Quote from: TECSHARE on January 31, 2020, 05:04:34 PM

~snip~

While I am not a particular fan of Yahoo, I think he has some self control issues, but I don't think any of this was about hating on Yahoo. This was more about the fact that people are running around tagging a bunch of lower ranked users aimlessly but giving Yahoo a pass even though he ran the same campaign. I think this is a great example of the arbitrary and selective enforcement used in the trust system, and why we shouldn't be tagging anyone unless we can establish clear and objective standards regarding what is worthy of a tag. It is a pretty widely accepted legal standard that unless a person is made aware that a specific act is a crime, they shouldn't be penalized for it. It is a bit like police making up secret rules as they go that you are subject to. What could go wrong there?

Well I was told that yahoo62278 was effectively requested by the general consensus to take the role of Yobit campaign manager in order to bring some control and order to the chaos after Yobit was allowed to return to the forum. In the end it seems there was an option of allowing Yobit to run-riot therefore an out of control scenario where spammers would have taken over but a campaign manager did manage to help reduce spam.

Where some have decided to take issue with matters was when yahoo62278 himself started displaying the Yobit banner along with when the initial cryptotalk forum campaign he was getting involved with transitioned in to x10 investbox and then in to $700 YoDollar campaign. it was after all pointed out that he did get paid for the job and was not operating for free. And as another user asked above, was it worth it for yahoo62278 concerning the possible damage to the reputation to get involved with Yobit?

Regarding clear objective standards to ascertain what might be worthy of a tag - I agree with you entirely. The problem however was (and still is) the lack of general consensus. If there was a uniformed stance against Yobit nothing would have made me happier and if there will be a uniformed stance for all present and future scams then it would be a great way to proceed.