2) There is nothing in advertising betcoin by "normal" users that makes them a scammer.
I hate to use the word "scammer" because it usually results in a debate over the definition of the word.
But, advertising for Betcoin at this point can only be due to ignorance (intentional or not) or blatant disregard for the consequences of your decisions in exchange for money.
A negative rating is
only appropriate if you were either scammed by said person, or you strongly believe that said person is a scammer (see the description of negative ratings on everyone's trust page). I would argue that you should not leave a negative rating against someone unless they meet a fairly broad definition of scammer.
There is no reason that someone should trust betcoin simply because some random user is advertising for them.
Imo it's not the actual signature wearing that makes this campaign worth over
BTC6 a month to Betcoin. It's the way (many of) the sig campaign members will say or do anything to impress Betcoin who, in turn, rewards them with bonuses privately. It creates this false "yay Betcoin, we are #1" hype among members who are mostly not even players on the site.
This kind of activity implies that sockpuppets are being used, although it is also possible that these people are players who frequent betcoin and enjoy playing on their site (even the most scammy/unfair casinos/sites will have these types of people).
I also don't think the removing a paid signatures would necessarily prevent people from making these types of comments, nor would it prevent betcoin from paying bonuses for these types of comments. It would however make this kind of activity less transparent. It also appears that betcoin is not outright scamming all of their players, but is rather selectively scamming only some of their players (those that win their jackpots), so it is always
possible that some of the people making these kinds of comments legitimately believe what they are saying.
3) If 2 was untrue, then there is no reason why participants should be allowed to continue to wear their signatures until the end of the payment period. You should either receive negative trust for wearing an advertisement or you don't.
I agree with you in principle, but I also think Lutpin is making the right choice on a human level by giving fair warning and allowing people to get paid and go find another more ethical campaign. If he were to just drop the hammer mid-month there would be even 10x more drama than there is now.
I disagree. If someone is advertising a site that is an outright scam, then it is possible that someone could deposit funds to said site, and end up getting scammed.
Someone who were to leave negative trust because they are advertising a scammy business should be given some amount of grace period in order to do their own independent research and discuss said advertising. I think it is fairly clear that Lutpin is trying to make a name for himself, is trying to show that he is able to do whatever he wants in regards to leaving trust, and is a reflection of his immaturity.