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.
What % of active users do you think could give the name of a single DT member?
The system is really complicated and most people have no reason to bother trying to figure it out. Default Trust members appear the exact same as any other member (I think, right? I could be wrong)
I have no clue what your job is, how you got it or who gave it to you. All I know is it says "STAFF" under your name, and that seems pretty important. Then after every post you make, it says "Betcoin.ag The Most Trusted Bitcoin & Litecoin Casino."
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:
I've asked you several times now and haven't gotten a direct answer. Why won't you remove Betcoin ad from your signature?
You're acting as if you trust everyone until it's been proven you shouldn't. I know you are more intelligent than most, so I don't have to explain how ridiculous that is.
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.
Ok, I'd really appreciate any specific reasons my evidence is not conclusive so I can have a chance to clarify. I've played 8 million hands of online poker in my life, and many of the issues involve stuff that non-poker players may not get, like rakeback, rake structure, satellite structure, ethical standards re: enforcing rules, dealing with cheaters, etc.
In the mean time, I suggest any trusted member to ask their campaign manager why they removed all the data from previous campaign periods, only share the data with members who request it and have kicked a member from their campaign for sharing it with me. (or you can probably figure it out by reading this post:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236667.msg15142143#msg15142143 )