Quote from: Stedsm on January 28, 2020, 08:47:35 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 08:44:58 PM

Quote from: Stedsm on January 28, 2020, 08:39:51 PM

I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and ~~banged~~ banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.

Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam.

Meaning whatever he has done for the community as well as the forum since years shouldn't be counted as well against what was committed now? Couldn't his signature be the requirement by Yobit guys to pay him a good package as I stated before?

Read this part again.

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 08:03:55 PM

However, in this case Yahoo actively avoided taking action for a very long time despite pressure and evidences of Yobit scamming / the x10 being a scam/ponzi, etc. This is not acceptable, and does not even come close to occasional errors, but rather a willingness to either consistently sell out (directly, indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - it does not matter, I don't care if one can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).