At long last, the eleventh member of the Vulpine Order of Merit is LoyceV!

It was obviously only a matter of time before everyone's favourite stastician earned the Merit Cycling Club's highest honour. Many have wondered when this time would come, and I'm pleased to say that the time of wondering is over and the time of celebration has begun.

Do the robot!

This website is a discussion forum. It is not meant to be used for joining airdrops. If you have no interest in using this forum for its intended purpose, then stop spamming and go away.

Correction: 57 accounts. You listed PiningGarcia (u=1586551) twice.

All now red-trusted, too.

Who says they do?

Actually, I usually say "he/him" when I think "indeterminate gender" since the gender-neutral masculine form is well-established in English, eg, "actor" may refer specifically to males in contrast to "actress" but is also the accepted gender-neutral form. While the singular "they/them" goes back a long way, it was never very popular until the feminazis recently overpowered the grammar Nazis for pronoun supremacy. I'm somewhat old-fashioned, so I've always sided with the grammar Nazis is this battle, but I'll still admit that singular "they" is better than "he/she" or worse "(s)he", which is really just a cop-out for indecisive writers who don't want to pick sides.

It's not their job to help you pick an appropriate pronoun. If you need help, Fowler's Dictionary has an excellent enumeration of the pros and cons of each, in the entry for "they, them, their".

The mere fact that someone is female does not give you permission to make unwanted sexual advances towards her.

I'm going to go with yes, since these particular threads mark the official point where even I've given up all hope of making sense of his deranged rants. (I think he's mad about his posts in some other thread being deleted? Who knows.) He's on his own now. Hopefully someone will let me know if he starts almost making sense again; he was kinda fun when he was almost making sense.

You forget, I've already turned one of them; don't count on the rest to protect you.

I control the merit system, Lauda controls the trust system. Together, we fight crime.

Can do. But before I go, does your referring to me as "he" mean I can stop being a vixen now?

Is that meant to be a clue? Your complaint is about something personal? Does that mean your off-topic rants are getting deleted again?

Now who's making it personal? I participate in multiple areas of this forum and its associated dramas; you're just a small part of it. But if helps your ego, go on thinking you're a bigger part of my forum life than you really are.

If it's not a riddle, that I'm afraid I just don't get what you're complaining about. Can you give me another clue?

Quit talking in riddles. What exactly are you complaining about (this time)? Did your off-topic rants get deleted again?

And please don't misconstrue my brief reply as evidence that I give a fuck. This time I'm just passing on the fucks of everyone whom you don't want posting in this thread (a list that I'm notably absent from - maybe you do love me after all). Though to be honest, I haven't actually checked how many fucks they're willing to give - I'll just take a collection later and hope they're good for it.

Geez, you just had to go and blow my cover, didn't you?

Yeah, I've reconditioned the flux capacitors as part of a standard tune-up. It should be running much more smoothly now.

By sending undeserved merits to their friends or alt accounts, or by selling merits for money or favours.

A conspiracy theory held by a certain infamous user that states that most or all high-ranking members are engaged in the aforementioned merit abuse. Some accused members of the alleged conspiracy (including myself) found the concept amusing, so we rolled with it.

There are no hard and fast rules. Ultimately, everyone sets their own standards regarding what behaviour they consider (un)trustworthy.

If you feel you have received negative trust unfairly, it is generally considered acceptable to send a polite PM to whoever sent it asking an explanation and/or what you can do to make things right. But do not continue to spam PMs if you don't receive a satisfactory reply immediately; that won't help your case at all.

DT stands for Default Trust, and is the list of users whose trust feedback is considered trusted by default. Information about how users are selected for DT can be found in this thread, and you can customise your trust list on the trust settings page on your profile.

It varies depending on whether you're a merit source, the number of (other) merit sources you've had anilingual relations with, and what vibrational level I had you set at during said relations. Ask cryptohunter for details.

---

Second week paid.

Because those signature-free sections were created specifically to address the spam problem in the Off-topic board. But there is no spam problem in the sections you specified, so nothing needs to be done. You're not seriously suggesting that the users who tagged you did so simply so they could spam their signatures, are you?

More importantly, it is also a crime as per international copyright law, and if that means so little to you, what other laws are you willing to break? In any case, your childish response to being called out says more about your professionalism or lack thereof than your initial offence. Thanks for playing, enjoy your prize.

Well, I certainly had fun with it. Best April Fools' joke ever!

So why don't you? It's been over 48 hours and you haven't updated your white paper to cite your sources. You claim you're being unfairly treated by not being given a chance to correct your error, yet you still fail to do so. Surely you must realise your negative trust would very likely have been removed by now had you just stopped plagiarising instead of going off on these wild rants, which are only likely to earn you even more negative trust by drawing attention not only to your plagiarism, but also to your immature and unprofessional attitude about it, which many people would regard as untrustworthy in and of itself.