~JollyGood

You are getting too big for your britches. This is not what the trust system is for.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 22, 2020, 07:57:13 PM

Quote from: eddie13 on January 22, 2020, 07:34:08 PM

It seems the community came to the general consensus that yobit is not too much of a scam for it to be advertised on the forum right?
I don't like that they were allowed to come back and advertise after being banned for it but the community allowed it..

"Oh well I guess CryptoTalk isn't really directly a scam though its parent Yobit facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh well I guess Yobit isn't directly a scam though it facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh noes!! X10 coin? That is almost definitely a scam so we can't advertise that!! Better just go back to advertising only Yobit, who is a scam advertiser, but indirectly advertising scams is ok? Right guys?" -let them advertise

X10 coin is nothing new for Yobit.. They have been pushing similar "scams" for years since the ROM crap..

I wonder how many DT members are currently accepting payment from Yobit?

Is Yobit a scam or not?
Is advertising for Yobit advertising for a scam or not?
If it is, then why is it here advertising at all?

It's just too darn close to the edge for a clear consensus it seems..

Why can Vispillo be tagged for advertising a "scam" but all the other that do can not?
Because he posted that he thinks one of Yobit's products is a "scam" and therefore is knowingly advertising a "scam"?

So let me get this straight..
If I go find any posts from anyone currently being paid by Yobit, or has been paid by Yobit, who has previously stated that they think any of Yobit's products (past or present) are a "scam" prior to them accepting any form of payment for their advertisement, they should be red tagged?

But no red tags for anyone advertising Yobit as long as they have never themselves stated that they think any Yobit products are a "scam"?
What a situation in that it depends on the post history of all individual advertising users..

Their are probably plenty to be tagged on this basis.. How many even in DT I wonder?

How can this be made consistent one way or another?

Maybe if I go find a couple more examples of users advertising for yobit while having previously stated they think that any yobit product is/was a scam, then it can be decided to tag them all or tag none..
Sound fair?

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. The kind of people who love running around searching for people to tag over this kind of stuff are salivating over an excuse to just do it for everyone thus retroactively justifying their behavior. Of course you know they will still make exceptions for their pals anyway, but now they have a whole heap of more people to lord over.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 22, 2020, 10:58:55 PM

Quote from: marlboroza on January 22, 2020, 10:03:14 PM

Quote from: eddie13 on January 22, 2020, 09:44:18 PM

Is it a "scam" or just a predatory "high risk" investment offering? Where is the line?

Is X10 scam "or just predatory high risk investment offering"?

That is literally what he just asked you. The point being by what standard is this applied?

Quote from: eddie13 on January 22, 2020, 09:44:18 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 22, 2020, 07:57:13 PM

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..

Quote from: marlboroza on January 22, 2020, 08:48:19 PM

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?

Quote from: LoyceV on January 22, 2020, 09:06:10 PM

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.