yahoo62278 and Yobit

[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.