Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is moral.

I think it's quite devious to hide under the whole "it's in our ToS" argument, especially when you have things like maximum bet amounts for bonuses (when fucking people over wasn't good enough) and these arbitrary KYC clauses.

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

Ironic post: gave me a good chuckle.

The problem here is because you're expecting people to value quality over quantity in the forum. For the vast majority of signature spammers, they probably just hit the quote button, think up some bullshit from their stream of consciousness which then spills into their fingers, and hit submit.

How many users do you think have the "new post warning" unchecked? I can bet that a large number of the ones who do are the users who are going to have their names on the "last posted" spot in consecutive threads on one of the spam boards.

I think the immediate accusatory remarks show signs of paranoia. It's understandable to feel indignant and trapped by the partisan trust system but I think it's also important to note that just because someone disagrees with you, they are not immediately attributable to the side you're directly opposing.

Am I immediately considered non-neutral simply because I appear to be defending Lauda? In that case, would your definition of neutrality be "unfavorable towards Lauda"?

I wouldn't use the word know since the only way for you to really know is if you yourself were Lauda.

---

(addendum edited since you revised your post)

I have opposed Lauda, yes. There are a number of cases in which I've literally countered a rating from Lauda. Other forum members of which I've directly opposed include Vod, OgNasty, TECSHARE, etc... the list goes on.

---

EDIT: (in relation to subsequent post)

Responded via PM.

This is your main account?
You didn't want to be tagged when you created a thread titled "DT tag me more please!"?
This is a very confusing situation.

"how arrogant, they have an opposing opinion to mine!"

Read.

Okay. Let's see. Lauda is an idiot.

---

I think it's a little disrespectful to act as if no one else is able to contest Lauda's opinions. Instead of insulting just Lauda, you've insulted everyone who has a stake in the trust system.

While some of them might disagree with the results due to their political affiliations, just know that the researchers involved with this project are the some of the most qualified, reputable, and consistent scientists on our side.

Here is what Dr. Masyde Reisad had to say when it came to political affiliation:

"Over multiple weeks the research team has analyzed the projected outcome of various political choices. What we have discovered is that when the individuals in the study aligned themselves with our partisan option, we found a high degree of success in the establishment of positive policies. In fact, we found that as the rate of partisanship approaches 1, so too does the percentage of valuable, unbiased policies!

Strangely, there appears to be a linear relationship between partisanship and political success."

The facts are clear, people. Stop staying on the wrong side of history. For each person that joins the true, logical political party, we are one step closer to a perfect world.

---

You're not that much older than me, Loyce. :/

The feedback timing in comparison to the the post's timing - that path is completely inconsequential. I don't think there's any use looking down this avenue.

On the thread, in essence, the question would be "is it only belka48 who is punished for plagiarism?"

What a useless cornered act of indignation. Mockery to the bandwidth of the internet.

If you can eat one more peanut, your stomach is not at maximum capacity. Do not strawman my example. We can reframe your point of contention with tautological terms, resulting in this proposition:
"If your stomach is at max capacity, your stomach is not at max capacity."

---

Bolded some keywords just in case.

Of course, I can't claim to understand DS's intent behind the words (alt accusations notwithstanding)

Rename this thread to "give me more attention" because your insecurity isn't shining hard enough.

Such is the fall of the Romans, to decadence - more specifically, to seeking out their carnal desires above such foreign concepts like patience and restitution. Yea, the dawn of fortune admonishes against inaction, yet the act thereof may itself be an action; in the eyes of a global network, it is conducive to follow status quo principles of respect for standardized rules.

In the unlikely event of a 1:1 mapping between cryptographic and worldly identities, one may allude to the justification of indignant behavior. Yet given incomplete information and applications of Occam's Razor to improbable events, such remarks may be dismissed in lieu of conventional, pragmatic logic.

Mind, persistent consecutive posts may attract the attention of staff wherein a possibility of a ban for evasion thereof grows from the attention brought forth by the postings.

The word "full" is an adjective describing an object or item of which is at maximum capacity. Maximum capacity meaning, no more space is available to add anything.

For example, when one believes their stomach is at maximum capacity, one may state, "I am full," to indicate that they cannot add more sustenance to their digestion protocol.

Is it more racist to prevent Turkish members from being accepted or to create a quota for Turkish members to be accepted?

What if Occam's Razor suggested that some people simply had better posts than others?

How about rather than "borrowing" merit, you "queue up" merit to be sent once you are given merit or sent your refill of the month?

This means that essentially, merit would be saved. (One could have a marker indicating how much merit is in 'lock' on the merit screen)

This is different from debt, since you're not creating new merit out of thin air.

d719a3b238614bde9041fb24a07c7ed2e955e3dc8f1f3b7054e8333f354fbcb3
bcdef

Ah, but for you see, the fence is merely an illusion. The truth is: there is no fence.

Balance of probabilities, I would align with the common sentiment in this thread.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? It is doubtful.

---

Fences don't exist: it's a gradient, like gender.

Despite attempting to invoke a stream of consciousness upon the text, I find myself hesitant and immediately translating colloquial language to that of a pretentious fuckwit. I truly embody Polonius in his decree: "brevity is the soul of wit" and turn my attention towards certain individuals gliding about the forum, gleaning attention from their fruitful endeavors of narcissism.

'

next

:manz-spinning:

Originally I wanted to talk about A->B vs. A<->B connections but as I'd continued the dialogue in my head I found fleeting relevance given that QS has the reputation that they do and that PN7 would have no reason—except perhaps as a bit of a laugh—to emulate [or rather, imitate] Quickseller's typing style.

I do want to state that incessant obsession thereof is neither conducive to sanity nor is the pinnacle of productive efficiency. It is quite the shard of coincidence were a regular user to argue this case, never mind the user in question... yet I beckon towards a more apt use of your time.

Arguments derived from this scenario are based from a trite situation and I see no point in continuing thereof.

As the kids say, "peace out, dude"