Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 09:24:22 PM

LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations.

I don't think that's accurate. IIRC there were more than one accusation, but one particular user was persistent in his claim.

Please re-read what you just quoted. The pressure on Hhampuz did start with that one persistent accusation. There were a couple more, but nothing significant i.e. not much different than what exchanges have on average (i.e. nothing "sticking outo").

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 09:24:22 PM

Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo.
Therefore:
He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].

I think this is a misrepresentation. Yahoo didn't start the campaign, and it wasn't exactly "taken over" by Yahoo. He had no control over who joined the campaign, and his participation was largely encouraged by many who wanted someone (anyone) to curb the spam that was bound to result from Yobit's off-site sign-up feature.

Well, I didn't write that he started it did I? I wrote that he took it over, i.e. took a management aspect of it over. Maybe I should have clarified there about his limited power in comparison to a normal management position, but both you and I know this thus I had not pointed it out. Others and I have been in similar positions, so it's not exactly a big caveat.

I'm using a line break here because the following reference confirms both points (i.e. Yobit being significantly worse than Livecoin) by any conceivable forum metric (we couldn't measure in a better way):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

Lets not forget that very important fact; many of us, including me encouraged him to take on the roll he filled. How hypocritical would be for me to tag him for something I encouraged him to do?

I know, and this is why we have jointly failed! We have chosen one evil over another when we could have chosen none. I might be guilty of this too as I don't remember.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 09:24:22 PM

Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.

I won't argue with this; I was taken aback when I first saw Yahoo wearing the cyrptotalk signature, even more so when I saw saw him wearing the most recent Yobit signature. I won't try to defend what I believe was a lapse in judgement.

But I will defend my own consistency on the matter. I didn't tag anyone for wearing either signature. I also didn't tag anyone for wearing the X10 signature. I very likely would have, if that whole debacle hadn't happened around Christmas time when I was busy with family and didn't really have much time to spend on the forum. But I would have given everyone notice first, and given them the opportunity to remove the signature before I tagged them. By the time I had more time to look into it, the signature had been replaced with the most recent one.

Correct, and I'm not arguing to tag Yahoo alone either. I'm arguing pro-everyone tag, and also arguing that the entrenchment involved in DT1 does not allow this due to financial motivation, nepotism, and selective enforcement, without account suicide. I strongly insist at this point that this statement is objectively correct (other than the descriptive words being used ("due to") - those are debatable) - In case of doubt: Would a less ranked account manager be wrecked for this by now? Yes.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2020, 09:24:22 PM

Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.

See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

I must admit you're making a compelling argument here. I will also admit that when I first saw him donning the cyrptotalk sig I was tempted to remove him from my trust inclusion because I felt that was a lapse in judgement. I will give it some more thought before I come to a decision.

The silence in combination with the hypocrisy is really bothersome. I don't see, if he wasn't guilty of what I and others claim (actively keep looking the other way for money) then I see no reason not to fight it.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on January 29, 2020, 12:07:33 AM

I understand your line of thinking that some should be held to higher standards, and I agree. A seasoned member like Yahoo probably should have known better than to wear any of Yobit's signatures. But my argument is and always has been that it's inappropriate to tag anyone for doing so (except the ponzi sig.)

The implication of this "ruling" over this situation: Anyone can advertise any kind of scam in their signature and any kind of enforcement over it would be selective enforcement, i.e. abuse by DT. You do realize that, right? It can not be anything other than this, because you either disallow people to promote scamful entities or you don't. Just because a collective lapse of judgement was made with Yobit, that doesn't correct this error or prevent the precedence from happening (or DT turning into a complete hypocritical show).

Factor in the following: Do you think that I want to tag Yahoo for the sake of tagging? For fun? For some gain? Because I'm an evil witch? I want to tag him (and everyone else) because I need to, i.e. we need to. The situation is what it is, time can't be undone, and thus we can't change the moment of telling him to take it into telling him to stay away from Yobit. The very least that should be done is not trust his judgement (which is even more fair than the negative). If I'm in strong agreement with my biggest proponents (which has almost never ever agreed with any of them, let alone all of them), combined with my streak-record over the years (which has not been too inaccurate, I hope), then you really need to start to ask yourself: Why? I'm not saying that it logically follows that due to that combination that we are right, I'm just asking you to question how this could be.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on January 29, 2020, 08:07:29 AM

I wasn't going to respond in this thread at first due to the nature of the thread being basically an attack and some attacks require no response.

I'm sorry you see it this way, but it's not even remotely close to an attack. I still consider you an overall relatively trustworthy person, but that does not excuse this or allow for DT to be riddled with selective enforcement and nepotism.. Had it been any other manager it would have been handled the same (well, they'd already be tagged were they a low positioned manager is my belief).