Bitcoin Forum

So I am wanting to know peoples thoughts on DT-1 members who have had sig bans due to being copy pasta sauce pajeets. I have one of the recent culprits on my trust-list and another excluded so I wanted to get the communities thoughts on this. Is it acceptable? should we be excluding for this? or is it just seen as OK and business as usual.

In my mind it is up to these banned/sig banned DT members to explain themselves (sooner than later) and provide some context with the reason why they were sig banned and appeal to DT directly. The mods/staff/this insane new bot have done their job and now it's up to DT to act aswell.

You must have added them because you know their feedback is valid.
If everyone removes them, their feedback will not be visible.
And a high chance of being scammed for newbie will arise.
Lastly, DT are processed mostly to protect newbie.
I would say don't exclude them.

The trust system requires us to use our own discretion and subjectivity.  I think it's safe to take the banned members on a case by case basis.  Treating them all the same way on your trust list might not be the best way approach the situation.

As for the members who are temp-banned; I'm willing to forgive members for making mistakes when they were new here.  Not everybody is as sensitive about plagiarism as I am.  But it's not something I can forget, and to pretend that it won't affect my judgment in the future would be misleading.  It might mean I'm less likely to include some one on my trust list, or at least less tolerant of errors in judgement.

It's more likely a reputation issue, but it's clearly not a TRUST issue.

If the person is sig banned for plagiarism then he/she somewhat harmed his/her rep, but the person is trusted and you trust him/her. So I don't think it's needed to exclude him/her from your trust list or stop doing business.

A sig ban member can be a trusted member as well.

I think everyone should decide for himself whether it is acceptable for him or not.

Inclusion in the trust list does not necessarily mean that you trust your money to this user - inclusion in the trust list means that you trust this user's feedbacks about other users.

Is it possible that you trust the user's feedback, but would not trust your money to this user? I think Yes, this option is possible.

Agree here


disagree here, if they cant be arsed to read rules why should we trust them?

I'm assuming they'll get kicked out of DT1 for the next 2 rounds due to 60-day temp ban.

I think plagiarism is deception and I would think twice before including such a person in my trust list but I would probably not go out of my way to exclude them. Depends a lot on how the person acts after getting caught. I'm not a fan of attempts to downplay it along the lines of "no big deal, it was 1 time 5 years ago".

Imo plagiarism is nothing to do with trust issues. A stupid/idiot person can also be a trusted person, right?

Trust < I'm referring to money involvements and trades.

The person who got banned/sig banned today, but till yesterday had a good record of trust with his trades and activities.
The community trusted the person all the time but with his/her one stupidity the community begins to distrust - it's how logical I don't know.

It is my stance that plagiarism is a way people were stealing money such that they believed no one would notice the theft. This is similar to a casino with bankroll investors betting against the bankroll with knowledge of the seeds. Or you could say it is similar to someone stealing money out of the tip jar that should be split up among the waitstaff. Another example would be a dog walker coming into a persons house, not walking the dog and stealing jewelry out of a jewelry box.

I would not trust anyone caught plagiarizing. IMO, if they think they have an opportunity to steal from you without getting caught they will.

While I generally only exclude people cased on the feedback accuracy, I have also placed exclusions for what I consider to be overreactions or a misuse of their perceived power as a DT member, I've done this for non DT as well. That generally applies to a newer member who cultivated enough trust to find their way in. I'll admit I rarely know or care who is actually on DT-1.

For me personally this situation shows poor judgement on their part, but needs to be reviewed based on each case. If they have anything less than this reaction:


I might consider them to have poor character and be weary of including them in my list, as they may require more monitoring than it is worth. I agree that we all make mistakes and in the same way we shouldn't be leaving negative feedback for these users I wouldn't outright exclude them. A lot of these members have redeemed themselves over time and that's the only reason they aren't permabanned. There are other who are still whining about the leniency they've been shown this would be enough for me to remove them from my list but not necessarily exclude them. I see that lack of self awareness as problematic and possibly a reflection of the feedback they may leave.

The thing is given enough time anyone can redeem or disqualify themselves in my eyes, so my list can remain fluid.

It surely is a dent in their reputation, that while on it's own may not warrant an exclusion, if it is a lesser case, but may be the grain of rice that tips the scale against them..
If it is found that they plagiarized 100 posts then totally, exclude them..


IMO, upholding the quality/reputation of BTCT users in high positions of trust/power, that are supposed to be role models, supposed to be people to look up to, is more important than trying to protect newbies at all costs..
Protecting newbies is not an effective counter for acting poorly. It does not excuse you from bad decisions just because you might protect some newbie..

Most of recent plagiarism ban happening due to their past mistake. I was not much aware about forum rules at the begging (although I had not copy pasted anything consciously) but all users were not same. I think most of users were same as me so they did a mistake by copy others post. Obviously this is a untrustworthy behavior, so indirectly this is (plagiarism) related with trust system since they are stealing content from other users although plagiarism moderated by forum.

Since forum giving them second chance based on their current contribution case by case then its depend on you that will you give them second chances or not. If I were you then I will look on their (banned users) current contribution regarding reconsider of trust list. If their feedback's accuracy almost good and their current contribution fair enough them I would like to keep them on trust list although they will removed from DT1 due to ban issue.    

Yeah, I'd say it's acceptable.  I trust people in real life who are far from saints and who've done things much worse than plagiarism.  And although it's generally accepted on this forum that copy/pasting someone else's words is wrong, remember that there are members here from all over the world, and in some of those places it isn't considered wrong.  True, they should have read the rules before doing it, but we all know many people don't.  So I wouldn't have a problem having someone in my trust list who got busted for plagiarism.  It's wrong, but it's not the worst offense in the world and doesn't mean a person can't otherwise be trusted.

This is my understanding as well.  I can forgive an indiscretion like that if a person hasn't made a habit out of doing it.  They should have known better, but I don't think there are any candidates for sainthood on bitcointalk, even among members of the DT list. 

If, for example, Yahoo62278 (I just picked him randomly) was found to have copy/pasted something back in 2015, would I remove him from my trust list?  Absolutely not. And why?  Because there are multiple reasons for which I have him included on my list, and a single act of plagiarism from years ago would not negate them.

But, but.. I need something to feel good about myself so I'm going to shout that any and all plagiarism is unacceptable! The world is going to end if we handle it in any other way!!!

https://i.imgur.com/leSfqFt.png

Well one of the accounts I was talking about is bill gator, turns out he is an account buying pajeet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145840.0

Everyone should remove him from DT just for that

That put aside, we haven't had a single senior banned for this yet. Only newcommers. Watching.

Do we now have different rules for DT members and non DT members as it concerns plagiarism? This is an offence as far as I agree with your post though. The forum has its standard for such misconduct .

DT members should be held to a higher standard then a normal user IMO. No, plagiarism is not a trust issue, but it is a character issue. If a DT member is showing that they will steal(that's what plagiarism boils down to), then they are not trustworthy and therefor should not be on DT and tagged. If they're willing to steal someone else's posts for a buck then what else would they do for money?

Users are supposed to be able to partially rely on a DT users opinion and ratings. Once we find out a DT member has been found to be a thief, how can we trust their ratings any longer? How do we know they didn't send out ratings for personal gain? Too many what ifs become the case.

This right here is what we have to consider. If we let the DT member off the hook with a slap on the wrist, how are we being fair to the other members of the community?

I'm not saying the member who stole a post is a total piece of shit and could not be trusted, but it would be hard to trust their opinion. It's like cheating on your significant other and they find out. You may break up with that person and later on get back together with them, but you have already broken that persons trust and they will never be able to forget it or fully trust you again. You've tainted the water.

Can that member still be a productive member of the forum? Sure, but they should never be a part of DT again. Ratings can be adjusted after a period of time passes, just no more DT IMO.

The rules regarding pretty much anything are different for seniors and non seniors. It's all about that intent.

More and more "rules for thee but not for me" :D

Correct. It is because I am this

and you are this:

That case is about bought account, it's not just plagiarism case. Plagiarism ban with bought account couldn't be treated same as normal plagiarism case. An account seller/buyers can't be in my trust list (although I had not added him previously).

This is good to know. I will be sure to keep this for future reference.

I'm glad that you agree that you're a filthy degenerate peasant. Now, back to work.