Quote

If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I've tagged several Scammers without being scammed. If something is an obvious scam, I prefer not to get scammed first, and tag them as a warning to other users without trading with them first.

You don't have to trade with someone to tag him for scamming on his trade.
If the facts are presented, you should tag everyone who has scammed anyone.
If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I did the same.
I would agree suspicion about someone could be worthy of a tag if you allow the user a way out. The if is important. It would be extremely harmful to tag people without allowing them to prove they're legit.
Example: "Sells iPhone X with no pics. Will remove as soon as a picture is sent".

Quote

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 05:24:08 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on January 28, 2020, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 28, 2020, 04:23:49 PM

Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

If you receive monetary compensation for this and are still willing, then this makes you an accomplice, i.e. a scammer per definition too. Regardless of which view you take on it, this should remain true in every.

You're again missconstruing what was said here.

Quote

YoBit was never an acknowledged or undisputed scam. I have never encountered any scam accusations from their users at all.
It was not and is not widely known. Red tagging people who knew nothing about you claiming they're a scam is wrong in my head, yes.
Most of these people are probably honest people.

I'm of the opinion that at least 70% of the signature campaign didn't even know what an InvestBox was.
I sure as hell didn't. Tagging YoBit would be sufficient without tagging innocent users.

Quote

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Your argument is that people who promote a scam can't be held accountable as there is no proof their promotion was responsible for users falling victim to said scam?

My argument is that they most likely didn't even know an InvestBox existed.

Quote

Sure, I accept that was a loaded statement on my part, but I think if you are going to promote something and lend your name and reputation to it, then the onus is on you to learn about what you are promoting, and not wait for others to call you out on it.

Sure. I can agree that is a morally valid opinion. However, I would not agree it's worth a negative trust.
As I said, I believe most of the people who participated in these campaigns had no idea what an InvestBox was or that it even existed.
How can we tag them as untrustworthy if they didn't even know?

I mean there are people on this forum that just participate in campaigns, giveaways, faucets, etc. etc.
There are certainly some that don't even know what a ponzi is.
How can we label them as untrustworthy?