Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on July 10, 2016, 07:46:04 AM

Frankly speaking,I don't think it makes much sense to apply special signature rules to Staff as well.As said,there are more than 30 members carrying the signature of betcoin.ag who should be equally responsible for promoting the casino.No special actions needs to be taken just because you're a "Staff".

Someone finally gets it. If anything, DT members should have higher priority in such cases IMO.

Quote from: Vod on July 10, 2016, 04:22:32 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's more than obvious these anti-Lauda threads are started by Quickseller alts. No one respects that scammer.

I try to rationally accept the disrespect. That's the best that I can do I guess. I can't know to whom those alts belong, although the previous 2 threads were created by shills.

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on July 10, 2016, 05:45:09 PM

He should just own up to it and tell everyone to fuck off.

I don't see why I would do that.

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on July 10, 2016, 05:45:09 PM

Seriously what can any one do about LOL

How you forgotten about admin(s)?

Quote from: Lutpin on July 10, 2016, 06:32:23 PM

If you recall, back when you joined their campaign, I've advised you against promoting that particular casino/brand, Lauda.

No, you said "I wouldn't advertise for any coins in the world" and posted 2 links, which is less than OP PM'd me and equally useless to me ATM. That was about 2 days prior to the first PM of OP.

Quote from: redsn0w on July 10, 2016, 06:19:31 PM

Possible unrealistic solution, you can try to report one of his post (just to see what it will happen). /s

It should be, and would be deleted if it was not appropriate. Rules should be applied without exceptions regardless of a members position.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on July 10, 2016, 07:47:01 PM

I'm saying we have a serious issue here. It's become acceptable to help a site become trusted without taking any consideration into whether or not they should actually be trusted. When I see a staff member do it, I see an obvious and legitimate response for every member who may be asked "hey, why are you promoting that site?"

This is a trust related issue, right? So mind telling me why I'm being prioritized as a staff member (e.g. over a DT member) only when it (could) is 'negatively' effecting me? Additionally, don't be surprised if more 'random' people, that I've had strong discussions with (e.g. Core vs. Classic), hop on this bandwagon.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on July 10, 2016, 07:47:01 PM

Lauda, why won't you remove your signature until you have done your due diligence?

I've actually PM'ed EcuaMobi asking him to please provide me with the results of his own analysis, and it was inconclusive:

Quote from: EcuaMobi on July 09, 2016, 03:14:35 PM

Update: I haven't found final proof against betcoin.ag so I don't think promoting it deserves negative trust. There are some suspicious things so personally I wouldn't promote it but the benefit of the doubt could apply. However I do think it would be more responsible for anyone to research a site before promoting it. This is valid for everyone and even more so for staff and trusted members.

I suggest building a strong case again Betcoin first (no, you don't have that). That's the best way that you could 'effectively' stop their campaign if the company was truly a scam. This is what I've written via PM to someone and it still holds ground: "All that was required was to either give me a few days of time or provide a conclusive 'investigation' by a non-random (or possibly DT member) and it would have been removed." Guess what I had time to do besides sending a few PMs because of this thread (reading, processing and formulating takes up a lot of time) so far? Nothing. Additionally, the first experienced DT member concluded that there was no conclusive proof.