Ok, now you're just trying to change the subject. my original argument had nothing to do with investing in these sites. It's the simple presence of dooglus in this thread and as an escrow provider in relation to these websites that mysterioulsy vanished. Either he's complicit, gullible, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm sorry, I understand your point but don't think this is in any way fair. Dooglus knows a lot about probability and how to run a successful and honest dice site, so he is naturally interested in them so he posts in their threads. He posts and discusses them. Sure he signed up for a signature campaign but so have dozens of other bitcointalk users and to his credit he bailed when he realized that some were taking his signature as an endorsement which it was not.
By definition escrow suggests a LACK of trust, so him serving as escrow for some of the signature sponsors isn't an endorsement, it's simply him holding their coins.
You are correct that dooglus has a lot of credibility here and I appreciate his commentary on sites, especially when he finds problems with them. He himself has said repeatedly that there is no way to guarantee investors that they cannot be exploited by an opportunistic site owner and the obvious risk of running away with the coins.
I'm really glad he's around and if your comments discourage him from posting about sites that would bring the community down.
There is a common pattern here on bitcointalk, and its been going on since the early days of my enrollment here. A hero member attaches their name/reputation to services, and others are quick to follow suit without question, usually with the consequence of losing their coins, whether it be by investing or losing through the service. The hero member eventually gets called into question, and the people who called him into the question are actively discredited, given negative trust and in some cases banned from the forums.
I hope that this illustrates my stance on the manner, but if it doesn't let me clarify by summation of the above points my exact position on the matter:
I am not suggesting that dooglus is complicit in this scheme, but rather that he should not be immediately ruled out because of his position in the default trust. This does not apply specifically only to dooglus. This applies to all trusted members who attach their name through endorsement, real or implied, to a service that ultimately results in the loss of customer funds. These people should absolutely be called into question, and if they are truly absent of blame, they will have no problem proving it, actively reinforcing their trustworthiness.
nobody listen to this TROLL
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BTCUY TRUST !!! THIS IS CRYPTO!!! 
rotffmfao 
