Quote from: marlboroza on March 16, 2019, 07:18:06 PM

Quote from: Thule on March 16, 2019, 03:42:04 PM

Quote from: asche on March 16, 2019, 03:39:10 PM

@Thule if you really want to do something about it, you should just use a whois service and contact abuse@ the domain provider with evidence backing your allegations.

If it is solid enough, sites will get suspended.

Why don't DT members do the same on ICO scams ?But handle it intern in the forum ?
Again diffrent standards ?

Why don't you do that?

Go to gambling section and report every unlicensed casino.
Then go to investard based games and report all ponzies.
Then report all tumblers.
Then go to ICO section and report all ICO's which are breaking laws.
Then report all lenders who are breaking laws.
Then go to Bangladesh and report all forum users to police.

Maybe you should just report forum to police?

Well that is exactly the point. Why "report" or red trust any person or project that is not confirmed as a scam or STRONGLY intending to scam. You can not have it both ways. I mean if you consider a gambling site with no address , no lic, no ID's for the owners not to be likely to scam then fair enough leave them alone. If they have NOT scammed and you don't consider them not having any contact details available meets the STRONG threshold for intending to scam, then leave them alone and in peace until issues crop up. Perhaps they have other reasons for withholding their ids that are not related to scamming at all.

I say don't poke your nose into peoples business unless they are scammers or strongly intending to scam. DT's running around being all righteous and actively tagging ANYONE they think could "possibly" be thinking of scamming in the distant future should rather be challenging them and questioning them if they must do something on thread, not just giving out red trust on a hunch because the "offending party" demonstrated some behaviour a DT didn't personally approve of for their own selfish reasons.

The point is you can not have it both ways just because it suits you to.

It is quite simple. Who is more likely to scam.

casino1 - has a lic, known IDS of owners, known address of owners all confirmed.
casino2 - nothing known about the owners at all

Casino2 is more likely to scam or one could view it as more risky. However, that does not mean they WILL scam. If they have been functioning for years then perhaps they will not scam at all. Nobody knows. The person using these facilities should do their own DD.

However, if you are willing to go much further than not tagging but actually to help promote casino2 and not flag it or red tag them then you can not go and support DT's that go and red trust on a hunch or some tenuous and pathetically weak sauce case that "possibly" could suggest they may be untrustworthy in the future. You are sanctioning and approving their actions of preemptive scam tagging for their perceived "risk", but then want to allow "high risk" and promote it when it suits you?

I hope you can start to grasp how that is double standards.