At this point, for the reasons with which I conclude below, I think that only a few collateral points remain to be addressed—foremost, yahoo’s aspersions cast on the motives for this thread, which seem almost designed to deter others from making honest assessments of such behaviour in the future.
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 am not sure how you could be so mistaken, when I opened with the following statement in OP:
I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one.
If you disbelieve that, consider:
- My sole interest in this topic was and is to call on the community to enforce the highest standards for the most-trusted people. Consistently with all I said in my OP and followup, if I had mass-tagged Yobit advertisers, I would have started by tagging yahoo62278 first as a matter of principle. Nobody should get special treatment in such matters.
It’s hard to miss my own statement of my intentions in OP, which was written at a time when I was preparing imminently to mass-tag numerous ordinary users:yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment. Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards. - Although involvement in a competing signature campaign should never disqualify anybody from speaking the truth from sound reason, I am ideally suited to approach such an issue judiciously; for I have no financial interest in any signature campaign. I have never worn a paid signature. I have no current or foreseeable future intent to wear a paid signature. And for those who may be wondering: I even explicitly disclaimed interest in a Chip slot to DarkStar_. (I reached out to him, not vice versa—just to let him know that I am genuinely doing that unpaid signature thing to promote privacy, and not as a ploy to inveigle my way into his campaign.)
- My action in this matter was solely at my own initiative, and neither requested nor suggested by anybody else. No, not even Lauda.Everyone wants to form a lynch mob at Laudas request, feel free.
That is unfair both to me, and to Lauda. Lauda did not ask me to create this thread—and in fact, it was Lauda who first asked me to lock it as moot a few days ago. (It is a suggestion that I did not immediately take, only because unreasonable distractions diverted my attention whilst IRL matters have left me little forum time.) And though you don’t know me, I surmise that you should probably know Lauda better than to deal her such calumny:I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths).
As for me, and my habit of principled independent, I am the last one to join any of the lynch mobs which Lauda has no interest in forming:Then when I woke up today and logged in I started seeing an agenda of sorts being pushed,
What agenda, praytell? If you are accusing me of having any ulterior motive in creating this thread, it would only be fair for you to plainly state what you think it is.
I did not make vague insinuations about you, yahoo. I forthrightly stated what I thought you were doing wrong. Please be likewise fair.[url=https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50692188]This thread was made way back in April of last year [2019] where I asked for community input on a PM I had received regarding managing Yobits campaign. Notice the words used here YOBITS CAMPAIGN. There was no mention of cryptotalk because the forum had not existed yet. So all the members (20+) who said a manager is better then no manager should walk away from this discussion and move on. You spoke your piece in that thread.
Now let's fast forward to September 2019...
Then, fast forward to December 24th 2019...
That line of argument may apply to some others; whereas I, who started this topic, was off the forum from April 2018 to January 2020: Not posting, not lurking, gone.
Others have already answered, for their parts, with some more or less different views of the events you describe. I will now speak for myself:You spoke your piece in that thread.
I didn’t.
Although, of course, it is impossible to prove what I would have done, anybody who knows me will know that I would have argued against the yahoo-plus-Yobit proposition vehemently in the thread you cite.
I have some modicum of experience at spamfighting, going back to Usenet in the 90s (n.a.n.a.e., etc.).* I hate spam, I know the devious ways of spammers, and I would never have accepted the argument that it’s better to let a spammer advertise under the “control” of a reputable manager than to ban the spammer, period. It is an argument which would have been incinerated with extreme prejudice on n.a.n.a.e., too.
If some others supported your management of the Yobit campaign, yahoo62278, then yes: There is some responsibility to be shared for the later results. However, joint responsibility does not absolve you of personal responsibility. Not in the first instance—and especially not after the point when it became clear that Yobit was scamming with Ponzis, etc.
(* Aside, a part of what first drew me toward Lauda is that she reminds me of some of the toughest n.a.n.a.e. regulars. That was a rough world full of revenge-doxing by spammers, spammers’ death threats, frivolous lawsuit threats, bizarrely stupid smear tactics, etc., plus a constant stream of b.s. excuses and fallacious arguments about a “free speech” right to mass-defecate in your inbox. I recall one post by n.a.n.a.e. legendary Vernon Schryver who, after a spammer threatened to murder him, casually mentioned some means by which unwelcome visitors could be made to disappear into the acreage at his home in Colorado. I think he said something about chainsaws, and maybe about his access to a backhoe... There is nothing new here—actually, this forum is relatively tame.)
Others have otherwise adequately addressed the substance of yahoo’s statement.Once again, ME pointing out this case of hypocrisy in this Yobit campaign is what lead to this thread, and possibly their closing up shop here..
Wrong. My creation of this thread had nothing to do with you; if I saw any of your posts when I reviewed all the Yobit threads, I don’t remember them. The Yobit-related posts which stood out to me personally were by o_e_l_e_o (whose posts on X10/Investbox first brought my attention to this issue), JollyGood, Lauda, and a few others.
You have made some excellent posts in this thread; and if you have been pushing the same issue, I applaud you for that. Now, please don’t try to take credit for my independent decision that I should dare to damn the consequences, stand up, and say, This is a yahoo issue before it is an issue of all the people following his lead, who must then be duly dealt with.
(And it worked, if I do say so myself.)You're all welcome for my fine community services of questioning hypocrisy at great risk to my own reputation to keep DT straight.
Hey, “you’re welcome” for mine. (And look at my reputation now: I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before. Do you think that’s right, eddie?)
The foregoing needed to be said; and the past five pages hold much discussion that I should wish to reply to. However, I agree with this—all of it, eddie13 as well as Lauda:The end.@Lauda @nulliusI'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time".
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
I am hereby locking this thread on grounds of “mission accomplished”.
If anybody has anything important to say specifically on the topic of “yahoo62278 and Yobit”, please PM me a request for a temporary unlock. In particular, if yahoo wants to reply to what I have said above, then it would be unfair of me to just take the last word. But barring any new developments, I have no desire to carry this thread further. The topic title is “yahoo62278 and Yobit”—whereas yahoo62278 is neither managing nor advertising Yobit right now. And as I said one week ago:Though I would not be deterred by the inevitability of drama, I don’t want the drama—and if I did, Faketoshi has more of it anyway, with the added “benefit” of being so much slimier and more disgusting.
We have achieved the final result as Lauda said 
Apart from him being respected by many people here, I don't think he has many friends. Therefore, theoretically, the voting rate is still fairly fair 
