Yeah, you are right that it's good to think a little bit what kind of words should be used to describe the situation.
My point was mostly towards people like @thejohalfiles, @onceuponatime and @stan who thought we should have given a chance for @matttrainer to show what he has to offer. It's more harmful than useful to let cases like that to go on until we can be 100 % sure whether or not it's a scam. Because usually it is and that will lead to defrauding of many users.
Right. Well what @mattrainer should have done was to give up the payout of the post first of all.
Then if he actually had a game going on, let him explain it in full before it's upvoted. If he says things that don't check out, then he has lied and it's a scam.
But even if this had not been a scam, there would have been nothing wrong with pointing out previous incidents.
I'm disappointed that Stan got involved in this and I've asked him to make a statement about it, but I can see and empathize with why he might have first thought it was a positive thing for the platform (since he had successfully worked with the guy) and then dug his heels in even as things started to look bad.
I see a lot of trust issues in the anarchist/anarcho/crypto community overall. Some people trust anyone, some trust the wrong people time and time again (genuinly trust) and some people imidiately distrust anyone who has a vision or comes out with a new product/marketing idea.
I just don't want us to swing to either side and I instead think that we should notice that there probably is too much emphazis put on "trust" as such most of the time. On a positive note, at least this is where the blockchain and open source can come in to fill the gap to certain extent.
Anyways, I think your intent is good and as you said, it's a matter of wording it.