Topic: I do not endorse any website in my signature.<--Yes You Do! - page 5. (Read 4911 times)

Personal attacks are part of the game here, especially if you are a mod / DT member.
There is no getting away from that.

Who made you the babysitter of Lauda? Who cares what He/She has in their Signature. I understand you Question the Website in the signature but why the personal attack by naming Him/Her?

here's a thread I've attempted to use to keep track of all the scummy things betcoin has done

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-wrong-with-betcoinag-heres-a-list-1322261

some of it might be hard to understand for anyone without a backround in poker or gambling ( I'm happy to explain anything not clear in that thread)

I'm hesitant to call them a scam site though because I don't want to debate the definition of the word "scam" 

Yes, that thread.

It looks like a player won some kind of jackpot that should have resulted in the player receiving just under 3kBTC, however that player ended up receiving what can logically be explained as being less then the full amount via a confidential settlement.

The root cause of the issue appears to be something about the software they are (not were) using, made by BetSoft (BetSoft might even be the one that is actually paying out -- I am not really sure). A best case scenario is that BetCoin is using a 3rd party vendor that results in players not receiving all of what they are due when they win the jackpot. Even if you were to argue that BetCoin was not aware of the issues with BetSoft (IMO, this is a little far fetched, but this would result in BetCoin being given a maximum benefit of the doubt), they are still hosting games that use BetSoft software, so they are knowingly hosing games that they know will not fully payout when a player wins. (archive from today proving they are still hosing BetSoft games).

Of course that disclaimer is useless. I wasn't aware of a problem with betcoin.ag. Is there enough proof that it's scammy? Are you talking about this thread? Any other?

If someone promotes a site which is known for being scammy then they clearly deserve negative trust, regardless of their position or any disclaimer. Now the question is whether that site is clearly scammy. If it is (without much doubt) then I'll add some negative trust.

Also, I do believe highly-trusted users and staff should be specially careful with what they promote. As I said long ago in a similar case: if the staff promotes a site newbies will think it's endorsed by the forum (I know it's not the case but it can look like it because of the 'Staff' legend). So they definitely need to check any site before promoting it.

Update: I haven't found final proof against betcoin.ag so I don't think promoting it deserves negative trust. There are some suspicious things so personally I wouldn't promote it but the benefit of the doubt could apply. However I do think it would be more responsible for anyone to research a site before promoting it. This is valid for everyone and even more so for staff and trusted members.

And just a note to Vod and Quickseller: you obvious can't have a proper discussion with each other so please consider just ignoring each other for everyone's sake. At least that's what I try to do whenever I see any of you writing about the other. I have to say I do strongly appreciate your opinions otherwise.

People who have promoted ponzis in their signature have received negative trust in the past...
I doubt if a disclaimer like this would have worked.

laudas mentality is clearly a popular one on this forum and results in sites manufacturing trust without anyone being held responsible.

If a site has a signature campaign on this forum we have the power to hold them responsible.  Sites that act scummy and ignore legit issues should have their Sig campaign shut down by trusted users who are willing to neg rep all who continue promoting after warning.


instead we have staff joining Sig campaign who are clueless and refuse to get a clue.

LOL, that disclaimer is not even visible by default because it is in her "other contact info" section of her profile, so when people view her posts they do not see this disclaimer.

It is kinda sad that someone advertising what is fairly certain to be a scam site, or at the very least that is not 100% "above board" is allowed to remain a moderator. It doesn't exactly give a very good message to those looking from the outside when they are trying to form an opinion about the forum.

You're getting paid to promote an exceptionally scummy site.  

Maybe you are able to fool yourself into thinking it's ok as long as A) you put disclaimer in profile  and B) you haven't looked into the accusations against the site but plan on doing so whenever you don't have more important things to do.

it's all bullshit. when you put the ad in your Sig you drive traffic and increase the reputation of the site. that's why they pay you. duh.

You're setting a bad example as a staff member, sending the message "we don't have to accept responsibility for the decision we make to promote a site (or not promote a site)"

Just because you haven't taken the time to research the situation for yourself doesn't make it ok.

I tried handling this privately but I find your "I won't be able to research this site for a while, but will keep promoting them anyway" attitude unacceptable.

My last pm to you over 24 hours ago got no response so here we are:

It's irresponsible to advertise a business without any due diligence.

Please, stop promoting Betcoin in your signature until you are confident enough to take a stance.