Bitcoin Forum

On or about 15 May 2019, #1021758 “hacker1001101001” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758) was issued a 60-day temp ban and 2-year signature ban for plagiarism (#post_why_user_was_banned), as discussed below.  I presume that the reason for avoiding a permaban was the user’s purported history of forum contributions (#post_why_some_people_wanted_mercy), including allegedly fighting against scams (!).

Well, as it turns out, the user’s biggest contribution to the forum was either personally to wield a fraudulent spam sockpuppet army—or by his own admission, to be involved with others in ICO-bumping, i.e. fraudulent paid spamming.


Unedited quote:  A general denial of having a multitude of sockpuppets bumping ICOs, coupled with an admission to having been “involved in bumping business”, i.e. involved in paid spamming—and not only a total lack of remorse, but a defiant, self-righteous assertion of a purported ethical duty to protect his allegedly existing ICO-bumping fraudulent spam accomplices:

Whereupon I am hereby acting independently, and separately from marlboroza’s Reputation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0).  I have not requested any other person’s support prior to creating this thread.  Although I am relying on marlboroza’s thread as to fact, that thread discusses trust issues, and this thread appeals to the administration to review the “hacker1001101001” case for the following reasons:

• Separate Argument A for a ban:  I presume that the leniency granted to the user for his blatant violation of the forum’s strict anti-plagiarism rule was based on the false premise that the user was allegedly a good contributor who perhaps made a naïve mistake.  Whereas the user’s actual major contribution was spamming—and the user was obviously not naïve as to his plagiarism offence, given that he was deeply involved in other wrongdoing.
  
  (N.b., I do not buy the general argument that a newbie user may naïvely plagiarize without realizing that it is against the rules.  Plagiarism is wrong.  Schoolchildren who get busted for plagiarism are punished for cheating.  Nobody has any excuse for not knowing that it is wrong to rip off somebody else’s words, and pretend they are one’s own.  It is akin to an argument that newbies may not know that theft is wrong.  However, since an ICO-bumping paid spammer was obviously never naïve or innocent, this argument need not be reached here.)
  
  Since the leniency for plagiarism was based on a false premise, it should be reviewed and reversed, resulting in a permaban on the user including all of his past, present, and future accounts.  It is a well-established principle that bans apply to the person, not merely the account.
• Separate Argument B for a ban:  ICO-bumping is spamming per se.  Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence.  I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question:  “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand?  (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)”  The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”
  
  I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers.  As marlboroza recently pointed out (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54213142#msg54213142), ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.
  
  Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period.  ICO-bumping has always violated the forum’s anti-spam rule on its face, by the definition of the word “spam”; and anybody who may potentially allege a failure to understand that `ICO-bumping == spamming` would be either lying, or mentally retarded.
• Investigative suggestion:  The forum’s administrators (and global mods?) have access to IP evidence.  If the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167410#msg54167410) is so careless with leaving around blockchain evidence, then it is probable that he did not properly hide his IPs when sockpuppet-spamming.
  
  N.b. that unconnected IPs for different accounts would not prove a negative, since it would be trivial for anyone smart to [deleted so as to not give an instruction manual on how to evade IP checks]; however, positive linkage of accounts by login and/or access IP addresses would be strong evidence that the accounts are all sockpuppets.  Morever, it would probably be more efficient for admins/staff to review the IP logs than to wait for marlboroza to continue painstakingly sifting through blockchain evidence.
  
  This evidence is only relevant to including the user’s alts under the same ban.  It is irrelevant to the matter of banning the user, who is an admitted spammer previously temp-banned/sig-banned for plagiarism.

---

---

---

Prior discussion of the “hacker1001101001” ban appeal:

Quote from: sergey1980 on May 15, 2019, 10:03:38 AM

You are English-speaking people so hate plagiarism, and here you cover the offender.

This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?

You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist?

Quote from: sergey1980 on May 16, 2019, 03:18:27 PM

I have no complaints about punishment, it is really cruel but fair.

QFT.  Well, I speak English, and I do not excuse the offender!

Although to my knowledge, forum admins and staff did not publicly state the reason for granting leniency to the user, the opinion of many people supporting such leniency was that the user had allegedly made good contributions.  I don’t want to pick on iasenko here, although I disagree with him; I will simply quote his post as representative of this line of thinking, because he stated his opinion clearly and concisely:

Quote from: iasenko on May 15, 2019, 09:42:27 AM

He has many scam investigations and accusation against shady projects with plagiarized whitepaper or fake team. So he was doing quite good for the forum. Just see his last started topics and you will see what I'm talking about.

It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment.

The reason for the 2019 ban of “hacker1001101001”:

Quote from: Mr. Big on May 15, 2019, 07:31:26 AM

Quote from: hacker1001101001 on April 25, 2018, 09:08:47 PM

Quote from: whatthesith on March 14, 2018, 04:12:26 PM

Snip

I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.

Quote from: olumyd on April 21, 2018, 05:19:56 AM

I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.

The user’s excuse for plagiarism:

Quote from: Hacker1001101001_alt on May 15, 2019, 08:03:19 AM

Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know.

I just don't remember when I did this shit!

Dagnabbit.  Plagiarist’s Bingo (https://www.mocacinno.com/bingo/) (forum thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0)) needs support for, “I just don’t remember when I did this shit!”

In the thread about his ICO-bumping, the user’s evasiveness and excuses for his spamming evoke the Rules of Spam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3180215.0).

In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs, blacklisted from their careers, and retroactively stripped of their academic degrees for plagiarism.

Surely, an enormous forum spammer and his whole sockpuppet-spammer army do not deserve mercy—not for plagiarism, and not for spamming.

---

Acknowledgments

This thread would not have been possible without the tireless investigative work done by marlboroza (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736), the investigation by Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) which brought marlboroza’s investigation to my attention, and support and contributions from too many people to list succinctly without risk of inadvertently missing somebody.  I must thank everybody who performs such investigative chores in the interest of protecting the forum community against the type of implosion when net.abusers take over.

Reserved for thread metadata (cross-references, forward-references, etc.).

Reserved for list of connected accounts.

---

N.b.:


(Text decoration is added by me.)

Reserved for summary of evidence.

---

At present, I think this is the best capsule summary that I have seen thus far:


(Textual decoration in that last paragraph is added by me.)

Clearly the double standards bogus kind of flowery fluff we are used to from nullius the hypocrite and scammer supporter.

Hacker0101000101 does not deserve a ban if you are to be consistent and fair. This is even if we accept all they claim about hacker is true.

This is clearly evident if you employ common sense and are not a scammer supporter like nullius.

There are 4 clear reasons why hacker0101000101 should not be banned  


1. We have not banned those that are far more dangerous and have engaged in more ruthless and serious wrong doing. These are on DT and can leverage that position for greater damage.
2. He has admitted his wrongdoing and said he will not do it again
3. Has red tags and not on DT
4. Has not abused red tags to silence those whistle blowing on him.


Those reasons set him at a far lower priority for a ban than other members here.

Punishment or rather behaviors requiring punishment aka a ban. Must be given context so that those giving out the punishment are seen as consistent and fair.

To ban hacker0101000101 now would be totally unfair if you consider the forums best interests and the prior ruthless and much more sinister wrong doings of lauda the scammer and nutildah the willing scam facilitator for pay, even tmans deliberate auction scamming or chibitcity (Who they all begged theymos not to ban) deliberate and totally financially motivated plagiarism  

It is wrong to advocate punishment with no context.  Only context and a full and complete review of a persons entire history can provide you with a sensible objective consistent and fair course of action.

If we compare hacker0101000101 to... for example lauda who nullius praises and supports on DT and basically eats laudas ass daily like a slobbering old perv probably because he believes lauda is female.

If you really investigate lauda who has nullius as his old bitch

1. Lauda undeniable is a liar and scammer.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0
2. We know lauda was removed from mod because he was strongly implicated in serious extortion with his friend tman.
3. Lauda uses red tags to silence whistleblowers who say they will encourage others to review his history
4. Lauda is in cahoots with another proven auction scammer tman
5. Lauda is also supportive of and is supported by a proven willing scam facilitator for pay nutildah who when busted tries to delete the evidence
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0
6. Lauda is caught merit abusing with atriz ( many believe an alt)
7. Atriz and nullius embroiled in a scam with alia. Lauda is there claiming atriz must be left out of this when it is quite plausible it was huge scam involving them all.
8. They never admit any wrong doing at all and trust abuse other who bring it up.
9. Nullius appears to have awoken from a deep sleep for months to suddenly awaken to given red trust to laudas whistleblower and prime critic for " showing empathy"
10. Nullius reviewing the evidence of laudas scamming and nutildahs willing scam facilitating for pay makes up ridiculous excuses and is afraid to discuss them in public.


In summary.

Hacker0101000101 poses a far less openly dangerous and ruthless threat than

Lauda - fortunejack
Tman - fortunejack
Nutildah - fortunejack
Nullius
Marlboroza

These members collude together ( many cycling merits and trust includes) to be in positions of trust.
They then use those trust positions to red tag whistleblowing, trade red tag removal with other members to mutually expunge documented wrong doing.

With regard hacker0101000101

He has red tags, he is excluded, he has a 2 year sig ban already?
He has admitted his wrongdoing

Before any further punishment is considered ( at the behest of scammers and scammer supporters)
Then fair and consistent action or punishment must be taken against them.

Clearly gobshite old perv scammer supporter nullius has an agenda.
Let's  not be peruaded into biased and unfair action by the likes of this sneaky peace of filth.


This calling for other members to be banned by scammer and their bitches is nauseating.
What hacker has done with paid ico bumping teams is wrong especially if they are not credible projects and he knew this and knowingly promulgated false information about them.

Let's start focusing on eliminating the most potent and dangerous scammers and their supporters from positions of trust before we worry about moving less dangerous members from their red rusted. non DT, sig banned accounts all together.

Hacker0101000101 should be treated fairly and consistently.

Remove the more dangerous and less remorseful scammers who are in positions of trust here first. Then you can worry about fine tuning hacker0101000101 current punishment levels.

I would not argue the ban of hacker0101000101 if the more serious threats here are banned first.

I would suggest banning the others and giving hacker a mandatory sig that generates money directly for the forum for 10yrs
A real enthusiast would not object. But only if fair and consistent punishment was given to the others first.

Without context this is an unfair witch hunt by proven scammers and their supporters to crush a member that stood up against them

Do the right thing theymos.  It does not take much investigation to see that most here only wish to milk this forum for all the sig spam, escrow fees, campaign management and protection racket fees they can dominate.

Wakey wakey time to kick off these parasites and let the real enthusiasts for this place flourish. Those that believe in being fair.

I'm not whitewashing hacker. I am painting him his correct shade of gray, not the black to laudas white nullius wants to con people into believing. Nullius is nearer to black than hacker. Willful disgusting scammer protector. Nobody fetches scammer ass like this moron nullius, unless they hope lauda will eventually stand in where alia bailed out or it's an alt of that scammer.

Pushing double standards is as damaging long term here as scamming.

Also jayjuangee is clearly dishonest. Told me he is not advocating punishment for hacker now here he is giving merit to a call for a ban.
You simply can not trust these people.

Unless he want to explain?

One can't become more naive, workless and mentally effected due to effects of Lockdown and Quarantine more than the OP. Seek doctor's help.

I would like to see a bit more evidence and proof but one more temp-ban will do him good and forum in general.
Let him spend some quality thinking time

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

This coordinated effort to go after hacker1001101001 only began once he started being openly critical of Lauda. Since then it has been a nonstop procession of all the same clowns that come after anyone who ever says anything that is not glowing praise for Lauda, working overtime to find or manufacture any justification whatsoever to exercise their retribution against this user. None of this is new, nor is it a threat to the user base even if it was. This is just more of the same abuse of any system they can get their hands on to punish people who openly disagree with them.

This war between groups that want to control DT and do a big repertory of services is so fun to watch.
Ofcourse I mean services like growing trust or defamation.
Edit:I mean this towards Lauda's group obviously, I don't like/trust TS's either but he never showed untrustworthy behaviour just precipitated thinking/actions and poor admision on his wrong claims/actions and in my case alone since never investigated hi.

Funny, moderator deletes more on topic posts from genuine people and leaves the ones from trolls from this very thread too. I wonder how effective the report on plagiarism would be. Seems there is on going moderation bias by somebody.

Sounds about right from your habbit of being biased even in this thread too by ignoring the fact that the OP is full of shit.

Exposing ICO bump service or how some people call it, spam service, is not "war between groups that want to control DT"! You will never say that all these users are in war https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4720640.0 you are selectively choosing where to post and what to post.

Account TECSHARE should go to that topic and start shilling for other spambies, especially the ones payed to post fake reviews for ICO's, like he is shilling for this fraudulent service for last 4 months.


For more details check:


It is beyond my knowledge how this plagiarist, fraudulent bump account and spam service got the second chance.

That is correct. I just remembered something  :)

 So as I read the op.  Hacker was caught and punished admitted he was guilty served his time.

Are there new infractions?

OP could you list the end date of hacker's 60 ban.
Op could you list new sins after hacker's 60 day ban.

Something like his ban ended on  July 18 2019

on aug 2019 he did this post
on sept 2019 he did this post
on oct 2019 he did this post

OR ALL THE SINS YOU HAVE PREDATE THE BAN HAMMER

What 60 days ban?

---

Oh, I just realized that hacker was banned somewhere in May, 2019. and transactions to some fake buzz review accounts came in June 2019. while some accounts continued to spam until November 2019. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221633#msg54221633 , https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221706#msg54221706 etc). Somewhere in that period Theymos introduced new bump system, which likely kicked many fraud services out of business. Hacker claim he stop doing this business, well, that could be truth, yet again, hacker is proven lying cunt so I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

This one...

I missed that one  :-[

That's alright, hacker doesn't remember it, so I guess that means it never happened.

---

I don't think the ban hammer absolves all preceding "sins". E.g. if a solid link can be established between the sockpuppets and it can be shown that he spam-bumped threads with multiple accounts, that should be viewed as a separate issue. However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

I don't call it a war between groups either. I call it a bunch of clowns trying to punish people for criticizing them. Well, you got me! We both use words. That is all the proof needed by the clown car to determine guilt. Tell me, exactly how am I "interfering"?



They get their retribution for speaking a little too freely, and they get to send a message that anyone who is critical of them pays consequences for their actions. It is not moot at all!

I have already told you, if you want to discuss anything with me, post something new. You are repeating yourself like a parrot. You must post something without using your usual keywords, otherwise only thing I see are keywords.

Seems hacker remembers everything now:

What consequences? Any nutjob can create a pointless thread about anything, like you do incessantly about posts that aren't deleted to your liking. Are those threads supposed to be your retribution against users speaking too freely?

The only thing that may have consequences for hacker1001101001 is his continuing lies.

"free speech" works only when TECSHARE is doing it. Lets not forget when he reported my post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220741.0) because he didn't like what I said and then he complained that moderators are censuring his right to speak freely  :D

---

Regarding this appeal of ban appeal and what bugs me here, was hacker's "spam business" known at the time he got signature ban, or it was irrelevant?

I don't need to explain anything.

I guess that more of my attention has been drawn to the hacker matter in recent times, including that I am reading through some of the posts and I have been noticing that if some member(s) seems to have put work and research into providing evidence and logic that attempts to explain that evidence, then in my view that seems to deserve some merit(s).  So, yes, I have been moved to give some merit to some posts based on evidence, logic and sometimes what seems to be some compiling work..... and sometimes i will also give merit, and it might not agree with the conclusions that are argued in the post, but instead seems to deserve merit for raising, highlighting or clarifying some points.... hey I might not even conclude that the evidence as a whole or overall is compelling, but the post still raised a clarification or another or caused me to reconsider my thinking on some matter. 

You do seem to want read a lot into the sending of smerits... and maybe even attribute more weight to the sending of smerits than they deserve, anyhow... by the way, if a member such as myself might have only so much time that he can spare online for that day, or maybe during a window period, he might give smerits for posts that he is able to read during that window period that he is on for that day.. .or maybe he does not have any smerits to send during the window period... so he might NOT have time to be able to read some other posts that might be better on the same topic or he might not be able to give smerits because he does not have any.

In terms of substance, I do tend to believe that there are a lot of contradictions that hacker seems to be making himself, but I still have not really taken any specific kind of advocating step, beyond what I had already stated earlier, which would be that hacker might muster up to either help himself better, or maybe just move on from some of the battles and figure out ways to contribute substance to the forum in order to attempt to rebuild his credibility in those kinds of rebuilding ways, if that is possible or wanted by hacker.  I had seen one or more posts from hacker that had seemed to show that he wanted to rebuild some credibility for his account, so it seems to me that sometimes his fighting some of the matters seem to cause more contradictions, even coming from his own keyboard, rather than really working on building credibility.

By the way, I do sometimes feel that I need to attempt to apologize to other members because I understand that the topic is not about me (and frequently not about me nor about my practices or my rationale for my practices at the time of my posting the response), and so in that sense, I don't necessarily know enough about the topic, yet I end up allowing members like bonesjones to drag me into responding into an area that is almost completely off topic, and maybe it would be better if I did not say anything rather than to start out my response by saying that "I do not need to respond" and then to end up responding with an area of discussion that is largely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

This... as if you don't know I am responding directly to your quote.


As far as the rest of your post...

https://i.imgur.com/Qa304zE.jpg

Ah, this is one of those things where you're explaining to other people that the meaning of their posts is the opposite of what the actual words say.

If hacker1001101001's posts violate rules they should be reported and if he deserves a temp-ban because of that - he should get it (or maybe get "time served" if the moderators are so inclined). Not because someone posted a wall of text arguing for double jeopardy. Which part of this is too complicated for you?

No, it is one of those things where I respond to a direct question from you as far as what the consequences of these retribution based peanut hunts would be. What you meant is irrelevant, unless that is, you are trying to say your words didn't mean that he could receive a temporary ban. None of the information presented is even conclusive, not that it stops you and your clown friends from trying to manufacture a self serving narrative with peanut fragments and duct tape.

Fair enough. I keep forgetting that only your fantasies are relevant and saying "Lauda bad" grants amnesty of any and all rule violations. Carry on.

Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol


Bones jones = sensible consistent and fair punishment of hacker0101000101 requires context. Presents context for consideration.

Nullius = bones jones off topic troll.  Absolutely agree with bonesjones about context being essential to the process of forming sensible opinion on consistent and fair punishment for hacker0101000101. .
I am interested in protecting the forum from sock puppet sig spamming ( not the pharmacist though cos he's our pal) plagiarists.
I am also very interested in protecting scammers from fair consistent punishment which poses a greater threat to the forum.
I'm a very dangerous and retarded else I'm knowingly pushing double standards to support scammers.

Nullius for all your waffle and fluff you will never cast doubt over

1. Full context is a fundamental requirement for fair and consistent punishment
2. Those trying to prevent full context and open transparent comparison are biased and should be perceived as a threat to this forum

By all means call for punishment but don't dare to try to prevent your " suggestions" and arguments being openly examined, analysed and tested in an open and transparent and on topic manner.

Those fearing an open and transparent examination of their proposal or wanting their arguments evaluated free of context know their arguments are weak and bogus.

Your argument boils down to this

1. Scammers, auction scammers and willing scam facilitators for pay who do not admit wrong doing who collude together to game merit and trust and use red tags to silence whistleblowers ..I nullius will protect and support these by including them on default trust. They do not require a ban.

2. Plagiarist and ico sock puppet pumper ( banned for 60 days and being punished with 2 year sig ban and red tags ) ..who dared disagree with my scamming friends who I support and protect. I nullius say it is fair and consistent with my other actions to call for a perm ban for hacker0101000101 now?  Right?


Could your argument be any more broken, corrupt or dangerous?
I will support your ban for hacker0101000101 if you can demonstrate how your pals do not deserve a ban first. Lol at nullius Adding them to his inclusions and creating bogus excuses for their scamming. Ban them first then we measure hacker against them.


@jayjuangee - I only ask you remain consistent and stop trying to cast on topic highly relevant context for deciding on fair consistent punishment as off topic trolling. That is dishonest if that is what you are doing?

Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.
If you say more evidence was provided that caused you to change your mind that is fair enough. Don't claim off topic trolling when it is of paramount importance to conducting a balanced and fair debate. When people engaging in the debate either directly or by supporting with merit appear to have pulled a 180 on what they said previously then it is sensible to ask why they have done so.

I also find it strange that I present you with clear irrefutable evidence of financially motivated wrongdoing of those currently on default trust 1. Understanding I hope the leverage of being DT1 could provide a scammer you tell me you have no interest in doing homework and reviewing a few 100 words.
Amazing how you will review 1000s of words homework from nullius and marlboroza for a member that is not of DT1, already punished and red tagged and start to merit " investigative " homework and appearing to support a ban for hacker0101000101 now? Your time is not being spent with the best interest of the forum is it?

Be fair and honest for once. You are only thinking of your own popularity and not caring one bit about seeing fair consistent treatment of all members.
Don't think I will be friends with those that push double standards.  Change your ways please.
I don't think you want to support scammers but you want to be popular. Pick a side. Don't try to do both in a board that is taken over by scammers and their supporters.

Only by being unpopular in such a setting can you know you are on the correct path.

My interest is not preventing hacker0101000101 being banned, only to ensure a ban is the fair and consistent punishment he deserves while nullius protects and excuses other more serious scammers and trust abusers who are milking the forum harder of btc with their antics?

What a thrilling line of productive and rational on-topic debate.

If I were “hacker1001101001”, I would be shouting from the rooftops that this is a false-flag “defence” designed to destroy my reputation by making it look like my best friends and associates are disgusting cretins.  (Of course, if I were “hacker1001101001”, there would have been neither plagiarism nor ICO-bump spamming in this case; but I digress...)

Nobody can control what others say about him online; and also, for my part, I don’t generally agree with or even like everybody who ever says anything favourable to me.  Of course not.  On the flipside, I surely do not speak for everybody of whom I may speak positively from time to time; indeed, I have on occasion said some good things about people who personally dislike me, intensely dislike me, and assuredly are not my friends.

But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies.

“hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people.  He has had TEChSHARE make literal shitposts with photographs of feces (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54220090#post_ban_scatological_images) to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEChSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”.  (We drink to forget...)  And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”.

“hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEChSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild.  He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions.

A man is known by the company he keeps.  It goes to character.


Ridiculous.

I am not agreeing that there is any standard that I must be consistent and fair or that I even need to be... .  I already attempted to explain to you some of the considerations that I might employ, and I did NOT even explain all considerations, which you should already be able to extrapolate from what I already said instead of striving to employ some standards that do not exist.  

Let me just run with your nonsense for a minute and hypothesize, for example, that I log on to the forum, and on a given day, and I only have 1 hour on that day that I can read posts or respond to posts, but I do not have any smerits that I can send; however, while I am reading a post, I come across a post that I consider to be merit worthy from member abracadabra_loves_jones, and for some reason I do not have a piece of paper or any way to log my positive impression of that abracadabra_loves_jones post, but I make a kind of mental note that I should send abracadabra_loves_jones an smerit, so the next time that I am online on the next day, I see another post from abracadabra_loves_jones, and so I send an smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones on day two in regards to a second post.  

Heym bonesjones might assert that my sending that smerit was not "fair and consistent" because the second post was NOT as good as the first one, and that second post was NOT even worthy of an smerit.   I might have even disagreed with some of the points that abracadabra_loves_jones made in that second post; however, the randomness of my sending the smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones on that second post ends up being inconsistent and unfair, but I give less than two fucks about that because in my mind, I had already determined that I was going to send an smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones based on that first post and I happened to NOT feel inclined to doing any research to find that first post because I fucking did not want to do any research.. even though it would have only taken me 2 more minutes (or even less than that) to find that other first post, but I did not want to spend two more minutes on that particular day, and even though everyone else concludes that I should spend 2 more minutes to find the other post in order to be fair and consistent.  Do I have discretion to decide whether to spend the extra 2 minutes or not?  I think that I do, and I believe that it is not necessary for me to have to justify that I sent the smerit to the second post rather than the first post.  

For whatever reason, I am not in a kind of a mood to make sure that I am being fair and consistent in that particular case, and I don't think that I need to be. I believe that in the hypothetical I am being totally reasonable given my own considerations.  So fuck off with your demand that I need to follow some kind of bonesjones standard of consistent and fair when I already explained to you (and probably over-explained) that I believe that I am being sufficiently reasonable in my own discretion of my own approach in terms of balancing my time and making posts and sending smerits.

By the way, I understand that I am providing a kind of dumb example above in order to make a responsive point to your standard imposition demands, bonesjones, and I am not necessarily conceding that I am just randomly sending out smerits, but I am asserting that you are trying to create a standard that does not exist.... and furthermore, none of us really hardly knows who you are anyhow (I already tried to figure this out with you), so why would you have much if any credibility to be suggesting or imposing standards, (whether smerit sending or participation standards).



There is no such dichotomy.


I said what I said.


Huh?  You consider that you are providing a service by off topic trolling. Interesting.


I already answered that.


I did not read any of your homework, and I still don't believe that I need to read homework that you assign in order to participate in various threads, whether I am posting replies or sending smerits.  We have already gone down this path, and you have not presented anything that causes me to feel that I need to do more homework or that I am missing something that is relevant to my being able to participate in the ways that I have so far chosen.


I did not say that.  I said that I had enough information available to me in order to participate in whatever ways that I had already participated, and you were trying to get me to do homework in off topic and irrelevant matters.  You have not proven the relevance of whatever homework you were striving to get me to do... All I have to do is read 100 words?  I thought that I had seen way more than 100 words.  I saw your post which let's just say is 100 words, but then you have not even proven yourself to be credible in any kind of way.. right?  You are a newbie who claims to know me in various ways and you come out bashing against me and then I am supposed to all of a sudden take your word for everything... I mean your supposed 100 words..  and then I saw a bunch of other reply posts.. that is just a quagmire of largely seeming irrelevance.  

You seem to be concluding that I am just blowing you off, but I am not.  I have been spending way too much time explaining certain perspective matters to you and including responding to a lot of your nonsense by probably giving you way too much benefit of the doubt, even though you tend to assign things to me, but you really do not even respond to various points that I make, and instead you just continue to impose your self and your standards.... We have already gone over this... no?
 

Did anyone say that I was reading any of those words in detail?  It depends on the circumstances, and sure I will look at the extent to which some members have backed up their claims, and surely it makes sense to give some additional credibility to members who have been reliable in the past.  If someone fucks you over and provides misleading information in the past, then it becomes much more difficult to let them drag you down the bullshit road again... so if you are comparing yourself to some of the other more credible members, then you are correct.. you have seemed to have already attempted to drag me down all kinds of bullshit roads and even providing lame evidence, lame facts, lame logic and coming to preposterous conclusions that are contradictory to other kinds of evidence...  

So I doubt that I am playing favorites, and if some other members fucks around with me by giving me bad information and sometimes do not even concede their own mistakes, then of course, I am going to spend less time reading anything that they have to say in the future.


Yes... there are some members who seem to be pushing for hacker to get more punishment.  That is true.


We have gone over this topic before too, didn't we?  You said that your mission is to improve the forum, so that seems to be a laudable mission.  

I am NOT proclaiming that your mission would be bad, if that is what you really are trying to do.  On the other hand, just because you have a certain mission, you hardly are convincing me that I should join in your purported mission.  I barely even trust you in terms of whether I can actually rely upon some of your representations, even in our direct interactions.. the ones that we have had up until now.  And since you seem to want to twist my words, twist my intentions and to create a variety of obligations upon me, I have some difficulties in motivating myself to really follow you in any kind of way that goes beyond or direct interactions and even less so to subscribe to what you represent to be your purported mission.


I have been trying to work with you... but if you are implying that I am neither honest or fair, then how can we make any progress with those kinds of seemingly unsubstantiated allegations?  I cannot even recall an instance in which I have neither been fair with you or dishonest.  So, yeah, difficult to work with you when you are just throwing out seemingly erroneous assertions.


We have already discussed these topics, and I don't see where any further elaboration is going to take us.


You said that you are not looking for friends.  You are changing your mind?  Hey, I said that I was not looking for friends, either, but we did go down that exploration path, and you and I are really having some challenges in the "friends" with each other department, right?

Regarding double standards.. that just seems to be some "out there" assertion, and I am not even sure how you can apply it to me, but hey, do what you will.



You want me to change how?  To be more like you?  That is ridiculous, no?  We have already gone over this topic, too, haven't we?


I doubt that there is any such clear dichotomy as you are wanting to assert or even a need to pick a side, either.



I did not even say that I was trying to do either.  You are the one ascribing attributes to my purported motivations.


We have all kinds of members in this forum.  They vary in their level of popularity and of course, they participate in the forum for a variety of reasons and a variety of motives that likely evolve over time, too.... At least hopefully.  Members who interact in various threads of the forum will likely evolve in a variety of ways during their forum membership.  We also have some members who register but they hardly ever post.  I personally believe that there is some value in posting and with interacting with other members, but sometimes it can take away from other important things in real life (not that forum participation is completely removed from real life).



O.k.  I don't have any problem with those kinds of goals or motives that you have.

Your entire post deliberately diverts away from the central point I am making that you are seeking to avoid.

You do not want your begging for hacker0101000101s ban to be fairly  considered and evaluated in the full context of " dangerous" and " scamming " behaviors that you support and excuse when it's your pals.

The inconvenient truth that you have demonstrated yourself to be a creepy old perv that ass kiss those you believe are female here is also relevant to my claim that your call for a ban is biased. I am hoping that this strange "I will protect scammers and support them on default trust but want people punished for showing empathy or ico bumping is just motivated by sexual urges and not because you are a scammer yourself.

That is not my central point though.  It is a pertinent point that should be considered.

If there are those that are looking at this debate wondering why nullius does seem to be sheltering scammers and including them on default trust whilst begging for bans for lesser evils of members that have had recent disagreements with those same scammers nullius shelters?
Then your previous dealings with alia (assumed female scammer nullius was slobbering over) and lauda ( purported female and certain
 scammer who nullius is slobbering over). It is important to note nullius came out of long period of inactivity and went straight after laudas the scammers prime critic on the bogus claim of him showing empathy? Red trust for empathy.Now going after hacker 01110111 after he recently fell out with your scammer pal lauda.

So in summary

1 nullius wants to employ clear double standards to justify a ban for hacker and pass it off as a total fair and consistent action on his part.

2 . Nullius wants to label " context" and his independent verifiable observable actions towards others as
Trolling and off topic because he knows once we take a deeper look at his actions they will be unfair and biased.

3. Nullius has started to realise you can not claim something is fair and consistent without context so changes his focus to a less central point which is his possible motivation for trying to push double standards.

4. I say to those reading and wondering why nullius is trying to label context as trolling and off topic. Or why nullius is including scammers,  and willing scam facilitators for pay on default trust and concocting weak and silly excuses for their directly dangerous behaviors? It may not be that nullius is stupid ( I see that looks likely) or that he is motivated by financial reasons , it seems to me be a pattern of predatory sexual frustration. Motivation for trying to unfairly punish another member is important to note.

I don't want poor old incel nullius to be considered an actual financially dangerous scammer. More of a pitiful sexual frustrated ugly old man who knows Latin and neeeechy or smeeechy whomever that is he keeps trying to impress people with. Just wants a bit of cyber sec ffs which we should not judge.

To put nullius own behavior in context. I think punishment for scammer protecting motivated by intense sexual frustration should not be a ban, but a post limit of 50 words and no double posting. A signature saying ugly old man posting,  female members beware of me in English not latin.

Context is fundamental to this discussion. Stop trying to prevent it nullius. Perhaps we will put your past into the context? How do you like that?

I am the " friend" or pal of nobody and not hacker0101000101  at all. I don't even care about hacker0101000101 since I never seen him speak up for others being abused by these scammers.

Still.  Fair is fair. I want to see transparent and consistent treatment of all members. Nothing more nothing less.

At least nullius is starting to accept context is unavoidable when discussing appropriate punishment.

Let's get to that part.
We can leave the possible or probable motivations of nullius for trying to avoid context ..once he stops trying to prevent context right?

 @jayjuangee

It seems that I have misunderstood what your merit implied.
I still feel it is weird to merit a post that may not be merit worthy or even incorrect just because you wanted to merit a different post that person made once.
I think many members would take a merit to mean that post itself was meritorious. It could be misconstrued as support.

But if that is how you wish to do things that is up to you.

This means there is no need at all to discuss a 180 that does not exist.
The only part of your post I disagree with is that i have provided you with false information previously 
That is off topic here so I will not discuss that. I say that is not true though.
I do want to make the forum better.  I believe every member must be treated consistently and fairly.
Punishment must be fair and consistent when full context is considered.
How can you say say something is consistent with no context.

Even nullius says context is very important when it suits him? Go review his posts

inb4 five thousand threads in Reputation accusing JayJuanGee of supporting proven scammers and/or being a proven scammer.  Also, Jay is a hardened sigspammer alt of a ring of sigspammers, “milking it for every satoshi.”  :D

All couched in insults and intentionally disgusting, scatological and/or sexually degrading language...

---

You sound angry.

Quotes re-arranged to provide better context:

The relevant part here is “hacker’s” opinion of you and your “defence” of him, not about your opinion of him.  Does he let such things be done on his behalf, without even a peep of protest?

Only the code-illiterate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167410#msg54167410) “hacker0101000101” can speak for himself on that point.

(As for your allegation that you are the “‘friend’ or pal of nobody”, I protest that you are not my friend or pal.  nullius = nobody.  Whereas you are not even nobody’s friend.)

---

Insofar as I can tell, “some members” seem to be principally me.  I can’t speak for anybody else, of course.

More generally, I am also pushing for ICO bumping to be officially recognized as spamming per se, a bannable offence.  How is it not spamming!?  And why do so many people seem to be ignoring this issue?  What  “hacker1001101001” has admitted is arguably even a more damaging form of spam than garden-variety sigspamming.

The fraudulent nature of ICO bumping is for DT to handle, to protect people from losing money.  marlboroza and others have been doing an excellent job with that.  I support their efforts; and I encourage to continue, whereas ICO-bumpers are apparently not being banned, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.

Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.

You nullius are wrong.

This is not a defense of hacker0101000101.
This is an argument that hacker0101000101  must have fair and consistent treatment.

I don't care about your protest or hacker0101000101s protest. They mean the same to me.

There are no valid protestations to ensuring fair and consistent treatment of all
Members.

Double standards are the most destructive and dangerous threat to this forum.

And that is why the spammer should never have been granted lenience for plagiarism—and should not be granted lenience for spamming.

Thank you for making my argument for why “hacker1001101001” should be banned.

---

Having made my point about “bonesjonesreturns”, his obscene rhetoric that no sane person would want to be associated with, and his way of accidentally advancing my argument whilst illogically pretending to do otherwise, I think that I should probably now start taking my own advice.

Largely, I was providing examples in which merit could be given, and that does not even signify that I make merit allocations in that kind of way, even if it might happen from time to time.  I am not completely pulling the examples out of the air, but just because they are used as examples does not mean that they are wide-spread or even were happening in this particular case, and in the end, like I said several times, I don't need to justify why I sent an smerit in one case or not in another for any given post or even if the post was meritorious.  

Of course, if you can figure out some bad motive, that might be another story... but I do not have to prove a good motive.. yes, I recognize that you are suggesting that if a good motive does not exist, and if I cannot justify a good motive, then therefore, we can reasonably conclude that a bad motive exists...

Usually, the standard would be the opposite of what you are seeming to imply, and that is that the burden is on the accuser to both show a bad motive and to provide some evidence of such bad motive before a good motive might need to be shown, and surely you have not even come close to showing any bad motive from me, and instead you just want to throw out accusations and implications that a bad motive must exist if a good motive is not proven...  Weird right?  A BIG leap of logic, right?  Confusing right?

I understand that some people might not understand the difference between alleging that I have a bad motive and trying to show such motive as compared with my NOT having to show a good motive.. and maybe it is ridiculous for me to even be discussing such weeds of principles with someone like you who just seems to want to twist ideas and principles and just make shit up in order that you can outline some standard that is ONLY understood by yourself and just ongoingly muddies the waters.  For example, my NOT showing a good motive or even feeling that I need to show any kind of good motive, does not even mean that my motives were not good, it just means that I do not have to show what my motive was, good or otherwise, so you can read all kinds of bad motives into purported merit sending based on vague allegations of my lacking of good motive, yet you have not proven shit, beyond just making some vague allegations, and like I said those are two different standards, and confuses the matter to be attempting to equate the having of a bad motive by not showing of a good motive and to convolute them on a regular basis.



That is true.  We have already discussed such hypothesis more than it deserves to be discussed.  I have just been entertaining your nonsense on a regular basis, which is surely not winning me any popularity contests, if anyone were to want to hold a popularity contest in the near future.



Hm..? at least, we might be making some progress towards some semblance of agreement, and it could be that either I am describing this idea of false information badly or that you are mischaracterizing what I said.

Let me try to clarify:  I think that I was trying to suggest that sometimes if I get the sense that you are leading me down bad paths and stretches of logic, then I lose confidence with you.  So technically you might be correct that the information that you provided is not false, but instead the information that you provide seems to be striving to reach stretches for conclusions, and then I feel deceived because you had insisted that I reach certain conclusions based on what seems to be insufficient evidence from my point of view or you are using logic that does not support such conclusions or mixing up of standards, so yeah, technically you might be correct that the information that you are using is not false, but I might get the sense that I was duped because you assigned too much weight to certain kinds of information that I believe did not deserve anything close to that quantity of weight.    And, sure, also if I perceive that you are purposefully withholding certain kinds of information from me that I believe is pertinent and relevant, too, then that is going to cause me a considerable amount of skepticism of your presentations, even if technically you have not stated anything that is actually false... so yeah, my description of you providing "false" information might not have been the right word choice or way of framing what I was attempting to say.



Of course, we can assert that certain kinds of information is relevant, including the biasness of the accuser, but the alleged biasness of the accuser would be less relevant and a stretch of logic from my point of view... so yeah, there are ways that you can proclaim that biasness of the accuser is relevant, but there are burdens of proof in terms of evidence provided and logic provided in claiming those kinds of purported dynamics, and the actual allegations are the most relevant rather than the accusations of biasness.  

Sure, we could battle for days on how much relevance is certain claims and who has the burden to provide evidence and logic, and surely we are probably talking about matter of degree of relevance rather than absolutes, but I still think that dealing with the actual allegations is way the fuck more relevant than getting into the weeds of accusations of biasness... Let's get past the actual allegations part first, and if later, we need to figure out if biasness matters then maybe that could be a topic, but it still seems like way more of a divergence that might be 1% relevant to the topic rather than 90% relevant of what is actually the topic of the thread.. so I am largely saying let's try to get through the more relevant stuff first.. and if we make progress on the more relevant stuff then maybe we can address that seemingly tangential stuff at some later point.



Yes.. abstractly these are good principles.



All kinds of ways to talk about this. You are saying talking about a topic of punishment and advocating punishment is punishment?  Sending smerits is punishment or not sending them? red tagging is punishment?  Members are going to decide their involvement these other behaviors in the same kinds of ways that I had described about sending smerits, so are you describing some kind of motivation description that I need to do, again?  ultimately you are becoming quite vague.




I am not sure I am saying that.  I am saying that whatever I did in terms of sending smerits, posting messages or responding to you has enough context and justifications so that I do not have any obligations to research further, even if you give me some assignments.



I have read some posts that nullius writes and some evidence and logic that he provides for his points.  I suppose if people do not believe him or believe that he has provided bad evidence, then he might sometimes supplement what he had provided.  I don't think that there is anything notorious about what nullius is saying in this thread, but of course, he started this thread, and I found out about this thread from the hacker thread, so yeah there has been some assertions in this thread that nullius has not backed up some of his claims enough, or that he is not really saying anything new, so that is part of the ongoing discussion.

Most posters are going to attempt to provide some context for what they are asserting, whether nullius or otherwise, and the context that is relevant to nullius and to you would likely be different ways of posting or emphasizing evidence or logic, so then we would still get into questions regarding what the evidence is, what is the logic and what is being proposed as the action.., including maybe some invitation for others who disagree with the content to attempt to state their disagreements to the evidence that was provided or maybe to attempt to clarify some points in regards to the evidence, logic or even if the proposed action is reasonable given the evidence.  

It seems to me that I don't need to go study into nullius in order to either send smerits in this thread or to post or even to respond to you, so I am not sure what benefit is going to provide for me to study nullius's posts more than I have already done.    

Seems like bonesjones and I have been increasingly becoming good ole buddies, so I am not really sure beyond our few interactions.

Sorry, again, about getting too far in the weeds with bonesjones, and hopefully it is not distracting too much from the initial intentions of your thread.


I surely would not know about these matters.  I can only hypothesize that sometimes administrators might be leaning one way or another, and then a thread like this might push them one way or another, too.  


I know also that sometimes administrators are going to have access to IP address or maybe somethings like that which might cause them to lean one way or another, too, and regular members might only be able to put together inferences rather than some of the direct evidence that might either show the alleged bad conduct or maybe disprove the alleged conduct.




There are a lot of members on the forum who are way more experts than me regarding some of these dynamics, and surely in terms of my own investments, I don't get involved in that crap, so yeah, I do happen to own a few altcoins, which maybe is around 1% of my total crypto investment value (not counting the dollar which is maybe another 2% or so), but yeah, I can understand that there are a lot of attempts to appeal to get rich quick bullshit and also preying on naiveté of newer investors who believe or want to believe that they are too late to invest in bitcoin, so it would be worth their time to get distracted into various shitcoins, which surely includes getting distracted into the likely higher than 90% scams of the ICO world, too (and I am likely being way too generous to allow for the possibility that 10% might not be scams).


I think that I am only superficially aware of a lot of the work of various forum members, and surely I try to keep members on my trust list that I believe are largely doing good work, so I am kind of used to seeing some of the bashing attempts on some of the members on my trustlist.  


Maybe that is ultimately the right stance on a policy level, so then I guess part of the question would be whether some member is engaged in such conduct? And, if so when did the rule go into effect.  If the rule is not yet in effect, then maybe there is a lobbying effort that is needed, and I am not really in any mood to lobby.  But yeah, the level of conduct and whether they are in violation of forum rules ends up being part of the dispute in regards to if some members might be part of the problem and if a ban or suspension might reform them, but then there might still be a question if the evidence is strong enough, and again sometimes admin might have some more of that information that could cut either way in terms of showing guilt.  So, in principle, I don't really disagree with anything that you are saying.

Here we witness nullius running away. Cherry picking and actually removing context to distort what I am saying.
Before self proclaiming his double standards to be fair and credible grounds for punishment it seems.
Avoiding the Full context of perm banning hacker0101000101.
He is running away because he knows I will be calling for a full detailed comparison of his scamming friends irrefutable independently verifiable directly financially  dangerous behaviors VS copy and paste and ico bumping. Full context for determining  fair and consistent punishment.

Full context. Not just the context you want to allow.

Nullius are you afraid here and now to compare the independently verifiable observable behaviors of your friend lauda the scammer, tman the auction scammer and nutildah the willing scam facilitator for pay who tried to delete the evidence when busted.
Who cycle merits, trust includes and red tag whistle blowers who present evidence of their wrong doing.
Who you nullius claim are default trust 1 material worthy of praise. Who you concoct feeble and weak excuses for.
Who you protect and support by going after these scammers critics

To compare them with hacker0101000101s copy and paste and his purported ico bumping.
Who has already been banned. Who is already red tagged. Who has a 2 year sig ban. Who has admitted he done wrong and has not used red tags to try to silence his whistleblowers?

I will add value to hacker0101000101 only because having the courage to stand up to the scammers you are assisting nullius provides extreme value to the forum.

Shall we do a full and deep comparison of these members and see who requires attention first?

Your fake concern for the forums safety is laughable.
You want to kiss up to lauda and try to sound smart so she (he) will cyber sex you. Only verbally though I notice you said :) lol no wonder alia cut you off... back to your pillow as alia who knew you best here said lol

Are you ready for a full comparison hacker0101000101  vs lauda nutildah tman ?
Then we perm ban those that place the forum at most danger by keeping the status quo

Amazes me how you believe your pattern of slobbering and excusing scammers you think are female should not be a concern to the forum.

Back to your wank pillow nullius wait for laudas next cyber sex verbal session lol, I bet he's laughing at you . Your double standards and fake concern that drive you to trust abuse and call for bans on those that stand up against your sexy scamming goddess lauda are obvious and transparent..

" I don't have 1.2 btc"  what a loser. No wonder you can't pay for cyber sex like all the other  more successful old pervs? Strange alia never wondered how such  a " genius" is such a loser and cheap skate. Supporting scammers on DT is not the way to satisfaction nullius.

Nullius wants fair to mean we promote scammers to default trust and perm ban those who speak up against them who have some less serious dirt on them for which they have already been punished for.

I mean you can be consistent. You can consistently support scammers you think are female. Does not mean it is fair or is beneficial for the forum.  

I am ready and waiting to debate with nullius hacker0101000101  being perm banned in the context of pushing lauda tman and nutildah on to DT1 as he is suggesting with them having only rewards and no punishment for their far more serious dangerous behaviors.
If we determine they are all dangerous all can be perm banned. Not just singling hacker out.

I do not support perm ban of hacker0101000101 until we take care of far more serious threats that are sitting in default trust right now.   
I certainly dont support a bunch of scammers trying to punish others for lesser evils.



 

ICO bump services:

• Are incentivized posts on threads which are totally off-topic in the only forum where incentivized posts of any kind are allowed (i.e., Games and Rounds).
• Are usually paid in shitcoins.
• Have no conceivable design purpose other than to evade the limitation on the frequency at which a topic OP is allowed to bump his own topic.

In addition to being definitional paid spammers, ICO bumpers thus violate multiple explicit rules of this forum:

Boldface is mprep’s; the emphasis is only hereby relevant insofar as bumped ICO topics are obviously not in Games and Rounds:

Therefore:

• Forum users should be guided accordingly.
• Investigators should report ICO bumpers and their posts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.msg54246297#msg54246297) for rules violations.
• I urge the administration to review the case of a longtime spammer who was granted leniency for plagiarism!

---

Thanks for the replies, Jay.  My forum time is strictly limited now; some other time, I will need to catch up with your replies here and elsewhere.  Your thorough posts are read and appreciated.

More generally, I may be gone from the forum on and off for at least the next few weeks.  I will be going back through to reply on multiple different topics that I recently seem to have been ignoring, and catching up with some folks in PMs that deserve my undivided attention.

I would urge administration to ban the OP for his offtopic trolling ( with uninteresting and time' wasting walls of text), his overall double standard nature which is crystal clear here and for having accusations of being in internal relationships with an "underage e-whore" and even for doubting the ownership moto behind the bitcoin.org website which is serving as an guiding platform for information about Bitcoin to many newbies from years. He is more like some of the Chinese news reports, they would only report things which suits there agenda... Yet don't care about anything as an whole.

Boomer !

"Bun" him please !

How is the quarantine time going ? I feel the waste of it on your side.

So, the wannabe- (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167410#msg54167410)“hacker”, a plagiarist and a very poor liar who eventually admitted to being a paid spammer and averred to continuing to protect a paid forum-spam ring, has now:

• Demanded that I be banned because he dislikes my opinions;
• Knowingly and maliciously spread factually false, defamatory statements about me; and,
• Concluded by insinuating a wish that I should catch COVID-19.

Disgusting. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54225794#msg54225794)

---

I am off the forum for the next day or so, and intermittently for the next few weeks.  Busy.

Meanwhile, please feel free to keep bumping this thread with your self-pwnage.

P.S., I know your type:  Dumb s’kiddie, big-talking hacker wannabe.  LOL, even your basic opsec is so shitty that you got caught red-handed doing paid professional spam (!).  You couldn’t hack your way out of a wet paper bag running unpatched IIS 5.1 ridiculously stupid “smart” contracts, which real hackers find to be much more profitable than ICO bumping (https://heraldsheets.com/2020/04/19/defi-protocol-dforce-loses-25m-bitcoin-btc-and-ethereum-eth-attack/).  According to your customary personal text (https://web.archive.org/web/20190528000850/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758), “NO SYSTEM IS SAFE !”—what, from you?  Well, you are an Advanced Persistent Threat for causing spam, spam, plagiarism, spam, spam, spam and spam some spam spam annoyance.

TPOTO

He probably just meant that the quarantine is not really essential for you since you are using laudas asshole as N95 MASK.
Also as a incel with no social life or RL friends , who never leaves the basement then no need for you to self isolate further.

Obviously at your age covid would be dangerous so I for one would certainly hope you didnt catch that in your state.
Then again....hmm sympathy and empathy and all that stuff is untrustworthy right? I dont want a tag for saying this?

Anyway on to the comparison of wrong doing we were getting to. The context to ensure we are handing out fair and consistent punishment. I see now we must include your own wrongdoing also.

These urges towards young hot girls of bitcointalk are not wrong although some will frown. It is the way these temptress are using your lust and desire for text only cybersex with them that I fear will or has already corrupted your feeble mind. This may be grounds for a reduced term for your own ban. We must investigate fully to determine this. Maybe just a limit on words per post to 50 could be enough. One post per day max? That I feel would be though maybe a form of torture. No that is not right. Ban it is.

I think that you should feel free, bonesjones, to attempt to feel some sympathy and empathy, even if we are talking about online personas.  Probably the vast majority of online personas are just regular people who are participating in this forum to attempt to share information and to attempt to both help and be helped, and these people are going to have meatwagon issues too and feelings.

Just be careful not to get too carried away with your feelings that either you get lured into some kind of scam or maybe you start to believe that a troll/shill is actually a genuine person who is really is genuinely sharing information and experiences rather than just manipulating.    This would be a general suggestion, and I am not saying anything at all about anyone in particular, but just referring to the general dynamic of how we might still have feelings for online personas while keeping some of those feelings at bay.

Of course, misjudgments regarding the character of another person can happen in the real world too, but at least when you are in the real world and looking someone in the eye, there can be some other dynamics and knowledge of the person and maybe even know more details about who they are or have met their family that can help you to figure out if they are being genuine or at least how they are spending their days and what might be motivating them in the meatspace...

Seems that it becomes much easier for some people to become disingenuous in the interwebs and even difficulties to know whether you are interacting with one person or a team or maybe even there is some complex situation that is going underneath the avatar that is difficult to really understand what is behind the avatar, so surely there is a difference between real world and interweb personas, as you likely already know that, too, and truly many of us are increasing getting used to getting to know interweb personas over a number of years, even if we might not have ever met them in the real world, or we may be unsure about whether we would even share information with such a person in the real world (because there might be some thing about their personality that just would not work out so well in the real world, even though we are forced, somewhat, to interact online because we are sharing in the batting around of a topic). 

And, surely at the same time, we are likely prudent to have some skepticisms about the online persona and how much feelings we might develop in regards to our perception of their situation.

Unpaid, non-ICO BUMP!

Nice, Lier ! I thought you gave me that job. What an waste of your Quarantine time anyway.


I would urge administration to limit nullius's walls of text due to his time consuming baseless threads  and rants which he uses to shit everywhere around. I even find his posts less intresting each day, at least less intresting than bonesjonesreturns.

Hope you are safe from viruses and they aren't able to HACK you until.

At least you are maintaining some humor, hacker.   ;)

I doubt that too many are motivated to go through any detailed compare / contrast regarding what/who is "interesting"

@OP I don't think administration will change their decision. There are 2 c/p posts and possible more, but hey, he got away with it, unlike some other accounts doing the same c/p thingy  :-\
Hacker actually wants to say that nullius's posting style is much different than his:


scare quotes

Another temporary ban just might be the medicine a compulsive liar such as hacker1001101001 needs to give him a good bump (no pun intended) on the backside. I would prefer a permanent ban because he has had plenty of opportunities to own up to all his alt-accounts and general low-level behaviour but has never been honest about them all.


I absolutely concur, nothing hacker1001101001 says can be taken seriously. The ban he received was specific to the issues known at the time and not subsequent ones therefore another ban (either temporary or permanent) is definitely something that should be considered.


Even I had to laugh at that one considering anything coming from compulsive liar hacker1001101001 should not really be trusted or laughed at.

Him urging the admins to take action against nullius is actually somewhat laughable ;D

Which rule is he breaking?

Have your eyes popped out ?

Which rule am I breaking ? (I am already experiencing pretty harsh 2 years of signature ban for the rule I broke about Plagiarism)

There is no real logic behind his ban appeal hunt here other than his pussy licking urge and him digging his own hole to prove his evil nature, hence you would not be able to find logic here in my reasoning too..

I am strongly against what the OP is proposing.

I want to start by saying that I am very much not happy with what hacker1001101001 did with regards to the plagiarism and what I believe he did in his apparent bump spamming of altcoin/ICO threads. Both are harmful to the forum, and these things happening on what is widely regarded as something close to the 'official' bitcoin discussion forum only discredits bitcoin, and the freedoms it provides. What he did also discredits the freedoms the forum seeks to give to its users.

hacker1001101001 was banned for plagiarism and was subsequently unbanned. I understand his ban came long after the offense. I also understand he was treated similarly to others who were in a similar situation. When hacker1001101001 was unbanned I view him as essentially being pardoned for his misdeeds. Considering the amount of time that has elapsed since he was unbanned, I would consider banning him for his previous misdeeds something very similar to enforcing an ex post facto (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto) law. Hacker1001101001's probable bump spamming should have been apparent to the admins when he was unbanned, and given the amount of time that has elapsed since I believe he did this, I don't think it would be appropriate to prosecute him for this.

FTFY. It was not apparent, therefore your argument is nullified.

It was not even hidden from my post history, and was public to anyone checking it, I am sure there were many more aspects taken into consideration behind my unban, hence even your argument is nullified too. Your lapse in judgment shows you should be nowhere at an postion to judge same goes with your baised and invalid flags.

How about you GTFO already? Nobody asked you anything. ::)

We may disagree on the "probable" point, but I don't believe the presence of this word changes my argument.

The bump spamming (probable or not) should be able to be detected by the admins. If someone is using sockpuppets to bump spam a bunch of threads, IP evidence should be obvious. Page viewing history is only available to the admins. If someone is part of a bump spamming group, the admins should be able to detect this. It is not trivial to obtain all the posts that exist in the forum, and once someone obtains all the posts on the forum, performing substantive analysis can be resource-intensive. Being that resources necessary to run the forum are not consistent throughout the day, analysis to detect harmful things can be performed during off-peak times.

If hacker1001101001's misdeeds were not apparent to the admins this time last year when he was unbanned, I cannot help that. They should have been. His misdeeds were highlighted four months ago, and the admins chose to not take action.

What makes you sure an admin banned him and not a global moderator? How about you stop wasting time defending evil individuals and go help somebody who needs it? You can thank me later.

Actually, somebody is asking him questions, which he is ignoring:


...and other substantial questions being ignored on that thread, including:


PrimeNumber7, take note!


The code-illiterate “hacker” was banned less than one year ago, which is a long time only to children; and there is evidence that he was involved in ICO bumping as recently as five months ago, which is a long time only to infants.  If you want to argue a legal analogy, legal statutes of limitations are much longer; and in some jurisdictions, in some types of cases, if there is substantial evidence of a fraud upon the court, then a judgment can be set aside long on motion even long after appeals are out of time.

Note also “hacker’s” total lack of remorse—actually, the opposite of remorse:  A self-righteous belligerence toward anybody who questions his spam business.


Questions are being asked.  But the indignant “hacker” has “had enough”.

---

---

Well, I see that you noticed how I despise Wikipedia legal arguments. ;-)

Just how is this in any way “very similar to” an ex post facto law?  Spamming generally has always been against the rules.  Quoting mprep’s reply to me, I cited three very specific rules which have been “on the books” for a long time.

The time passed since an offence is also completely irrelevant to the question of whether a law is ex post facto.

In the abstract, the principal problem with ex post facto laws is one of notice, or the lack thereof—i.e., retroactively banning behaviour that people had no way to know would or could be illegal.  It would be a manifest absurdity for any user to pretend that he did not know that spam is wrong.  (And if any user would so argue, it is really not somebody a forum community should want, anyway.)

(And since you linked to a clearly written explanation from Cornell LII, I will presume that you did not mix up your terminology with some other concept.)

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.  I am answering it because it is a serious attempt to argue a counterpoint; at least that is a refreshing change from the trolls’ responses.

I note also that although I tend to couch arguments very roughly in quasi-legal language, I do so for the sake of precise analysis, and not to suggest that legal standards should apply to forum policy.


Reductio ad absurdum, theymos (and by extension, those to whom he delegates ban-hammers) have a right to ban people based on disliking their eyes, or on flips of a coin.  I think that would be (to understate the matter) grossly stupid policy; and I would publicly express my opinion on the topic.  That is a reductio ad absurdum.  Here, on the flipside, I am arguing that forum administrative policy does not adequately protect the community from spam, if it does not take appropriate and necessary measures in what I am arguing as a test case for a crackdown on spammers.

It is a suitable test case:  A forum user was granted lenience and unbanned, then subsequently discovered to be an unrepentant spammer.  If the ban hammer comes down on him, that will send a clear message about spam, and encourage reports from investigators.  If it does not, it shows that the rules are ineffectual and arbitrary, and spammers can get away with anything.

---

Are you serious?

Above, I quoted mprep on multiple rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240612.msg54259220#msg54259220) broken by your ICO bump “business”, also known as spam.  Also, your plagiarism was obviously against the rules—and you were only unbanned due to being granted a lenience that you do not deserve, apparently based on a mistaken impression that you were generally a good user who did one thing wrong, once.


Translation:  “I had them fooled real good.  Therefore, I deserve to get away with it!  How dare you call me out for bad things I did, which apparently were not taken into consideration eleven months ago, and which continued at least as recently as five months ago!?”

He is exposed ICO bump service, read again topic where you already expressed your opinion about hacker:
There was signed message from hacker (address is "active" btw), so fake review spam business.
You have long history of breaking forum rules.
Pretty harsh? You got very soft "punishment" for things you did and maybe you are still doing, liar.

Just an FYI, appeals or counter-appeals that get washed in several pages of arguments are usually not acted on by the staff.

Especially when presented by documented scammers, documented scam facilitators and supporters pushing double standards and fake concern for the forum whilst scamming and milking it for every satoshi they can get. Who would listen to cries of fake concern from documented scammers and sig spammers? These are not enthusiasts they just want to milk the forum for their own gain.

Terrified to bring in context and compare hackers documented wrongs vs the wrongs of  scammer lauda ( documented) fake scam hunter and scammer facilitator jollygood.  Who allows lauda and mozprognoz to work with scams he says he has busted without saying a word to them. All very brave at busting scammers until his pals offer to work with those same scams for a fee.

Suchmoon knows all this but keeps silent about it? Only busting mozprognoz after he insulted them. Suchmoon should have been raising these points much earlier.
Both of whom won't hesitate to leave red tags if you being up inconvenient facts from their pasts.  Perverting the entire purpose of the trust system to punish whistleblowers.


Speaking of perverts we have nullius recently resurrected to randomly tag laudas biggest critic and prime whistleblower  for " showing empathy" nullius read in one of his neeechy books empathy was wrong.
Of course that is bullshit. You can clearly see nullius has a new crush on lauda after his last scammer teenie babe alia blew him off. Now lauda and nullius ( according to nullius) who sounds upset that lauda won't confirm she is female but nullius says he thinks lauda is a girl and enjoys flirting with her in private? Wtf nullius so desperate, he is willing to be flirting with a guy? In the hope she is female?
Did you notice how nullius went psycho when timelord said lauda was male?
Then we have the other slobbering moron malboroza. Who is always kissing lauda ass and his Croatian buddy who joined around the same time.

In summary the same group of scammers, scam facilitators and supporters and a creepy old perv that wants to impress his sexyscammer babe lauda by attacking someone who criticised laudas dangerous degenerate scamming behaviors.

Lauda and malboroza were begging for their pal chitbitcity to be reinstates and his plagiarism was financially motivated as he confessed
Where is chitbitcity? Does he have a 2 year sig ban? 



Why is malboroza answering primenumber7 and saying "you" said and then quoting quickseller?

Why are you doing that malboroza? Is that some kind of warning?

I wouldn't trust any of these members judgement to be honest if you investigate them.

Hacker0101000101 is far less of a credible threat than any of the others here.

When admin are considering this appeal they must be laughing away if they have done any research on these " concerned" individuals.
Scammers crying about ico bumpers. That's funny.

I feel sorry for primenumber7, now just laudas bitch forever. Lauda tells him to vanish and he does..

If I were admin I would want to take care of most dangerous and scammy members first. Especially if they were colluding, perverting the trust system and in default trust positions where their leverage could cause max damage to other members.

Nullius has no shame. After slobbering over alia and by his own boasting words made her " famous" and gave her credibility and sticking up for her to the last.  He was facilitating out of sexual frustration attempted scamming. We could have written that off as the mistakes of a pathetic incel desperate for his text only cybersex since that is all he likes apparently.

However, to be repeating this again with lauda his new crush is dangerous.
He come back to the forum just to abuse trust for lauda?. Giving a tag for empathy to a critic of lauda?
Rushes to support and lavish praise on the scammer lauda at every chance
Admits he is trying to force personal info out of lauda about its gender
Admits they chat in private and flirt together.
Gets psycho on timelord for saying lauda is male and killing nullius's lauda boner
Nullius Makes pathetic excuses for laudas scamming and nutildahs willing scam facilitating
Hacker0101000101 speaks out against lauda ..and nullius wants to impress lauda coming after hacker0101000101

Only the lauda usual gang of supporters or alts or pervy old stalkers comes after hacker0101000101?

How much more double standards crap with scammers punishing others for lesser evils or even their whistleblowers do we have to listen to.

Step up theymos and really investigate these people thoroughly.  These people have clear black and white histories of scamming, scam facilitating, using the trust system to punish their whistleblowers and colluding to take all the prime sig spots, escrow deals,  campaign manager...anything they can milk for themselves.

If theymos is willing to objectively analyse the independently verifiable evidence I can provide, then I can demonstrate that everything I say is true or credible.

Time to take out these scumbags. Free speech is getting crushed here due to this bunch of colluding scum.
Using merit and trust as the carrot and stick this place will become an echo chamber.

Anyone who is just here to milk the forum for money at all costs even scamming must be crushed.
Let's have some members that want to see everyone treated equally and are interested in building a open and fair community.

Anyone with clear financially motivated wrongdoing in their past must be blacklisted from the trust system
Consistent scammers or consistent scammer supporters must be banned.

Ban lauda, nutildah, tman, first
Keep an eye on nullius when he starts stalking and obsessing on female members. Limit post to 300 words. 1 post day max.
Marlboroza  - lol ... harmless once the others are gone, just sig ban him for good, and he will leave anyway. Only here for sig money
Hacker0101000101-  10 yr sig ban or sig that generates money for bct or good causes.


The only one there admitting they have done wrong, and being punished already is hacker0101000101...and he has done the least wrong lol

To jayjuangee - no, empathy according to nullius is tag worthy. Be very careful about suggesting people show empathy here.

Nullius does not care about this forum.  He is here stalking for young girls to try to impress with his waffling memorized garbage. This is clear. He only wants to punish hacker to try to get lauda into some cyber sex routine.  Don't believe me? Have a look through his history with alia and his posts about how he feels about lauda in a sexual way, and his red tags for empathy and or anything else from anyone who correctly notes his honey lauda is a scumbag. This guy nullius is creepy.

Besides what real fan of bitcoin does not have 1.2bitcoin? Nullius is a total joke. Alia saw that and he was history.Delete his slobbering.

Want to refute any of that? Get specific and we'll see how you get on.
 

First of all, you are really all over the place with your post bonesjones, and mostly completely off topic... at least it seems... but maybe the only way that you can get anyone to read your long rants into purported character history and drama is for you to place such rants into a thread that was created and maintained by someone who has some amount of credibility for at least attempting to make some valid claims and to back them up by evidence and to maybe clarify or supplement within such themes... but gosh, bonesjones, you seem to so easily get caught up into discussion of supposed personalities that are so damned far from having any kind of meaningful relevance.



"If I were admin"?

I think that you are using that hypothetical just attempting to describe your idea of some kind of a gold standards rather than really suggesting that you would actually go through all the hard work of actually serving as an admin over years and years to build a forum, such as this one.. and maybe tweaking the various systems of the forum along the way.

There is one thing to start some kind of forum systems from scratch and another thing to attempt to build upon existing systems.

I thought that I had seen at one point theymos was considering the possibility that the merit that started in early 2018 would either replace the trust system or to make the trust system less central.

I will admit that there does seem to be some messiness in various forum systems, whether we are talking about how the trust system is played or the merit system or maybe a combination of them... and your suggestion of you being admin seems to have a lot of pie in the sky in it, and even if you might understand some of these dynamics better than me, I have a lot of doubts that you really are providing any kind of meaningful suggestions in regards to what you would do...

Now on the other hand, if you might temper your aspirations a bit, and request to become some kind of moderator rather than admin, then that might be more realistic.... though I doubt that theymos would want to trust someone like you with such power unless maybe he knew some of your other names.. your history is pretty short around here, even though you are proclaiming to know so much.

Another possible way would be either to create your own forum or to find a forum that is a lot more closer to you preferences in terms of being able to build upon it in a way that is suitable to your standards.  What is this forum in comparison?  Instead of having pie in the sky standards, you would rather build here or do you believe that there are ways to make a better forum, and then slowly start to attract members from here (or even completely new members) over to your purportedly better forum?



I do find this an interesting point because i have also been accused of having long posts that members proclaim to not understand, and you, bonesjones, are no stranger to the long post.  One thing is having long posts that attempt to state relevant things, and another thing is just to have long posts that clutter into meandering stream of consciousness ideas of only loose relevance.

In essence, long posts are not created equally, at least seems to me.


 Hm?  Maybe the tag worthiness of empathy depends on context?  There are degrees to these kinds of matters, right?  Being empathetic and showing emotions are parts of being human, and yeah maybe we have some bots here, too.. and sometimes people become too emotional in their presentation of content, but those can be both flaws but also part of being human... I do think in order to have effective presentation of ideas it is good to attempt to keep emotions under control, but I also become a bit frustrated if any of us would be presenting models of behavior that remove emotions or presume that we cannot show emotions from time to time.


You are playing this angle of purported nullius biasness towards females quite heavily, bonesjones, and I doubt that it has hardly any kind of import in terms of what might be going on.


 I recall some of the alia interaction matters from a couple of years ago, and I have seen some of nullius's posts in regards to either talking about lauda or interacting with lauda, and again, it seems to me that you are attempting to read way too much into some of these interactions or even some of the history of nullius's behavior or a potential problematic pattern that might otherwise affect his ability to present forum matters or to even talk about things in reasonable and/or sensible ways.

I doubt that I really need to do any further research into the matter, and your seeming inability to even describe this matter in some kind of compelling way causes me to conclude that you are likely just blustering in regards to these matters.


 You are saying that nullius has proclaimed to NOT have 1.2 bitcoin?  And there is some kind of relevancy in that, even if true?

Sometimes people might talk about their own personal finances, and we come from a variety of different financial situations, and sometimes we will also purposefully NOT disclose too many specifics of our BTC holdings or other aspects of our finances.  

But, sure,  I could see that sometimes in order to have some credibility in talking about certain financial matters, it can be somewhat helpful to attempt to talk in terms of personal experiences, too... which people might have some hesitancies to take financial advice from someone who barely has two nickels to rub together.

I talk about these kinds of financial matters in a lot of different ways, and I try to be sympathetic to the starting point of various members or even if members might have screwed up a lot with their finances in the past, then there might be some question of whether they are going to revert back to bad old patterns or even if they are willing to learn better approaches to their finances.

There are some people who are quite rich in their finances, but they still hardly know shit about their finances or how to manage them.. So, there can be quite a bit of individual variability and the extent to which they reveal personal financial specifics might NOT be completely relevant to attempting to figure out what kind of problem they might either be trying to solve for themselves or maybe if they are trying to help another member to figure out some preferable financial approaches.

Also, personally, I am a bit hostile, in my own thinking in regards to how any member is going to build any kind of solid financial plan that involves too many investments into altcoins or ICOs or various other shit projects.  I consider bitcoin to be risky enough as an investment, and bitcoin would be the starting point, from my own personal perspective, before diverging or maybe devolving into other kinds of crypto related investments that are largely heavily correlated to bitcoin anyhow, but tend to be just adding more risk and more likely to get caught up into foggy thinking.. but those are my biases towards bitcoin, and in terms of bitcoin versus traditional investments, there would be a quite a few factors to weigh in terms of where someone is at personally in terms of cashflow, which other investments, if any, timeline, view of other investments versus bitcoin, risk tolerance and time and abilities to manage any funds including researching trading or tweaking allocations from time to time.



It seems to me that I don't need to refute any of what you are asserting because largely, what you have been asserting seems so damned far from relevance, and if it does happen to be relevant in some kind of a tangential way then it is your burden to show how it might happen to be some kind of important considerations (which it seems that you haven't really accomplished in any kind of meaningful way and again, I feel a bit bad to explore some of these topics with you which are stretches of relevance, even if giving you the most benefit of the doubt in that direction).

This is an excellent general point which deserves far more merit than I can afford to send it now:


I have oftentimes been critical of theymos.  Whereas I recognize the amount of work required actually to build and run a forum of this scale.  theymos has done it; I have not; and that is why I am currently playing in his sandbox.  That is not exactly his fault.

The trolling pretty much reeks of “I am so superior to my boss, I could run the company so much better; if I were the boss...”  LOL, OK.  Have fun with that.  “If I were admin” in a nice masturbational fantasy; but the reality is hard.

I have always recognized this.  Never before have I made free contributions of my own writing to any “user-generated content” site.  If I were to prefer otherwise, I guess that would be my problem.


In context, this is clearly a joke—of the “ha, ha, only serious!” type:


What if Satoshi had sat around on a financial forum saying, “If I were to make my own currency...”?

---

No sane person grants the dignity of a serious reply to patent smear-attacks by self-evident scum who has no credibility to begin with.

(Now, if ibminer were to step up and properly take credit for what is essentially his own deranged handiwork here, then I would have something to say about that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5237500.0).  But it is off-topic on this thread.  Whereas I have not forgotten the relevant thread—just been busy.)


Where do you get off making up figures?  As an advocate of financial privacy, I have never publicly disclosed exactly, or even approximately what I have.  Nor will I.  It is nobody (http://file:///dev/null)’s business.  All that I have said, repeatedly, is that I basically put all of my liquid wealth into Bitcoin; thus however much it is, it is a lot to me!


LOL.

---

---

So, what you are saying is that trolls can control the outcome by spewing garbage in a thread?  I should hope that the administration is not so trivially manipulable!

Setting aside trolls on the one hand and petty personal snipes on the other, the only substantive counter-argument has been set forth by PrimeNumber7.  I replied accordingly.  All other substantive posts on this thread have been either supportive, or more or less neutral toward my proposition.

Or do you really think that the outcome can be determined by a troll indulging his lurid slash-porn fantasies about me and Lauda?

---

Rule 34

Cheer up, kitty!  On the Internet, you know that you have succeeded when Rule 34 is invoked on you.  Evidently, in this case, we are now the subjects of some sort of BDSM slash fanfic—with the bizarre twist that I’m supposed to punish people to get your attention.

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 02:25:29 AM

sexyscammer babe lauda

You can clearly see nullius has a new crush on lauda after his last scammer teenie babe alia blew him off. [...]

This is clear. He [nullius] only wants to punish hacker to try to get lauda into some cyber sex routine.  Don't believe me? Have a look

Wow.  Lauda truly inspires obsession.  Done fappening yet?

Untouchable, unobtainable ice queen
says MEOW! in blood-red:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/2012_WFSC_05d_461_Viktoria_Helgesson.JPG/681px-2012_WFSC_05d_461_Viktoria_Helgesson.JPG

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 02:25:29 AM

perverting the trust system and in default trust positions

...I guess not.  By “positions”, do you mean, “Lauda on top”?  Or inclusions of Lauda—oh, that now feels like a double entendre!

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 02:25:29 AM

how he feels about lauda in a sexual way, and his red tags

Great.  The trust system itself is now officially Rule 34 material.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Bat_%28jezdziectwo%29.jpg

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 02:25:29 AM

This guy nullius is creepy.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are projecting.

Now, to be helpful, I advise that you fuck off to theymos’ other sandbox at /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin (NSFW, 18+) (https://reddit.com/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin).  Pathetic sad sack that you are, I don’t doubt that you can pay one of those girls to indulge your very apparent fantasies about being dominated by a powerful female.  Because you are too disgusting to touch, I suggest that you see if any of them does FinDom (financial domination fetish; does not involve sex).  Pay up, piggy. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nym-zone/easyseed/master/img/bitcoin_32px.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nym-zone/easyseed/master/img/bitcoin_32px.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nym-zone/easyseed/master/img/bitcoin_32px.png

---

---

---

Now, back on topic:

Quote from: nullius on April 22, 2020, 01:09:26 AM

Quote from: nullius on April 20, 2020, 12:18:59 AM

Therefore:

[...]

• I urge the administration to review the case of a longtime spammer who was granted leniency for plagiarism!

Unpaid, non-ICO BUMP!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/3D-printed-ban-hammer.jpg/477px-3D-printed-ban-hammer.jpg

To jayjuangee

We seem to be disagreeing on a few key aspects.

1. When crying for a specific punishment of a member that context is relevant to ensure the punishment being called for is consistent and fair. I say it is 100% essential. You say this is irrelevant I dont think this is true.

2. That the statements I have used to describe lauda, nullius or any other of the scammer supporting gang are not compelling or that they sound bogus. Please pick 1 specifically and we can address it. Irrefutable evidence of wrong doing is there.

3. Many have noted the obsession nullius has with lauda.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225450.msg53957372#msg53957372

This is very similar to his pattern with alia.

The guy is creepy. Lauda sitting their flirting with him in private is gross.

Anyway. It is clear these scammers and scammer supporters ( I dont say jayjuangee is a scammer supporter although calling irrefutable evidence of scamming " nonsense" is something he needs to consider more carefully. )  are terrified of having their behaviors compared to hacker0101000101 so a fair consistent punishment for each of them can be handed out.

It is also clear this determination to see hacker punished comes as he speaks out against lauda.

We must not allow scammers and scammer supporters to use the trust system or appeal to admin to punish those that speak against them or whistleblow on their scamming.  

When any member calls for anothers punishment they may want to consider the passage

Matthew 7:5
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"

I don't think they are seeing clearly. I am merely trying to help them focus and see the entire picture here.

Lol at nullius coming out of retirement to red tag for " empathy"  while protecting and supporting a scamming dreg like lauda.
We should take him seriously? Lol after already facilitating his other teenie female scammer alia.
Guy is a clear danger to this forum.

I apologise for being the only person that wants to see things fair and consistent here.
Siding with people you consider to have the upper hand currently is easy.

I stick to what I have said since the start

Hacker0101000101 is less of a concern to this forum than those trying to get hacker0101000101 banned.
His crimes seem less ruthless and malicious and he is not using the trust system or appeals to admin to silence those whistleblowing.
He is not on DT and is on a 2 year sig ban. Any further punishment can wait until we ensure these scammers are banned or can never leverage the trust system ever again to facilitate scamming.

TPOTO... lol I imagine that tune everytime you post now...


Nullius stop trying to deflect your desperate old incel frustrations on others. You have been busted being a pervy old desperate stalker lacking even 1.2 btc due to whatever excuses of hardship you were crying about previously. Alia totally lost interest when she realized you were a broke down bum. She asks for 1.2btc you only had 0.01btc
Lol at these " geniuses"  with no pussy and no money he hehe
Following around guys on the internet that pretend to be female to rope in desperate old perv incels just like mr nobody nullius here.
" never contributed my writing for free before " ... ahh that explains a few things.


Anyone investigating nullius past can verify all of this for themselves.

Nice to see him becoming upset and trying to bullshit his way out of it deflecting his own miserable life onto others.


Who would try to pressure someone to reveal their gender here and stil be flirting with them in private  before even establishing it was a girl?
That is super desperate and creepy when considering his other similar behaviors here.



/ thread.

I am still waiting to discuss specifics and make sensible consistent comparisons to decide if it would be consistent and fair to punish hacker0101000101 further.

Since I am having trouble keeping track of all of the references and the various drama points, I googled TPOTO....

I got:  The Phantom of the Opera.    I remember listening to many of the tracks in that two CD set (wasn't it?) in the 90s, but then there were other Andrew Lloyd Weber sound tracks, too.   I am still not sure how they would connect to my posts?  

Regarding the other points of your post.  I don't see any reason for me to elaborate further on anything that I had already posted.

“bonesjones”, are you seriously quoting the Bible on me?  ::)


I must observe the incongruity of your quoting that particular passage, whereas you are dishonestly attempting to fabricate motes in others’ eyes so as to deflect from the beam in the code-illiterate “hacker’s” eye.  This applies to you:


Also, these were written for such smear-mongering liars as you:


But never mind, for I don’t believe in the Bible.  It has no authority over me.  Go to Hell with your preaching.

---

In principle, I should neither confirm nor deny such speculation, gossip, and rumour-mongering about my private interactions with other people.  It is none of your business.

Whereas the types of rumours that you are attempting to incite are injurious to a woman as they are not to a man.  Thus purely for Lauda’s sake, I will point out that as usual, you cite as your “evidence” a thread which says exactly the opposite of what you claim:

Quote of the referenced post:

As to myself, I get it:  You are a prude who is determined to police some twisted version of my private life that exists only in your fevered imagination.

These discussions provide the opportunity for a
didactic exposé of fine art:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Bartholom%C3%A4us_Spranger_022.jpg/698px-Bartholom%C3%A4us_Spranger_022.jpg

To help you out, I admit:  In reality, I am like a cross between Byron and Casanova.  I have spent more time studying and practicing kāmaśāstra than science and technology!  Now, why don’t you quote that, PM theymos, and ask him to ban me because I like sex, and I am not ashamed of it.

Have fun with that:  Harassing me over my private sex life, on a forum whose administrator is a libertarian who runs a Bitcoin virtual sex community (NSFW, 18+) (https://reddit.com/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin).  Please be sure to quote Matthew 5:28 at him; surely, theymos will be impressed with his moral duty to ban me with fire and brimstone.

We will return to an historical discussion of
Praxiteles’ sexual relationship with Phryne
after taking a moment to appreciate this view of
an anonymous work from classical antiquity,
before Christianity made people ashamed
of the bodies with which they were born into this world:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Venus_kallipygos03.jpg

---

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 12:15:05 PM

Alia totally lost interest when she realized you were a broke down bum. She asks for 1.2btc you only had 0.01btc

Say what!?  According to whom?  Did alia tell you this?

This is wildly off-topic, and I will not permit you to derail a thread about “hacker1001101001” into yet another alia scandal thread.  But I need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are lying about me.

Also, “lost interest” is an interesting way to describe “was exposed as a scammer, temp-banned for doxing and extorting another user (not me), and then permabanned for ban evasion”.  And I am quite sure that she had already lost her chances with me by the time I publicly caught her lying straight to my face (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31228569#msg31228569).  In whose delusion did she dump me?

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 12:15:05 PM

/ thread.

Not for you to say.  /you.

---

Edited to add:

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 24, 2020, 04:08:16 PM

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 12:15:05 PM

TPOTO... lol I imagine that tune everytime you post now...

Since I am having trouble keeping track of all of the references and the various drama points, I googled TPOTO....

I got:  The Phantom of the Opera.    I remember listening to many of the tracks in that two CD set (wasn't it?) in the 90s, but then there were other Andrew Lloyd Weber sound tracks, too.   I am still not sure how they would connect to my posts?

I think he was speaking to me with that.  It is hard to tell, given that his posts are rambling messes of disorganized thinking.  He addressed me directly in the next line.

—End of edit.—

---

---

---

Ceterum censeo...

Repeated attempts at derailing this thread having been so disposed, I remind the administration and global mods that:

• In May of 2019, “hacker1001101001” was granted lenience for plagiarism.  His ban was reduced to a 60-day temp-ban and two-year sig ban, presumably on grounds of his being allegedly an otherwise good contributor to the community.
• Since then, “hacker” has substantively admitted to being in the spam business.  There is evidence of him having been actively involved with paid forum spam as recently as November of 2019.  This is his actual big contribution to the community.

Granting lenience to such a character makes a farce of the forum rules; and it is manifestly unfair to all the garden-variety idiots who have been banned for copy-paste plagiarism, but were not involved in organized spam operations.  The solution on both counts is properly to ban the spammer-plagiarist for both plagiarism and spam.

Jayjuangee seems content to accept my stated versions of what I perceive to be our differences of opinion.


Nullius is of course TPOTO.
Trying to impress and win over anything that could be a female here. However although he wants flirtation and cybersex with them even if teenagers , it must be text based only lol because he is too old and hideous. He knows that is totally unrealistic for memorized boring garbage he spouts out can not mitigate the horror they will experience leering at them through his webcam.

Cross between byron and casanova says TPOTO

https://i.imgflip.com/3y01dr.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/3y01dr)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

Rolling around in your Basement with a semi inflated blow up Hermaphrodite doll with lauda scribbled on its forehead I guess does enable your old bones to get into the more advanced positions.

I won't allow you to divert away from the behaviors of you and your scamming pals.

I am not attempting to deflect from hacker0101000101 I am calling for hacker to be directly compared to your gang of scamming scumbags and sycophants. Let's ban those that pose the greatest danger and are most net negative for this forum.


What are you afraid of.

Lets start comparing hacker0101000101 with lauda?
See who poses the greatest threat to other members on terms of scamming and crushing their free speech

I'm ready. Let's go.

Hacker0101000101  is a very very low level threat to this forum in the context of those trying to get him banned.

No question about it. That is why they are afraid to compare.

I don't want to see those that will support and excuse scammers trying to incite punishment for members guilty of lesser evils .
Especially when it is clearly motivated by hacker speaking out against these scammers.

Completely off-topic, transparent to derail and divert a thread about spammer-plagiarist “hacker1001101001” into your sick-minded obsessive smear campaign against Lauda.

If it makes you feel better, go create another hundred smear threads which all sane people will ignore—against Lauda, me, marlboroza, JollyGood, nutildah, and everybody else who excites the fancy of your own internal demons.  I know you will anyway.

Now, back to this thread’s topic.

Hmmm ico bumping vs this behavior

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.msg53999975#msg53999975

Truth = sick smear campaign.? I see.

Your reluctance or rather terrified cries to disallow an open transparent comparison reveals you know you would be getting lauda banned before hacker and rightly so.

No you are trying to goad me into speaking further about what seems to be largely irrelevant, and you have not really established the relevance.

Your proposed topic seems to be:  Let's compare hacker to nullius, and even if nullius does not seem to mind going with you down these seemingly irrelevant avenues, I am having difficulties finding how it could be very relevant at all to the OP.... and I am not even sure how much more even needs to be said about OP and the various back and forth that came out of that, so far.  The case seems to have been made, and it is up to admin if they believe that there is sufficient new information to act any further than what they already did in regards to hacker.. what they may have known upon dishing out previous punishments and/or if they might have overlooked some behaviors that are substantively and meaningfully relevant in terms of changing the level of the current punishment.


Fair enough that you were referring to Nullius because I truly was confused about whether you were referring to me.  I still find that it is a bit of a stretch in terms of how much milage you are trying to get out of this purported nullius weakness, but hey, you have a right to have your little theories, even if they might only be tangentially relevant in my current thinking.  By the way, I have heard you beat those theories to death already, so I am not really inclined to keep going down that path with you because there are only so many hours in the day to spend mental energies in regards to purported personal motivations.


There are allegations of continued behavior, and I suppose that there are allegations that if some of that ICO bumping and the keeping of multiple fake accounts in order to continue the scam, then there is a problem with whether a proven liar can continue to be trusted in regards to some of the potentially ongoing behavior.  I am just stating the allegations, and I am not really sure whether any of this had already been considered by admin or if there is a current need for admin to reconsider whether the current punishment continues to be fitting, in regards to hacker.


That's it, you seem to want to create a compare contrast thread, and maybe that would be an o.k. thread to start, if you have not already started one of those.  I have seen threads that seem to be aimed at attacking Lauda and Nullius.. but I have also seen some threads that they create themselves that seem to invite such scrutiny.  I did not consider this thread to be a compare and contrast thread, even though you, bonesjones, seem to want to take it in that direction and even Nullius seems willing to entertain you in that area from what I have seen.  I am not going to go there, because I feel that I barely even know the allegations, but from time to time, I will see some posts from various members that seem to clarify some of the allegations and the evidence upon which it seems to be built (and sometimes even pointing out the areas in which the evidence or logic is lacking).


Seems to me that the theme about retaliation from lauda against hacker had already been explored in at least a couple of other threads, and really there was not much if any evidence to support such retaliation claims (I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the topic), but whatever, you keep going on and on about that purported retaliation angle, too.  I think that either the evidence against hacker stands up or it does not... and purported evidence of lauda retaliating seems to be a stretch at best... but you keep saying it over and over, so maybe that makes the retaliation angle to be more plausible to be true.  Is that the logic that you are employing in your argumentation method, bones?



Edited after seeing the below bonesjones post:

Holy shit, bones jones!  I had not noticed before that you are creating self-moderated threads on the person bashing topic.  How can anyone trust such content?

I don't tend to participate in self-moderated threads (or waste my time reading the contents therein, especially if I see that they are controversial and self-moderated) unless there seems to be a specific potentially clearly benevolent reason for creating the thread as "self-moderated" to keep out the trolls, blah blah blah.  Or, for example, if I realize that there is some kind of angle (such as a pro-bitcoin thread to keep out the shit coins) that causes some needs for the thread creator to retain some moderating capacity...

In my thinking, it does not seem appropriate to make a thread that is propagandizing about the behavior of members..  or their character... because that would be controversial... just my perhaps emotive reaction to noticing the self-moderated angle in regards to the kind of thread that you are proposing... .. holy shit.. did I say holy shit enough times?

Jayjuangee

But that is what I said.

You are of the opinion that when seeking consistent and fair punishment then context is not required.
I have a different opinion.

That is the core difference.

I guess we can just accept that we must disagree.

I do not support ico bumping for pay or bump teams.
I mean I have nothing against real believers and investors grouping together to promote strong projects they genuinely believe in.

I have a strong dislike of scammers and those that support them. I have even stronger dislike of scammers who try to use the trust system to silence whistleblowers and crush free speech.

Anyone pushing double standards and using those to punish strongly needs to be called on it.

I disagree with your downplaying nullius pervy old stalker who will endanger other members by excusing and protecting dangerous behaviors due to a sexual motivation.
That is another thing we must disagree on.

We can have different opinions.

Fighting scam but spreading spam? I am not convince that hacker1001101001 deserves to even have a chance to even be here in the forum. It's pretty ironic that he is cleaning the forum from scams yet he is something doing against the rules by being involve in a bumping service. He might not even stop it in his own will since the bumping system in the ANN section of Altcoins have been change that's why he is claiming that he is no longer part of it. However if hacker1001101001 still wants to receive a temp ban I think it would be enough for him to spill out all the names part of this bumping service (with proof) in order to come out clean.

You don't need to be convinced. You just need to provide a credible argument that seems fair and consistent in the context of other treatments of those that have financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories.

Go spam " bitdice" elsewhere...harlot.

This guise of " scambusting or scamhunting" is a common ploy for those that wish to scam themselves and get away with it.

Those that will tackle any scammer or any scam on the same basis I can and do respect.
These fake scam hunters busting easy targets but supporting and excusing scams by those that could fight back are nothing other than scam facilitators and supporters.

There are few real deal scams hunters here and one just sadly passed away.

Fighting scam but spreading spam = perm ban you say?

What about fighting small scams whilst being a proven scammer who will use red tags to silence his whistleblowers=?

Hacker0101000101 already had a temp ban? And 2 years sig ban? Do you know this or want a further temp ban? Or perm ban?

Why on earth would hacker1001101001 avoiding answering the questions? Others are trying their best to defend him here and trying hard to deflect and misdirect but it all seems fairly silly to me when all he has to do is to own up to ALL his activities under ALL his alt-accounts.

hacker1001101001 surely deserves a ban for hiding his payment receiving activities and his alt-accounts even though he had ample time and opportunity to own up but whether a permanent one or a temporary one is given that is the real question.

Stating open transparent comparison for fair and consistent treatment is necessary = misdirection and deflection

Good try, fake scam hunter. Keep trying to rent that sig out :)

I think you should be banned before hacker0101000101 and are more dangerous.
I can create a credible case too that you will find hard to refute.
I see fake scam hunting as very dangerous. When you pick on easy target and punish those scams but say nothing to your friends who are willing to work with those same scams for a fee and help them back onto this forum

You jollygood are way more dangerous than hacker. Also you are a trust abuser and colluding with other scammers in DT.

You people are a real credible and very dangerous threat to people's finances and free speech.

Ban you first I think.
Keep begging, someone will rent your sig soon.

Your own history needs to be examined.


Edited , after I notice jayjuangee made up some nonsense about self moderated threads

Doesnt obviously mind nullius making self moderated threads regarding me? and banning me from posting on them? Lol

The difference is , I  specifically stated nothing nullius posted there would be moderated. The thread is for him alone.
Can you say double standards?

Or if he is referring to the lauda thread then i dont think any posts have been deleted.
So jayjuangee can read the irrefutable evidence of lauda scamming but his gripe is it was on a self moderated thread?

Go tell malboroza and nullius they are not allowed self moderated threads

At least I allow them to post if it is about them. The person it is about will not be moderated and the others can post if they are keep reasonably on topic.

Any excuse not to read and accept that these people he is siding with are scammers.
I have no interest in being friends with willful scammer supporters.

Pretend to be objective at the very least.
The double standards on this forum specifically to favour scammers is disgraceful.

Why would he engage in your very obvious perpetual retaliatory interrogation? You lot of clowns have made it clear your goal is not to seek any kind of justice or reform, but to simply keep talking and talking making shit up, hoping that if you repeat it enough times people will just believe it. This isn't about protecting the community, this is about retribution and protecting your own personal interests.

I thought that you were going to ignore that part, and yeah, I posted my reaction towards noticing that you had linked to a self-moderated thread and I questioned how that could be considered to be a reliable place to get information or to participate.  Like I said, I don't tend to participate in those kinds of threads for the reasons that I had already stated unless the thread might fit certain kinds of exceptions in terms of some kind of need for self-moderation.


This thread is not self-moderated, and I did see that there is at least one thread that nullius had created about you, so yeah, I would not consider any kind of self-moderated thread to be allowing of divergent ideas, so we have to take the information that is presented in those kinds of threads with a BIG ASS grain of salt, especially if they presenting potentially controversial ideas and we surely cannot consider them to be allowing for dialogue on the topic.



I am the one that expressed disapproval of your use of a self-moderated thread on the topic, and I suppose that it would be a double standard if nullius would express disapproval of your use of a self-moderated topic, unless he is saying that he created his because you created yours, so in that case, maybe the situation might be more complicated, and I might need to either walk back my comments or reconsider my position.   


I had seen that some other members have used self-moderated threads, and with Lauda, I could see a purpose for using such thread when she has been attacked for so many years... so yeah, maybe if you are having trouble getting your position out there, then there could be some use for the self-moderated thread, and I doubt that you should feel that you are having troubles getting out your ideas or that you need to have control over such a thread... but hey, maybe you will get me to come around regarding a presumed need to have made your particular thread "self-moderated."


Would it be appropriate for me to ask which thread is that?


Apparently the forum rules allow them, and maybe the prevalence of such threads are greater than I had thought.  I try to avoid such threads or to really take into account whether I trust the moderator to NOT be deleting comments willy nilly.  I have experienced some of my posts being deleted in such threads in the past, so I have really bad feelings about them.. so I suppose that it should be known that many times when such self-moderated threads are being used then the starter of such thread is only going to be moderately tolerant of posts that challenge some of the premises or the viewpoints that they starter of the thread wants to emphasize.   


Maybe I should be less shocked about the whole idea?  I suppose that in your OP you could attempt to describe your moderation approach.... so maybe I had categorically judged you too harshly.. I will give you that.


Fair enough... I suppose that if you have strong ideas, sometimes you want to get them out there, and in principle, I suppose I am coming around to the idea that there could be some purpose in attempting to control the presentation of your message.


I am not completely objective that is for sure, but I try to be somewhat fair in terms of having some standards in how I view things.


Double standards is taking matters further than just merely having viewpoints and standards.  You are saying, again, that I am employing some kinds of double standards because I reacted to your having that thread as "self-moderated"?  I will agree that maybe my reaction was a bit strong but it seems that I had already explained some sufficient context for my reaction.

Jay, that is an interesting point about self-moderated threads.  I myself exclusively start self-moderated threads, in all forums where it is allowed;^* I began that habit in Development & Technology, after some anti-Core/anti-Segwit trolls started to follow me obsessively—specifically targeting me.  (I wonder why.)

(* Except when after a twenty-month absence, I forgot about the forum bug that loses the self-mod setting on preview.  Oops.)

Whereas I am wary of participation in self-mod threads unless I trust the OP’s judgment.  Even well-known users can be problematic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236947.msg54140882#msg54140882).  Apropos your discussion here, my experience with “bonesjones” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238493.0) has demonstrated to me that he does not moderate fairly, or even with basic civility.

Naturally, I trust my own judgment!

---

From the only important contribution that the trolls have thus far made to this thread, I have been doing some research of my own...


...for I don’t follow pop music.  (Yes:  To me, that is pop music.)  I also looked into it; and, lo...

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 24, 2020, 06:31:07 PM

Nullius is of course TPOTO.

I confess, “bonesjones” doxed me!

“nullius” is Erik, better known as The Phantom.  Behold my glory!

https://i.imgur.com/4BuTxx1.jpg

Needless to say, I am pleased at the homage to my power and my genius.  I will post a new self-moderated thread about this sometime maybe much later, and link to it from here; however, I have no time to finish it now.  Busy.  —With Christine, my Angel of Music.

Meanwhile, back to the topic:

Quote from: JollyGood on April 24, 2020, 09:53:23 PM

Why on earth would hacker1001101001 avoiding answering the questions? Others are trying their best to defend him here and trying hard to deflect and misdirect but it all seems fairly silly to me when all he has to do is to own up to ALL his activities under ALL his alt-accounts.

Ironically, if “hacker1001101001” had come clean three months ago, then my involvement in the case would have been minimal, and only at the periphery.  And though I can’t speak for anyone else, you know as well as I do that quite probably, others would have been forgiving if he had just been honest.

Instead, he repeatedly lied.  Whenever new evidence has been discovered against him, his story has shifted; meanwhile, he has hurled insults and wild accusations at those who have caught him.

Thanks to marlboroza’s tireless efforts as supported by others (including you), one lie after another has been imploded.  Whereas the code-illiterate “hacker” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167410#msg54167410) thought that he could more or less get away with it, just as he got off with a relative slap on the wrist for the type of plagiarism for which many others have been permabanned.  I lost track of the Reputation thread for almost two months; when I caught up, I was amazed to see that not only was it still going, but “hacker” is ruder and more remorseless than ever!

Enough is enough.  May I hereby light up a better way.

https://i.imgur.com/mosvgR2.gif

Quote from: Harlot on April 24, 2020, 08:26:19 PM

Fighting scam but spreading spam? I am not convince that hacker1001101001 deserves to even have a chance to even be here in the forum.

Thank you for adequately summarizing this whole thread in two sentences.

I have stated multiple times I was involved in it before I was aware about the core working of the forum, I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services.


Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it. I am sure there are many people's around the forum anonymously offering such services which is out of anyone's reach, not even mine.

Here we go again.

---

Now, where are the people who are so obsessed with “double standards” and hypocrisy?

---

Why should marlboroza always need to do the work compiling long lists of “hacker1001101001’s” contradictions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54227233#msg54227233)?



So, Mr “hacker”, you refuse to talk about it due to “ethical” concerns, and also you don’t know anything about it.  Is that right?

---

You managed to carry on enough such business to get yourself caught with all the evidence that marlboroza discovered, and yet you somehow know absolutely about it?

You don’t even know any information from your own communications and financial transactions with allegedly existing third parties who, according to you, are allegedly not all just your alts?

So smart, you are.  So l33t.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190528000850/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758

---

No; but your most strident defender on this thread has attested that I am everywhere, and I see all.  Well, perhaps it may be not quite so; but at least, I am capable of simple logic, as demonstrated above.

This hacker1001101001 was still proclaiming his innocence even though he was active in his pay-me-for-bump-services as recent as November 2019 (that we know of) yet he still tries to pull the wool over the eyes of onlookers.

What does this say about TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns who are defending a known bump-for-hire service operated by hacker1001101001 just because they are suffering from an attention seeking disorder?

Says the king of double standards fake scam hunter.

Racing after small time scammers but teaming up scammers on DT.
Busting a scammer then says nothing to his DT buddies that are willing to facilitate that same scammers acceptance  back on the forum for a fee
Rushing to tag anyone working with yobit but then just allowing other DT members to work with yobit

It is almost like you are saying scamming is okay so long as you and your pals can financially benefit from it.
Bit like when suchmoon ( who was well aware of it for months but didn't choose to mention it until he called him fat) that mozprognoz was doing the same thing ( another pal of lauda or his alt)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207250.msg53296788#msg53296788
That entire thread is worth a read.

So just to make it easy

Jollygood, nullius double standards scammer supporters defending and excusing scammers and trust abusers  who they support on DT and are not currently punished at all.

bonesjones - not defending hacker aka saying we should pretend it did not happen or was not wrong or saying there should be no punishment.
But rather saying let's present and compare all of their wrong doing and ensure we are not employing double standards and make sure that are giving each member fair and consistent treatment.

Try to read it over jollygood until you get it.

I'm ready for the full comparison.  Everyone else is running away from it.
That tells you they are terrified of a blow by blow breakdown and comparison.

Hacker is already red tagged and been temp banned and on a 2 year sig ban.   So let's get on with looking at the histories of all these et unpunished members some on positions of trust and see who needs more urgent attention.

Asking for fair and consistent treatment is obviously something you don't want to see.

So are you claiming that you have been involved in a bumping service where dozens of accounts are involved in the service itself yet you only know your name? From what you have previously posted and expressed before it seems like you aren't willing to share their names because it would be "unethical" on your part, you cannot just simply take back some statements just for your own convenience. No, I don't consider this as some kind of torture and I think you should too since if your life and connections from these bumping service are really over I think this will be a good time to mention their names by now if you really have "discourage working of such services" .

For a thief it is unethical to disclose the names of his accomplices or his subordinates from his perspective. Evil protecting evil, nothing unusual.

Taking a look at who is posting in multiple threads daily about this "imminent threat" it is pretty clear who is desperately seeking attention.



Could you POSSIBLY be any more melodramatic and hyperbolic? You have made it very clear you and your floppy shoe wearing toadies use the trust system and forum enforcement mechanisms designed to protect the user base as a tool for retribution against anyone who criticizes your behavior. There is no threat here, except for you.

Boldface is “hacker’s” (!):

Sharp eyes there.  Within the four corners of the same post, the n00b s’kiddie “hacker” simultaneously said in substantial essence:  “I don’t know, and I won’t spill what I know!”

---

You know what is said about honour among thieves—or the lack thereof, which police always find useful for cracking down on ordinary crime (in contradistinction to high-level organized crime, which basically does counterintelligence cat-and-mouse games with the police; and unlike ideologically motivated dissidents driven by high ideals, who are obviously not criminals at all).  “hacker’s” hypocritical gab about ethics is just blowing smoke.

The balance of probabilities is that “hacker” would rat out his allegedly extant buddies in about three seconds, if he thought it paid for him to do so.  That he does not, indicates that probably either (H) there are no such third parties—they are all his alts, or (T) he is still doing business with them—not making a clean break from that underworld.

I mark those scenarios (H) and (T) respectively, because I am pretty much considering them to have coin-flip probabilities at this point.  What is improbable and implausible is that he is Doing The Right Thing in any way.

Moreover, at the very least, the self-styled “hacker” obviously knows at least some past and/or current information on who was/is paying him upstream.  If he had even a scintilla of sincerity in this:


...then his ethical concern would be to coöperate with investigations of parties who use spam to advertise, and worse, typically use spam to pump-and-dump scam “investments”!

---

---

I see that “bonesjones” is no longer interested in the personal life of the Phantom.  What a pity.

When will they learn to stop trying to mess with me?

https://i.imgflip.com/3y5ldt.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/3y5ldt)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)


Byron meets Casinova here obviously isn't  familiar with the simply " changing his mind " excuse that immediately " nullifies " all scamming and double standards. You just change your mind about what you believe as and when it suits you. That is nullius excuse for what lauda does detailed below. The nullian nullification defence for all scamming ... just changed my mind..simple as that.

Like lauda just changed his mind from knowing and confirming there was no premine because he was on the launch ( and was holding bags of the scam coins at the time ) Which he claimed the project certainly not premined  at all many time, when others were trying to warn investors with the truth that it was indeed a proven premined coin. He was busy defending it and actively promoting and defending it.

Then when he dumped his bags he says oh yeah it is a premined scam ..


Knowingly pushing a scam. Lying for his own personal gain is scamming.
Scamming others into investing into something he knew was a scam.
Defending a scam and trying to discredit and punish others who were trying to warn others and tell them the truth
Then gives red tags to the person that first started forcing the scam project devs to admit it and offer a compensation air drop worth 20M or 2 billion at peak. Red tags them for saying they would encourage others to investigate his history to see for themselves what he was really like.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0

Hacker0101000101 has.not done anything near and intentionally malicious and dirty as that.
That's if we leave the extortion and trust abusing and escrowing irregularities and greed.

Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.

Byron / casinova here offering lauda their entire net worth 0.01btc just to know their gender lol

Yes alia did say you claimed to not even have 1.2 btc due to ....excuses
All you could offer was 0.01 btc
You were sent straight back to your pillow TPOTO.
That ship sailed as she said.

You seem to be trying to equate different kinds of activities. 

I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature.  There are a lot of members who wear signatures and they have rights to wear signatures.  I used to wear a signature and I was paid, but I discontinued because I found it to be too much of a hassle to keep up with it...   But, sure some members participate in signature campaigns and others promote themselves and other engage in some combination of promoting themselves and promoting some kind of business while getting  paid for that.  Signatures are part of forum culture (and privilege too).

Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings, and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.

Really, you don't know who was running the spam group? How exactly did you get told which threads to shitbump? A dead drop under a park bench?

Just when I think your excuses can't get any more cringy.

Specific examples are required.

Start presenting specific examples.

Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough.

I will ask for specific examples and you will not provide any that will hold up to scrutiny.
You have different opinions that lead you incorrectly to assume that I am making weak arguments
Without providing the specifics I am continually requesting it appears to me you are deliberately not providing them due to suspecting your claims are not solid.



I don't yet know if you truly believe what you say or you are just saying that to remain popular with these corrupt colluding scammers that via the broken and poor designs here have seized hold of some power to crush free speech and milk the board dry for themselves.

I don't yet say you are supporting this behavior but I find your one way criticism with no specifics very suspicious. I suspect you wish to remain popular. That is understandable but still I can not permit this unfair sided attacks on my arguments without requesting specific examples.  

If they do not relate to this appraisal of fair and consistent punishment for hacker then as I have said many times I am more than willing to debate this all with you in an open and transparent manner.

I don't think any member with directly financially motivated wrong doing should be

1 allowed into a position of trust
2 earn further from the forum

I think we must ensure all members are treated equally.

Certainly no scammers and their supporters colluding to punish others for lesser crimes whilst rewarding each other with trust includes and all milking the best sig spots

Nope.

Hacker has been punished...if they want more punishment let them demonstrate in the context of their own behaviour it is fair and consistent and in the forums best interest not just their own.

I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong.  Nobody says shit about these bunch of scammers and cheaters all allowing each other a free pass and a nice clap on the back.

Hacker has also at least had some quite tough punishment
Give these real scammers a 2 yr sig ban. Let's hear them squeal. They are only here to milk the bitcoin from their posts.
They likely never post again after a few weeks.  

In the context of lauda,  nutildah,  tman et al
Hacker is a lesser evil and a far lower priority threat.

They have all shown to be on the next level up of ruthless deliberate scamming or willing to facilitate scamming for a fee
And trust abuse aka giving red to those that mention their wrongdoing
Crushing free speech and totally perverting the intended use of red tags
They should be given as a warning to avoid scammers,  not for scammers to deter members from warning others about their scamming.

Disgraceful.

I am not the one making the claims, you diptwat.  You are making claims, for example, about lauda being abusive blah blah blah. which one is not on topic and two is not substantiated, anyhow... not that I am inviting you to go further off topic by substantiating your claims.. but when you make claims, you should be substantiating them, which you do not tend to do.


Why would I not believe what I say?  Just because I am largely saying that you are full of shit does not mean that I am taking sides with others... You have problems, sometimes and then you go back to what seems to be one of your only tools which is to devolve into senseless stream of conscious personal attacks.


Repeating yourself....


I don't need to give any examples.  All I am saying is that you are not backing up your claims.  I cannot teach you how to better argue your points and to stay focused... that is up to you.. but the essence of the matter is that you suck, and likely you are doing it on purpose because you do not seem to be that dumb.


I hardly even know what you are talking about.  Some members have put forth arguments and questions of hackers behavior and accused him of being dodgy and inconsistent in his responses and explanations.  There is no need for me to attempt to bolster any of the claims or to compare and contrast the strength of the claims or if the persons making such claims might have their own negative issues, is where you seem to want to go with your ongoing distracting and off topic rants.


Good for you and your beliefs.  Those kinds of things happen, and sometimes punishments are complete banning and sometimes punishments are temporary. 

You seem to be referring to past behaviors of Lauda, and you are saying that lauda should not have a signature and/or should not be able to post trust...   Well, she does have a signature and she is able to post trust... so get the fuck over it and if you are so fucking worried about it, create some threads about it or contact various moderators (which yeah, you likely have already done those things... good for you... )..

Otherwise, just fuck off with your continuing to go down into that off topic distractions, even if there might possibly be some scintilla of truth in what you might be claiming, you are off topic.  We are not talking about those matters here, except for your constantly bringing up those nonsense distractions, you diptwat. 


Can you focus on the topic of the thread?


Good for you... Anyhow the world is not equal, and if someone is a fucktwat or if they are a scammer or if they have some questionable evidence then they are not likely to be treated equally... and sure in the end, the ultimate decisions are admins and moderators to decide.. even though members will engage in posts talking about these things, giving trust ratings and sending merits.


Off topic, even if true... which I am not even conceding that it is true.



I doubt that the world works like that, but you can continue to argue for that.


Finally, you said something that is on topic.  Great.



There are all kinds of threads about other members, so you can build your case in those threads or start a new one.




I heard that he had some punishment.  Some members believe it is not enough, other members believe that he needs to provide some evidence or change his behavior and to come clean and other members (such as you) seem to believe that either he has been punished enough or overly harsh.  Great.. members seem to have differing opinions and that seems to be part of the topic of this thread to attempt to address those matters.




Of course, if anyone is using a signature, and gets banned from using the signature, then they might not like it, unless they deserve to lose such privilege because of some kind of bad or abusive conduct.  Hopefully, the punishment fits the crime for any member who were to receive that punishment.


This particular thread is about hacker.

This is not a thread about compare and contrast.


Off topic (as you already know)

Done yet with glorifying me to the point of cult worship (http://bitcult.faith/)?  I see that you are not, Mr “bonesjones”.  Thanks.

---

Forking hell, Jay.  You are not “objective”:


The rule applies only to Lauda, Lauda’s friends, anybody who does not dislike Lauda, and people who dislike Lauda but also dislike persons approved by the forum’s resident troll-guild.  Anything else is “double standards”.


It is ipso facto trust abuse for Lauda to leave positive, negative, and neutral ratings.  If you disagree, then you have “double standards”.

And this applies only to real or imaginary wrongdoing by Lauda and/or anybody who does not hate Lauda with extreme prejudice:


To apply that to n00b s’kiddie spammer-plagiarist “hacker” is to have “double standards”.


Got it?

---

Only yesterday, I glanced through one of “bonesjones’” prolific self-moderated smear-attack threads that I had been ignoring.  This fairly exemplifies “very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination”:

---

He is, of course, way ahead of you here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;threads;u=2771981;sa=showPosts).  ::)

---

No, that’s the dead drop where he picks up the brown paper bags full of blockchain-traceable shitcoin payments from sources whose other payments probably could in turn be traced to payments to other spam bumpers.  The dead drop for spam orders is, of course, under a table at the Green Midget Cafe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(Monty_Python)).

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here even though he failed miserably ::)

I agree with this:


That was stated as to one of three troll accounts that I noticed suddenly show up in the same time period.  This was stated as to another:


“bonesjonesreturns” is the third of those three (speaking only as to the three that I myself significantly analysed).  Although this one is closer to the CH/TOAA style, it is a style that is relatively easy to mimic:  Spew out stream-of-consciousness drivel based on paranoid fixations, use bad casing and grammar, and add an abundance of crude insults.  With the assistance of psychotropic drugs, anybody could do it!

I think that the advice in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231938.0) is useful for pragmatically handling reputational attacks big and small, without jumping to conclusions of any kind.


C’mon, JollyGood!  Be not so discouraging.  Boned-Jones’ handiwork has not resulted in failure for others; and it does not make me miserable at all.  To the contrary—I did not know that Sarah Brightman is so hot for me:

https://i.imgur.com/AFv98Jj.gif

Responsive.  Whereupon I decided to check out what else she has been up to.

https://i.imgur.com/Hy514tj.png

Well, no wonder I have been so busy that I currently have the whole forum on ignore, except for this one thread!

Methinks Mr Bones Jones’ secret plan is to get me so many new girlfriends that I will have no forum time at all.  From my perspective, that is a jolly good plan.

---

Back to the topic:

With a whole harem full of different Christines, I could keep this up all day—and all night.

Read her lips:
https://i.imgur.com/JoZmxvq.gif

Judging by the clownish comments & verbal diarrhea, I think it's an alt of D Trump......

Just don’t tell him about my Persian friend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persian), lest he try to murder me with a drone strike.  Perhaps he may even threaten to bomb the Paris Opera as an Iranian cultural site.  Per his usual knowledge of both culture and geography, that’s close enough (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3060630.msg54046108#post_comforting_lies), right?

For to protect myself, I had better finish coding my new anonymization technology, which is so much more elegant than that Guy Fawkes mask with its expression of perpetual constipation.  My mask even comes with roses!  I love roses.


Unluckily, phantom-0.0.1-alpha has an exploitable security bug:

⚠ SPOILER: Christine is an NSA TAO implant.
https://i.imgur.com/kSbR2wN.gif

Watch arXiv (https://arxiv.org/)^* for my forthcoming paper, “Deanonymization Attacks by Soprano Honeypots”.  Meanwhile, the security bug herself is delightfully exploitable.

---

* arXiv, formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov (LOL), is so spelt with at least a visually sensible substitute for the Greek letter χ.  Whereas the abbreviation “TPOTO” is, of course, as nonsensical as would be abbreviating philosophiae doctor as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”  The proper abbreviation would be “TPhOTO”, which even has a special glow to it.

Fans of popular culture disappoint their idol.  Surely, the ingenious Phantom himself knows how properly to abbreviate a Latin digraph for Greek Φ!

Quote from: nullius on March 08, 2020, 09:31:43 AM

Quote from: nullius on February 24, 2020, 07:29:30 PM

Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη.  Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi).  Cf. [confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς).

/me condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term.

---

Quote from: nullius on April 24, 2020, 04:17:43 PM

Ceterum censeo...

Quote from: nullius on April 22, 2020, 01:09:26 AM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/3D-printed-ban-hammer.jpg/477px-3D-printed-ban-hammer.jpg

Let's sum up the 2 text walls above

Juanjaygee is making 2 claims

1. That my claim "that full context is fundamental to determining fair and consistent punishment " is bogus

2. He then claims that my statements based on irrefutable independently verifiable of scamming and willing scam facilitating for several members are nothing but the convoluted reasoning of a confused madman. That do not demonstrate any wrongdoing by his pals lauda, tman, nutildah et al. At all.


I ask him to provide specific instances or examples where he can demonstrate  clearly the evidence is weak and he can debunk.

Jayjuangee refuses to back up his statements and provide even 1 example which he can debunk

Why? Because he knows he can not debunk any of it. It is documented independently verifiable evidence of clear scamming by his friends that is way more ruthless and viscous than paid ico bumping.

Take the example I presented above and linked to for him? Totally avoid trying to debunk that or excuse laudas behavior. Why? Because there is no excuse that will stand up to scrutiny.

He then says something even more crazy.

He says well of course a scammer not be treated the same as an honest member as if that somehow debunks my claim that all members must be treated fairly and consistently aka the same. This demonstrates he does not understand the concept even.

Of course a scammer will not be treated the same as honest member.

Let's make this clear. If jayjuangee was confident he could demonstrate lauda nutildah and tman histories were of honest members with no scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing then of course he would not hesitate to debunk my claims that in the full context of their behaviors then hacker can be a higher priority for some " further punishment " assessment.

You only run away from comparisons that will debunk your claims

You don't run away from comparisons that will help debunk your opponents arguments

Lol at these people.

Like if I said to nullius my cock would make alia squeal with pleasure whilst your old micro penis would be laughed at and ridiculed by her.
Nullius says ..in maximis meis coles lilliputian terminorum. Aka my penis is huge in lilliputian terms.
I flop out the 9inch by 7inch girth flaccid snake
Nullius says .. off topic, irrelevant, my trouser zipper has gone mouldy and I cant compare atm.


Scared to compare is usually due to fear.  
Lord byron eat your heart out bozo.

They dont want to compare all of hackers history to the dirt that can be shown to be lurking in the histories of these scumbags.
Want hacker banned? Ban the more dangerous first and their complicit supporters and excusers
How can it be so hard to find a handful of old trusted members with no histories of scamming or willing scam facilitating for pay to put in our trust system .. we are not this desperate are we?
This newbie zoo of DT scammers is an embarrassment.
Also I try to treat others and be civil. They start swearing and childish name calling first or attack me in an uncivilized manner. Then will start saying that I am unable to conduct myself in an uncivilized  manner if I return the same towards them.

I like this post but rather than risk bonesjonesreturns getting overtly pulled in to the screen thus risking an electric shock as a result of giving in to the ever so alluring and charming Ms Brightman, I have decided to not repost those images  ;D

As for the bonesjonesreturns, until his real account emerges we should all let him play the court jester here, at least it provides some form of semi-amusement.

Jollygood don't be as jayjuangee says a diptwat.

You https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.0

and your fake scam hunting as a guise for enabling your scamming pals to charge fee to assist the scammers you bust repatriation to the forum ?

Or

Busting every one working with yobit except your DT pals?

Your behaviors should be examined and investigated.

You appear to be more dangerous than hacker0101000101 to me.

Another one for the sig ban. I see you are trying to whore that sig.... no takers??

Greedy newbies say and do anything for bitcoin dust. Parasites.

I already backed up my assertions sufficiently, especially since they are conclusionary assertions about off-topic matters, therefore I do not need to back them up any more than I already have... otherwise we are just devolving into more nonsense than we already have.


Why?  Because it is a BIG ASS waste of time.  If you do not know how to argue and present your arguments, then I am NOT going to waste my time trying to teach you better techniques.  You need to learn that on your own.  Maybe practice in some other thread or some other forum because here you are just cluttering with ever increasing tangles of nonsensical and difficult to follow assertions.


I don't have any friends.  A few weeks ago, I tried to go through a kind of process of attempting to become your friend, and even when we were attempting to go through such process, you were not even willing to work with me on that in order that we could attempt to become closer, or at least better able to communicate about any potentially matters of mutual concerns and interests.


I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Lauda's behavior?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?  or the topic of this thread, for that matter?


Probably, I do not understand the concept.  You are correct.


Great!!!!  We agree about something.  We might need to celebrate with a cyber hug, which will also meet our social distancing requirements.


How the fuck could I even demonstrate anything about the histories about these folks?  I am supposed to do some kind of research further than I already have experienced?  What is it that you would like me to do exactly?  Perform some kind of investigation into each of them in regards to some kind of theory that you have about them?   

O.k.  fair enough that you purportedly have done research into these three members and you have concluded that there are problems with them.  Great..  Good for you.



I am not even saying anything about what investigation has priority over another.  I happen to be involved in this thread, for some reason, that involves the conduct of hacker.  The purported conduct of lauda, nutildah and/or tman are not at issue in this particular thread... so why the fuck are you continuing to assert that I have some kind of obligation to look into the conduct of those three members in order for me to have been able to participate in this thread or in whatever other hacker related thread that I have participated in (to the extent that I have participated by posting, sending smerits and reading some of the materials to the extent that I believe that some of the materials are informative or interesting within my discretion)



I run away from homework assigned from members like you whether it is you or any other member.  Of course, I might give some members more benefit of the doubt if they do not abuse my trust in them, but ever since the beginning of my relationship with you, bonesjones, you have been abusing the fuck out of any attempt that I have made to give you any benefit of the doubt or to go down your multitude of dead ended bullshit rabbit holes.


Well, your assertion that I am purposefully running away seems to be another stretch that you are making.  There is only so much time that I can spend on any particular aspect of any of these conversations, and maybe you are successful in getting me to discuss whether I am running away or not, when it seems to not even really be true or even relevant if it were true.


Just because you and nullius are exploring these kinds of speculative off topic meanderings does not mean that I should be involved in those kinds of discussions.


Without going into the applicability of phantom of the opera to our discussion, I did tend to get a lot of pleasure in the 90s from playing a lot of that music (on repeat) including some of the other Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals.  So in the sense that some of us might learn about that music could be a good thing, but I still doubt that it is very helpful to entertain the various allegations of OP and whether OP might be shedding light on new hacker conduct or merely just regurgitating conduct that has already been sufficiently considered and accounted for my admins and moderators.  I get the sense that even if Nullius has allowed you to distract him into these various areas of seeming irrelevance, the thread has ultimately been able to shed some light on hacker behavior and even caused some members to conclude both that hacker had been continuing to NOT come clean about his seeming pattern of scammy behavior.  Of course, personally, I don't really feel very qualified in making these kinds of judgements, but it does seem to me that several other members (besides just nullius) who have participated in this thread, have pointed out a variety of ways in which hacker does not really seem to be coming clean and hacker seems to be contradicting himself when he does try to make some kind of clarification that seemingly way the fuck less than showing him as someone who really wants to improve his reputation rather than just digging himself in and continuing to deny and obfuscate.. that is the sense I am getting regarding hacker and some of the light that is getting shed through some of the sometimes quasi-relevant discussions within this thread.


You are not really saying anything new, in this part.

Seems that we are supposed to be talking about hacker, here, and you seem to be continuing to assert that for the most part all of the members who are influencing the criticizing of hacker are not sufficiently qualified to criticize hacker because their slates are not sufficiently clean.  Nothing new about those ongoingly irrelevant assertions, right?  Am I missing something in what you are saying in that above portion?

Where is hacker1001101001?

Though I have him on my IGNORE list it seems quite clear he is avoiding posting in this thread and the one where he was challenged with irrefutable evidence by marlboroza:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0

Stop annoying me.  I told you, I am busy.

---

I, for one, will take that risk. ;-)

Since you liked that image, and Bitcoin is always on topic here, that got me thinking about how to get her wrapped up in the blockchain.  Let us start at the beginning:




I say the foregoing in my capacity as the official Phantom:  If I could make her sing for me, then surely I can make of her a Bitcoin maximalist!  On the other hand, I don’t actually know much about Sarah Brightman except that she sings, and she has an interest in space (https://blockstream.com/satellite/).  Perhaps she does Bitcoin already?  I am oftentimes pleasantly surprised (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.msg53818451#msg53818451) at where Bitcoin shows up.




Too bad I can’t approach this from the musical angle—beyond noting what will surprise nobody:  I am a high-culture élitist; and naturally, I do enjoy the (actual) opera.  When I read up on it, I realized that being tagged as the “Phantom of the Opera” is exquisitely appropriate for me on so very many levels.  Otherwise:  Anonymity.

---

Just to be clear, for the record, Mr “Bones Jones’” interest in my penis size is unrequited.  I do not care to speculate on his...

...except to observe that as a rule of thumb, those who brag about theirs on the Internet usually have pathologically small ones.

I do agree with this:

---

Modlog (https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php) says nothing about 1021758, and he seems to have been online recently, but not posting.  Is there anywhere else to check?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758


That leaves me wondering if my dear Christine will continue to be disappointed.  It reminds me of that time when a (former) critic gave her a negative review—lulz.  Let forum spam not disturb her equanimity!

---

Of course, there will be a special graphic if/when it is confirmed that spammers get banned.

To jayjuangee

Your entire post boils down to this.

You believe the thread is simply about hacker0101000101.

No.

It is about the appropriate fair and consistent punishment for hacker.

You keep repeating that anything to do with the histories of DT and other friends of yours are irrelevant and off topic.

I keep repeating that your friends scamming histories are fundamental to the process of providing context to hackers purported evils.  Only with this context can we determine fair and consistent punishment for hacker0101000101

We must simply disagree.
It is clear that I am correct. You are either unable to understand the concept that you need full context for fair and consistent treatment or you are pretending not to understand.

If you just want to see a bunch of scammers that should be banned here witch hunt someone that spoke against them for lesser evils than their own. That is fine.

My arguement is solid.  Full context should be considered.
Stop pretending you are unaware of any clear wrongdoing by these scammers. Just makes you look untrustworthy.

We disagree then.



Yes.  We agree in regards to your last sentence, above.


That is your erroneous opinion.


I am not pretending.


I would not want to see a bunch of scammers.  I also would not like members to be on witch hunts.


That is your erroneous opinion.


I am not pretending, and if I appear to be untrustworthy, then that is your opinion too, which also seems to be erroneous because I have tried to work with you quite a lot on these topics.  Of course, you continue to suggest that I have not worked with you enough because you want me to do homework, and I continue to assert that I have done enough homework in terms of the various ways that I have participated in this thread and the other thread about hacker.  So we do not agree.  I don't know where else we need to go with the topic, because it is seeming that we are getting quite repetitious at this point.

I may be mistaken, but I believe an administrator needs to unban someone if they will be unbanned. If this was not the case, I would think an admin would be aware of anyone unbanned.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread that I am against the actions that hacker did that harmed the forum and the community. I would not go as far as to say he is evil, but I would also say what he did in the past is evidence of, and leads me to believe he is not a good guy.

My opposition to banishing hacker from participating in the forum is not a reflection of my opinion of him, it is my opinion of the circumstances.

<the below quote tag appears to be incorrect/have the wrong timestamp>
If you have evidence hacker was involved in bump spamming 5 months ago (after he was unbanned), my opinion would change. This evidence would need to extend beyond an account he was previously associated with being involved in spamming; you would need to rule out the account transferring ownership/control via a review of historical password changes and/or an admin chiming in his opinion on if hacker.today == the account involved in the bump spam.

---

I guess my question to you, and to anyone else who supports hacker being banned is, what harm do you think hacker is causing the community today that is so dire that he must be prevented from ever posting again? I inquired above for evidence that hacker is currently (or very recently) engaged in continuing bump spam, and this might be a valid reason if shown to be true.

He did not get unbanned, his ban got reduced. There are only two options here: 1) Admin was unaware. 2) Admin was aware, and is a supported of ICO bumping, in other words the admin in question supports fraud. Pick your lesser evil.

Either ban him forever, or unban actually contributing people too (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.0). Stop the forum double-standards, and stop indirect or direct support of them. Arguing for mr. hacker to remain unbanned is support of double standards. I can mathematically QED it if you need a drawing.

I would consider a permaban getting reduced to a 60 day ban to being unbanned.

I would not consider unbanning someone to equivalent to supporting everything the person has ever done. I don't know why RegulusHr has not been unbanned. Unfortunately, the admins rarely comment publicly on reasons for denials on those types of things. He appears to have a lot of friends in his local community, but I would not base a decision to urban, ban or not unban someone based on how many people are friends with the person.

It is not the same function.

People who agree that he is beneficial =/= friends. You are sounding like Quickseller with the above paragraph.

Funny, isn't it? I would expect theymos to be pro transparency at least with some things. ::) No problem to conclude: Bitcointalk.org condones ICO bumping I presume? Otherwise, the first step is to unban RegulusHr or ban hacker1001101001.

I was actually referring to the stance presented by tmfp
I was also not referring to you as being his friend considering
and other posts you made in the thread RegulusHr opened. Maybe you changed your mind about RegulusHr.

I think more transparency around why hacker for example was unbanned while others are not.

I was referring yo you referring to others, not me! I am nobody's friend truly, as it costs 22mil BTC to be granted my friend status. :D

I have changed my mind when I have seen what kind of evil they are willing to unban and let roam around here. There is no reason that somebody as RegulusHr then should not be granted an unban too. Transparency would help, but it does not seem that theymos or Cyrus are interested in transparency or accountability (interestingly enough).

Global mods can unban and they can issue signature bans now too. Hacker1010010101010101010101010101 was one of the first users to get this leniency after globals got the tools to do signature bans.  It's very likely that admins were not involved nor aware.

---

Discussing some other cases here and whether they're better or worse is quite pointless. I don't think admins or globals will read this dumpster fire of a thread. We don't know how many instances of plagiarism and/or post reports and/or prior offenses or any other circumstances are involved in each case. I really doubt that ALL admins and globals (6-7 people?) are involved in some conspiracy to support one ICO spammer and/or to attack some other user. Keep reporting posts that break the rules and if the user keeps breaking the rules they will get banned. Even game-protect eventually got banned.

+5
I did, I reported hacker's second c/p, reports is handled as "good" and nothing happened, on the other hand:
But why https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.0 ?

This user has more support than hacker's spam service, spam service is unnbanned and regulushr is still banned. What makes hacker so special and regulus not? Regulushr got lots support. Final line is, both c/p / plagiarism cases happened at the same time, or, "long time ago", in 2017, if you want me to put it in this way,..., if you want me to compare it like this...

Why obvious double standards? FFS everyone who commented in that or any other "regulushr related" topic  see double standards...

It only takes 2 minutes from admin to post comment. 15-16 months? well, that is lots of time!

I'm just saying that spilling it over into other threads probably won't help. IIRC RegulusHr had more than one plagiarized post so that might have been a factor.

Do we know for a fact that admins/globals looked into the case, e.g. did someone PM hilariousandco and what was his response?

So did hacker https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.msg54233470#msg54233470 (I didn't look for more), unless we are looking for +2 c/p now? New rule? :-\
Cmon, use logic, topic is in meta for last 15 months, it is bumped on daily basis lately and it has +4000 views, there is no fucking chance moderators/admins missed it! Even one post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5241339.msg54292434#msg54292434) was deleted by moderators few days ago.

Seeing a thread and looking into the details of the case is not the same thing. Unless a mod commented in the thread itself I wouldn't assume they looked into it or made any decisions one way or another.

You mean, they didn't read it like when I asked why accusation topic was removed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225589.0) and I didn't get any answer and then I created topic to ask why user Neopotism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2677043) is nuked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225980.0) and somehow I got response (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225980.msg53845801#msg53845801) to my previous topic?

That was off topic reply btw!

---

Report for hacker's copy/paste post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2316855.msg23533421#msg23533421 is marked as good  :-\

This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184641.msg23532786#msg23532786
And this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184641.msg23532255#msg23532255

As I can see, they don't exist any more, picture: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.msg54248760#msg54248760.

That was kinda funny. Report his post for being off topic :)

I get that moderators can't please everyone but by trying to link two unrelated cases you're not really helping. Just PM hilarious or theymos or both about RegulusHr and see what they say. And I'm quite certain that hacker1001101001 won't be re-banned.

Rumor has it that theymos is moderating meta and that he is colluding with moderators so report will probably remain unhandled.
I am pretty sure they can read...
Yeah, he won't be unbanned, he got second chance and that's it.
Lets just agree to disagree.

Lol at this " theymos is colluding with moderators " that's a brilliant theory moronbozo.

He owns the forum didn't you hear? He does not need to collude with anyone.

Maybe theymos is suddenly waking up

He suddenly realizes the forum is being milked dry by proven scammers and their supporters that dont give one shit about this forum at all.  They just want to grab as much for themselves as possible. They only want to punish others,  why? Because many of these competing "scammers " and untrustworthy projects are or would eat into their share or their sponsors share

I think you have pulled the wool over theymos eyes for too long.
Good to hear you crying malboroza.

Any sensible objective person can see what's happening here.
The merit cycling self elected DT started to think they owned the place entirely.
Perhaps he sees now that is gross to see scammers and their supporters demanding punishment of other members for lesser evils as they greedily milk sigs avatars escrowing lending at gross levels of interest..anything to squeeze some extra btc out of this forum and the other members.

Hacker0101000101 is simply not in the league of ruthless scammers and trust abusers like lauda, nutildah and tman
I don't even really like hacker0101000101 all that much, since I have noticed he made some very critical remarks about far superior members than himself. However I still feel he should have fair and consistent punishment and scammers in DT milking the forum with highest paying sigs and other schemes must be deleted way before we start looking at hacker0101000101 again.

Hacker seems to support objective standards. That is a huge difference to marlboroza and lauda and the other scammer supporters here. He will willingly be measuresd against these and be judged fairly.


Hacker is less of a threat and has been punished more already that is where we are now.

Going back the OP, it is an excellent layout by nullius of the argument against ("Mr Pay Me and I will Bump Your Threads") hacker1001101001

It was an excellent touch to recognise the efforts of marlboroza and Lauda too. They have been very vocal about the impact scammers, serial scammers, ban evaders, sock-puppet operators, fake trust circle members, merit abusers and those cheating their way to DT are having on this forum. They deserve credit for speaking out continuously and consistently against the users that want to turn this forum in to a magnet for scammers.

Since this thread deserved a bump I think the post I have replied to happens to be of some significance.