That is literally what he just asked you. The point being by what standard is this applied?
The only problem is this kind of behavior only expands with this "ok we make it fair by being excessive with everyone". This is the kind of slow creep that takes away everyone's freedoms and ability to be left alone unless directly victimizing others.
I'm not much of a supporter of
giving up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, or in other words, protecting idiots at the expense of loosing valuable users over minor infractions that could possibly put some idiots at greater risk, but if that is what it is then atleast it should be done
consistently..
This whole Yobit situation has become too fine of an obfuscated line..
One could definitely make the argument that any advertisement of any Yobit product is advertising a "scam", as in very "high risk" and even
predatory "investments"/"scams?"..
On the other hand an argument could be made along the lines of "So what?".. If people are stupid enough to buy the crap then they are stupid and
stupid is as stupid does..
The current situation is some sort of blurry line drifting around in the sea somewhere between both of those camps, with possible harsh punishment for tripping on it?
Stupid situation that wouldn't even exist if users didn't want that yobit dust so badly..
Seems you can get away with a lot more, and push the boundaries, as long as you throw around some coin..
Almost like a bribe.. What can you get away with as long as you are paying?
I wouldn't recommend Yobit as a very safe exchange or any of their investments as good investments, but I would use it to dump some coins or something and might recommend to use it to get in, do your business, and get out..
Also, no matter how terrible some coin or asset being traded is, if it has volatility, it can be flipped for a profit..
Teaching people that it is ok to advertise scam because it is not your business if someone can't recognize scam is scammy behavior itself.
Is it a "scam" or just a predatory "high risk" investment offering? Where is the line?
Small correction: Yobit's signature was never banned for being a scam, it was banned for spamming the forum.
Right..
After that it's surprising to me that it was welcomed back as it has been, especially considering its borderline scamminess.. But it pays right?
crazy-joe=off topic
The inconsistency is exactly the issue. This is why we need to err on the side of less interference than more. The same standards applied to call Yobit a scam could be applied to half of the altcoin section and more. For fuck sake crypto itself could be made illegal tomorrow. This is all risky. Additionally risky does not always equal scam. Then who gets to decide how it is applied? Unless the line is clear then all this is going to do is invite tons of abuse and endless drama, and for what? Will it stop any of this stuff at the end of the day? Absolutely not.
The integrity of the system as a whole is more important. There needs to be a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contract, or violation of local applicable laws, not just suspicion. The trust system acts as a penalty, as such it should be administered based on this observable evidence, not by how good an accuser is with their creative writing skills and creating plausible theories. This is the entire reason due process exists in law, otherwise the legal system is abused to arbitrarily harass and exploit people for fun and profit like in most 3rd world countries.
The trust system is designed to prevent long cons to a lesser extent account farming as a trade history makes farming accounts much more complicated as it takes a lot more work to fake. The system should not be used like a flack cannon to mass flag and tag people because all that will achieve is to teach people to find it common and ignore it as signal noise. Again beyond that, more importantly this assembly line tagging activity consistently drags otherwise unsuspecting people into endless bullshit and drama that drives away productive user base.