yahoo62278 and Yobit

[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.)

[1714220964]

1714220964

[1714220964]

1714220964

[1714220964]

1714220964

[1714220964]

1714220964

[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?