudice on n.a.n.a.e., too.

If some others supported your management of the Yobit campaign, yahoo62278, then yes:  There is some responsibility to be shared for the later results.  However, joint responsibility does not absolve you of personal responsibility.  Not in the first instance—and especially not after the point when it became clear that Yobit was scamming with Ponzis, etc.

(* Aside, a part of what first drew me toward Lauda is that she reminds me of some of the toughest n.a.n.a.e. regulars.  That was a rough world full of revenge-doxing by spammers, spammers’ death threats, frivolous lawsuit threats, bizarrely stupid smear tactics, etc., plus a constant stream of b.s. excuses and fallacious arguments about a “free speech” right to mass-defecate in your inbox.  I recall one post by n.a.n.a.e. legendary Vernon Schryver who, after a spammer threatened to murder him, casually mentioned some means by which unwelcome visitors could be made to disappear into the acreage at his home in Colorado.  I think he said something about chainsaws, and maybe about his access to a backhoe...  There is nothing new here—actually, this forum is relatively tame.)


Others have otherwise adequately addressed the substance of yahoo’s statement.

Once again, ME pointing out this case of hypocrisy in this Yobit campaign is what lead to this thread, and possibly their closing up shop here..

Wrong.  My creation of this thread had nothing to do with you; if I saw any of your posts when I reviewed all the Yobit threads, I don’t remember them.  The Yobit-related posts which stood out to me personally were by o_e_l_e_o (whose posts on X10/Investbox first brought my attention to this issue), JollyGood, Lauda, and a few others.

You have made some excellent posts in this thread; and if you have been pushing the same issue, I applaud you for that.  Now, please don’t try to take credit for my independent decision that I should dare to damn the consequences, stand up, and say, This is a yahoo issue before it is an issue of all the people following his lead, who must then be duly dealt with.

(And it worked, if I do say so myself.)

You're all welcome for my fine community services of questioning hypocrisy at great risk to my own reputation to keep DT straight.

Hey, “you’re welcome” for mine.  (And look at my reputation now:  I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before.  Do you think that’s right, eddie?)


The foregoing needed to be said; and the past five pages hold much discussion that I should wish to reply to.  However, I agree with this—all of it, eddie13 as well as Lauda:

@Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..

I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

The end.

I am hereby locking this thread on grounds of “mission accomplished”.

If anybody has anything important to say specifically on the topic of “yahoo62278 and Yobit”, please PM me a request for a temporary unlock.  In particular, if yahoo wants to reply to what I have said above, then it would be unfair of me to just take the last word.  But barring any new developments, I have no desire to carry this thread further.  The topic title is “yahoo62278 and Yobit”—whereas yahoo62278 is neither managing nor advertising Yobit right now.  And as I said one week ago:

Though I would not be deterred by the inevitability of drama, I don’t want the drama—and if I did, Faketoshi has more of it anyway, with the added “benefit” of being so much slimier and more disgusting.