Since nullius wants to wrap up this whole saga all neat and tidy after he got what he wanted and wants to manage the backlash and his personal responsibility in the manner he has locked
this thread, upon which a productive discussion was actually happening. I suspect that was a reason it was locked too. Can't have anyone coming to a consensus that doesn't fit within his own right?
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?
I don't know. The whole point is it is rather arbitrary. Do you argue such a thing is not largely arbitrary? What exactly is wrong with a neutral rating? People who aren't going to bother to look that far are 100% going to get their money stolen no matter how many people are tagged as if that stops people from making risky decisions.
All this mass tagging does is satiate the needs of the ones running around tagging and makes negative ratings meaningless with signal noise. This not only results in endless conflict that is antithetical to any decent community anyone wants to use, but allows actual serious con artists to hide in the noise and drama. All because Billy posted an ad you didn't like because XYZ. It is a simple risk vs reward calculation why this shouldn't be happening. We know what the risk is, we see it every day in the form of threads like these. What is the reward?
