No reason why they would not, it's not a lot of money and it lets them go back and say, "look we pay our people, wear our sig next time and get paid too"
And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust unless you are selling stuff, and even then if you agree to escrow will people care?
If the deal is good enough, and there is no negative trust saying that they stole money, people will trade. Not as many, but enough.
-Dave
There is the moral issue.
IMO, a simple PM explaining they are advertising a scam, and why doing so is wrong would be much more effective in stopping betking's ability to advertise via signatures than negative trust. It might not outright stop it, but would curtail it.
If there is a case of a specific warning not being obvious to someone giving scrutiny, this should be addressed. But blanket, generic warnings is probably unnecessary and may result in someone missing a specific warning about a potential scammer.
Is there some reason why telling new users that scams are not moderated/bannable on this forum is unnecessary? This is not redundant information. Something along the lines of, "WE DO NOT MODERATE SCAMS! SCAMMERS ARE ALLOWED HERE!"
There is a warning message on all
Long Term (lending) offers, and
securities threads. It would probably be a good idea to add a generic similar warning to other marketplace sections of the forum.
How about any indication of where the forum rules may be located?
The majority of the forum rules are really just codifying what should be common sense for most people. It take a lot to get into trouble for breaking the rules, so if you break a rule as a new user, you will suffer no real consequences if you were unaware of the rule, and are alerted to the rule, unless you are posting malware or plagiarizing, but again rules related to both are just codifying common sense.