Topic: yahoo62278 and Yobit - page 2. (Read 2580 times)

Either tag them or stop the discussion, because stretching it like a piece of rubber will only bring in highly nonsense sensical comments when we all know that the end conclusion will remain in favor of users and yahoo collectively to 'let go' them once. I don't think there is any law of the forum or DTs that allows such a universally punishable act here, so if you [Lauda] don't want that 'next time' to happen and if it happens, will tag even the campaign manager with all the involved users - why don't you open a poll for DTs to support you on that law which you are trying to enforce here right now?

No, relevant. I don't give a shit what you were responding to. I am responding to you.

Irrelevant, wasn't responding to that. Read:

This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects.

Maybe he made an exception. I'm just pointing out that he screens ads AND has a warning. If there was screening for signature ads AND a warning next to each one I could probably justify the ignorance of some signature wearers claiming that they don't need to bear responsibility for what they put in their signatures. As it stands now they should be as responsible for their signature content as they are responsible for the content of their own posts.

O, so that's why we have the matrixport ad, now I get it 

Look, I don't mind and I don't care, all I'm saying is that people should have brains of their own.
We can't save the world, trying is futile. Everything else is some social crap.

Theymos also says this:

I don't mean to directly accuse YOU of anything.. Sorry if it came off like that but I don't recall it having anything to do with anything you did..
It's about the concept..

I also respect and tend to mostly agree with your 2nd line I quoted there..



Speak up if you see it.. Bring attention to it.. Call out whatever you see for whatever it is..


Scam accusations=90
Major accusations=27

Yobit is a leading exchange in one aspect atleast..

Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.

---

[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/compilation-of-all-scam-accusations-threads-related-to-exchanges-5168200.

Maybe I missed the point, but this is exactly what I feel I'm being accused of.  Tagging someone because I don't like him, while not tagging someone I like despite the same behavior.  

My point is that I feel it's wrong to tag anyone for wearing a signature, unless it's a slam dunk, no question about it, proven scam.  And even then, I'd give that person ample warning.  

We all need to earn a living, so I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt.  If my children were hungry and someone offered me a job, I may not question too closely what that job implies.  I understand that may not be the best attitude to have for society in general, but I'm empathetic enough to put myself in such a situation.  Luckily I've never had to compromise my ethics to feed my children, but I'm not so naive to suggest that no one ever would.

I'll take this opportunity to use the words of one of my most vociferous critics to help illustrate my point:

I don’t think “someone said it was okay” is a valid reason to do something wrong. You need to think for yourself to know what is right and use good judgment even if someone is giving bad advice.

Additionally, even though Yobit was shady when yahoo started managing their campaign, additional negative information came to light after yahoo started managing their campaign. New information about a company being a scam is exactly why someone should immediately leave a job, especially if their group is involved in the shadiness.

Some people are going to push back on saying yahoo is in the wrong, probably in part because yahoo is paying for their signatures.

You should be brave enough to write from your main account else your opinion does not matter.  Everyone can express his feelings and opinion and people have enough patience to listen to everyone.

I'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".

It seems you've missed the point..
It's not right to tag someone you disagree with while not tagging someone you generally agree with while they are doing the exact same thing..
In that case you would just be using it as an excuse to tag someone you don't like while giving a pass to users you like for the same actions..


@Lauda @nullius
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..

@yahoo
All you did was keep them from getting banned for spamming again.. The no manager option would have been better and just have let them get themselves banned again..


No issue with advertising a spammer forum made for the purpose of competing with this great forum, by a company that has blatantly disrespected this forum to the point of being banned for paying absolute scammers edit spammers to shit up these boards..

And what did they do? The same thing again with the exception of getting you to narrowly keep them from being banned again..
Another round of as much spam as possible from Yobit but this time barely staying under the limit of being banned..


So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots..

This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not?

So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine"..

All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature..
Everything is fine..

I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with, after being banned, after trying to pull a switcheroo to directly advertise their scam..
But naw, everything is just fine..

I'm not arguing for you to get a red tag for it, but that shit's greasy AF..
Might as well be advertising a competing forum for CSW or Ver..
Yobit is only the most prolific shitcoin associate causing multitudes of new crypto users to get scammed by the worst-in-the-world shitcoins they list, and even arguably scammed by their exchange manipulated markets and/or exchange created predatory coins/markets designed to fleece the value from new crypto enthusiasts.. Not to mention their investboxes with ridiculous terms forcing their users to buy into these absoluteshitscamcoins and even to roll dice on their site that I have seen claims of being a rigged game..

They are absolutely gross, but yeah let's just advertise for them and everything is fine..

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. Being such a well regarded user wearing their badge of dishonor lends a lot of credence to the legitimacy of their exchange and "scams" to less-informed users who would trust your vouch for them..
I wouldn't feel good wearing that crap..

Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?

Please re-read what you just quoted. The pressure on Hhampuz did start with that one persistent accusation. There were a couple more, but nothing significant i.e. not much different than what exchanges have on average (i.e. nothing "sticking outo").

Well, I didn't write that he started it did I? I wrote that he took it over, i.e. took a management aspect of it over. Maybe I should have clarified there about his limited power in comparison to a normal management position, but both you and I know this thus I had not pointed it out. Others and I have been in similar positions, so it's not exactly a big caveat.

---

I'm using a line break here because the following reference confirms both points (i.e. Yobit being significantly worse than Livecoin) by any conceivable forum metric (we couldn't measure in a better way):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/compilation-of-all-scam-accusations-threads-related-to-exchanges-5168200

---

I know, and this is why we have jointly failed! We have chosen one evil over another when we could have chosen none. I might be guilty of this too as I don't remember.

Correct, and I'm not arguing to tag Yahoo alone either. I'm arguing pro-everyone tag, and also arguing that the entrenchment involved in DT1 does not allow this due to financial motivation, nepotism, and selective enforcement, without account suicide. I strongly insist at this point that this statement is objectively correct (other than the descriptive words being used ("due to") - those are debatable) - In case of doubt: Would a less ranked account manager be wrecked for this by now? Yes.

The silence in combination with the hypocrisy is really bothersome. I don't see, if he wasn't guilty of what I and others claim (actively keep looking the other way for money) then I see no reason not to fight it.

The implication of this "ruling" over this situation: Anyone can advertise any kind of scam in their signature and any kind of enforcement over it would be selective enforcement, i.e. abuse by DT. You do realize that, right? It can not be anything other than this, because you either disallow people to promote scamful entities or you don't. Just because a collective lapse of judgement was made with Yobit, that doesn't correct this error or prevent the precedence from happening (or DT turning into a complete hypocritical show).

---

Factor in the following: Do you think that I want to tag Yahoo for the sake of tagging? For fun? For some gain? Because I'm an evil witch? I want to tag him (and everyone else) because I need to, i.e. we need to. The situation is what it is, time can't be undone, and thus we can't change the moment of telling him to take it into telling him to stay away from Yobit. The very least that should be done is not trust his judgement (which is even more fair than the negative). If I'm in strong agreement with my biggest proponents (which has almost never ever agreed with any of them, let alone all of them), combined with my streak-record over the years (which has not been too inaccurate, I hope), then you really need to start to ask yourself: Why? I'm not saying that it logically follows that due to that combination that we are right, I'm just asking you to question how this could be.

---

I'm sorry you see it this way, but it's not even remotely close to an attack. I still consider you an overall relatively trustworthy person, but that does not excuse this or allow for DT to be riddled with selective enforcement and nepotism.. Had it been any other manager it would have been handled the same (well, they'd already be tagged were they a low positioned manager is my belief).

When a person is successful he is usually always hated by others who are unsuccessful or unwilling to work.
I have read many personal accusations, we can always speak civilly without falling into accusations and try to solve things.

Speaking in a civilized way works always. My two cents.

If theymos can do it, so can other people.
Moralists remain moral, principles gonna be strong but reality remains coherent, it's all about money.

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. Then when I woke up today and logged in I started seeing an agenda of sorts being pushed, so I figured why not take some time to think about my response before posting in a heated capacity and looking like a prick.

I don't want to go through this whole thread and quote tens of users and reply, instead i'll make a statement covering most of users concerns.

This thread was made way back in April of last year 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. I was again approached by yobit in regards to pushing their forum. I had no issues with that being as it was not considered a scam in any capacity. The campaign quickly filled up over 600 users in record time being as their were no registration requirements minus must be Sr member or higher. There was no selection process. No fear of using alts. No merit requirement. Nothing. You just go to the link and add the signature and do the other requirements and you're in. I was not a manager in any capacity either really, just a quality checker.

Then, fast forward to December 24th 2019, I woke up to the whole campaign changing. No communication from Yobit regarding any changes, just woke up to a pm stating here's the new sigs, change them please. When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.

They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying, mentioned it at least a couple times in other threads. The reasoning for me wearing the sig was to test it at first, then I decided i'm not under contract with any other sites at the moment, I may as well keep it on. The offer was tested and worked so I personally did not see it as a scam.

I've read all the comments in this thread to this point and disagree with a few of you, while also agreeing with some points. Bottom line, the campaign is over. Everyone wants to form a lynch mob at Laudas request, feel free. You can ~me or distrust me or even tag me if you feel it is necessary. Life will go on. I feel like I did a fair job and held users to at least some sort of standard in the campaign.

Final point, everyone thinks being on DT is special or something and here lately it's not. It's really just a joke anymore. Seems like everyone is DT is some shape or form and the system is shit. Being on DT or off Dt makes no difference to me any longer. The old system, although still broken, was much better and way fewer wannabes looking to get noticed.

I will not disqualify anyone from a campaign for having an opinion. There are several users I have hired whom I disagree with on certain things. People should not fear any backlash from me if they speak an opinion and if they do I apologize. We are not all going to agree on the same things and we shouldn't. We were born with free will and the right to choose.

Perhaps this may be true but I haven't seen any particular evidence of someone being denied from a campaign he's managed based upon a personal vendetta. Then again, it'd be kind of hard to prove because any applicant can be denied for any arbitrary reason. It is bizarre to see the love letters people post about Yahoo in hopes they'll be accepted in future campaigns for flattering him like this or the people that bump his campaign management services thread. It's almost all less established members that post this garbage too so I don't think any high ranking members whose words actually carry weight would be afraid to speak out as they don't have any issues getting accepted to signature campaigns.

---

I figured this to be the case as I have not seen evidence that any users that offer vouches to your services threads being given preferential treatments in your current campaigns. Nonetheless, it's almost exclusively lower level members that attempt to sway your judgement.

Coward.