He has been charged with *more* crimes regarding money owed to Stormy Daniels.
I wonder how an attorney that stole money from a hot babe of a porn star would be treated in prison. She isn't that attractive. Maybe 10 years ago (maybe). I would be more worried about what they think of sleazy lawyers if I were him lol. There is a picture of her with Trump in 2006, she was not attractive in that picture. Based on the charges he is facing, I don't see Avenatti ever working as a lawyer, or possibly professionally again. He might get a book deal, but depending on the specific circumstances, he might not see that money depending on the specific circumstances regarding what his book is about and the charges surrounding his relationship with Daniels. |
|
|
|
The first round started Dec 21, and ended on the 28th29th. The second round would have ended on Jan 5, which is 7 days later. There were two entries posted on Jan 5, one at 12:34 AM and the other at 9:54 PM. I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry. They also said they would host the giveaway up to 4 times per month Even though they didn't technically say the giveaway was going to stop, they did not specifically say it will continue, and my reading of the post announcing the giveaway doesn't obligate them to continue additional rounds. It also says only forum members that are "member" rank or better can participate, although this is listed under "bitcointalk" and could be read as the contest is only open to "members" and better. cornl was the 2nd person to enter and his merit history reflects he only had 2 merit as of when the round was over, but the other person who entered in time, rat03gopoh did have enough merit to rank to member. The additional requirement is ambiguous, and it is not clear to me what was expected to be eligible. It appears they speak Russian, perhaps as their primary language. I tried translating the additional requirement into Russian and back into English to see if ambiguity is removed, this is the result: For week 2 we have an additional requirement: you will need to publish at least 10 messages before the next round for each link of your forum, otherwise they will not be taken into account. Still not very good. I don't think how they conducted themselves is very professional, but I would not consider being unprofessional a reason to call the person a scammer. I am not going to advocate one way or another for or against their tag. Some people have avoided getting tagged for a bigger stretch of logic, but I think that logic was completely BS, however it is precedent -- there is no need to re-litigate that here. |
|
|
|
|
He has been charged with *more* crimes regarding money owed to Stormy Daniels.
|
|
|
|
...
How did the supposed alt know that bill gator was banned to rush here and make this conspiracy theory work? I knew he was banned days ago when his signature reflected: Banned from displaying signatures until May 18, 2021, 08:56:42 PM The above in addition to the fact that he hasn’t posted in several days, starting prior to when he was banned. I believe he was banned on May 19 just before 9PM. I would presume that anyone else could make the same conclusion. (Technically I don’t *know* he was banned at all or at that time, but it is reasonable for one to reach the conclusion). |
|
|
|
|
I don’t understand why it is even necessary for a third party to run a bot to detect plagiarism. If most cases are as simple as theymos describes, finding plagiarism should be as simple as a database query. This is especially true if the goal is to detect all cases of plagiarism in which exactly the entire post was copied, but slightly more advanced queries could be done to find more tricky cases of plagiarism.
The above would remove any question of someone being targeted because of something they said or their stance in a dispute. It should also allow us to detect ~all cases of plagiarism and should be able to do so moving forward in real time.
No, I don’t trust suchmoon to not intentionally target someone (or avoiding checking/reporting someone) based on who they are or what their stances are, or whose side they take, etc.
|
|
|
|
So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did.
Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common.
All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account.
I would agree with your conclusion, and my opinion is that Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism/post quality. Im sure you recall how accounts were marketed back then, and post quality was always a factor. I remember playing with the account tool that everyone used and having it judge my post quality. While I agree that improving your post history is a good way to decrease the penalties, if you break a rule and you aren't caught you aren't punished. As soon as you get caught, you are likely to be punished. Will a moderator give you more consideration if you have 1 bad post for every 100 good? Certainly more so than someone with 10 posts with half of them being bad. The risk as you said was that he would receive a temp ban, and he did. I'm not sure that it warrants a 60 day ban given the offense to contribution ratio, but thats if we operate under the assumption that there was only a single case of plagiarism in Bill's post history. I agree 100% that he should have checked post quality, but I am not aware of any basis for checking for plagiarism in 2015. If he had gotten banned for spamming in 2015 that lasted a week, I would be on the same page, but it is 2019 and his ban is ~8 weeks and has a 102 week sig ban. It is my understanding that sig spammers were generally receiving a 3 or 7 day ban for a first offense back then, not the 60 day ban plus a 2 year sig ban he received. I am also not aware of anyone receiving a ban for insubstantial posts with a paid sig well after post quality has improved. The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie
Lauda is blowing smoke probably to just piss you off fella - your biting only encourages more of it. In your hypothetical story here, should the wordsmith Bill come back and prove that the OP (who has a thesaurus stuffed in every orifice) is not Bill I will happily remove my tag and will lean on Lauda to remove as well. You seem obsessed with tags so much more since OG is no longer on DT and its a bit worrying, the old dictatorship is over, DT is self governing and if a tag is unjust members of DT talk to each other and help resolve anything that is seen as incorrect by a number of people. The new system is working as you can see with OG and Bill being excluded by more senior members than included - yet you will also see that that teeGUMES is on DT as the issue with regards to Vod was handled in a respectable way. so, "if" you are right the tags at the moment will be removed and they aren't doing any harm whilst the member in question is banned if the member does not come back and post before the ban is over we can conclude that the OP is Bill. Now to further indulge you, every fucking other person on this fucking forum can add 2+2 and see that the OP was written by the same scummy prick who bought the fucking account, weaseled his way with tiny deals to have a decent level of trust, continued to shit words out and then write a fucking essay on every post then get onto DT.. Lauda is not blowing smoke. Bill did something that lauda doesn’t like and he is looking for an excuse to give negative trust. It is not possible to prove a one post newbie is not an alt of someone. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone could possibly do that. |
|
|
|
Plagiarism was neither explicitly against the rules when he bought the account nor was it a known problem. He should have known not to plagiarize himself (by all accounts he did not), but I don't think he had any reason to believe others were plagiarizing.
I don’t think he had any reasonable reason to check for plagiarism when he bought it, and I don’t think any of the tools that checked post quality would look into potential plagiarism.
As previously stated, if account buyers are going to be held responsible for the actions of prior owners, account sales might as well be disallowed.
It technically was, we just called it spam at the time as it was not common with non newbie accounts. Account farmers were a problem even back then, and plagiarism itself wasn't uncommon. Account farmers had hundreds of accounts and they'd share posts in megathreads and places they could get away with it. Those accounts were nuked/banned, but none of them ever appealed because they knew exactly what they were doing. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bill's account was one that slipped through the cracks, and later got flagged by the bot. So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did. Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common. All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account. The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him.
Ok - lets play what ifs again... if it isnt Bill - so what? if it is Bill - So what? either he did copy pasta and most people will exclude from DT, or he didn't and he will be excluded and tagged for buying an account. I don't get what your hardon is here unless it was you who actually started this thread. The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie |
|
|
|
This would lead me to believe the mods are *not* telling those who are banned which of their posts were found to be plagiarized.
I highly doubt anyone is being told which posts they plagiarized--but that's always the way it's worked. When someone opens a ban appeal thread, only then does someone do the research and come up with an example or multiple examples. If Bill Gator was not told which post was plagiarized when he was banned, then the question becomes how did the OP know which post he was banned for *before* he opened this thread. The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him. |
|
|
|
In my mind it is up to these banned/sig banned DT members to explain themselves (sooner than later) and provide some context with the reason why they were sig banned and appeal to DT directly. The mods/staff/this insane new bot have done their job and now it's up to DT to act aswell.
Do we now have different rules for DT members and non DT members as it concerns plagiarism? This is an offence as far as I agree with your post though. The forum has its standard for such misconduct . The rules regarding pretty much anything are different for seniors and non seniors. It's all about that intent. More and more "rules for thee but not for me"  Correct. It is because I am this The Queen of Cats
and you are this: filthy degenerate
This is good to know. I will be sure to keep this for future reference. |
|
|
|
If the claims in the medium article are true and can be verified, specifically that he used his credit card to purchase the bitcoin.org domain in 2008, this would be very strong evidence that he is satoshi. I don't think these claims have been proven, and I was also previously under the impression that satoshi had used cash in the mail to pay for the domain registration/hosting. The medium article also implies that CSW no longer has access to his private keys, and I generally believe this to be true considering satoshi has not spent any of his coins even after bitcoin reached ~$20K. Further evidence of this being true is satoshi not stepping in (with proof of who he is) to try to mediate the block size debate in 2014-2017 when things were very heated. If CSW is in fact satoshi (he has done things to "prove" he is satoshi that I would consider fraudulent, so I am very skeptical), I would not automatically agree with everything he says, nor his stances of various crypto topics. I maintain my ability to think for myself. In fact I would disagree with many of his stances, including those that caused bitcoin cash to split SV to split off from BCH. |
|
|
|
In my mind it is up to these banned/sig banned DT members to explain themselves (sooner than later) and provide some context with the reason why they were sig banned and appeal to DT directly. The mods/staff/this insane new bot have done their job and now it's up to DT to act aswell.
Do we now have different rules for DT members and non DT members as it concerns plagiarism? This is an offence as far as I agree with your post though. The forum has its standard for such misconduct . The rules regarding pretty much anything are different for seniors and non seniors. It's all about that intent. More and more "rules for thee but not for me" |
|
|
|
As far as I know, there is no leniency given for the, "my account was hacked, I bought the account, it was my brother on my account, etc etc" excuses. It may well be valid, but its far easier for the staff to just say, take care of your account, rather than taking on the duty of spending days playing detective to help out the 1 in 1000 that have a legitimate claim. Back when account buying/selling was a bit more acceptable, before account farmers became the nuisance they are today, checking over an account's posts was something everyone did before buying an account. If I recall, there was even a price tool that would tell you the quality of an account's posts and its value. That burden was always on the buyer, so maybe I'm not as sympathetic as I could be on the matter. Regardless, asking the moderators to cut you some slack is just going to result in tons of spammers asking for forgiveness with bogus reasons, so I can't see anyone wanting to set that precedent.
Plagiarism was neither explicitly against the rules when he bought the account nor was it a known problem. He should have known not to plagiarize himself (by all accounts he did not), but I don't think he had any reason to believe others were plagiarizing. I don’t think he had any reasonable reason to check for plagiarism when he bought it, and I don’t think any of the tools that checked post quality would look into potential plagiarism. As previously stated, if account buyers are going to be held responsible for the actions of prior owners, account sales might as well be disallowed. |
|
|
|
I that case no sane person would report it and certainly no mod would ban for it.
I think I have my answer  Yes you do. The answer is - you're not sane if you think a post with a quote inside quote tags can be reported as plagiarism. But you're welcome to try. Bullshit. There is zero reason for lauda to post about this if this was the extent of his plagiarism. The implication of lauda posting about this is that he previously plagiarized and wants you to either not report any plagiarism of his that you find, or for you to not look for his plagiarism, or for you to warn him of any plagiarism you find before you report it. |
|
|
|
The order is about 67,35 € I believe. The shipping should be free.
I can do this if the site allows for credit cards to be used (instead of a PP account). I would prefer the order to be placed in USD as well, if possible. |
|
|
|
What about the situation where the plagiarised posts predate the posting of the forum rules relating to plagiarism/copypasta?
I've seen it mentioned a couple of times now that the rules relating to plagiarism were only added mid-2016.
Ban. |
|
|
|
snip
Why the fuck would anyone else post the op if it wasn’t the wordsmith himself? And hypothetically if your story of it not being bill turned out to be correct I would move my tag and any other DT member would do the same as long as we were presented with OBSERVABLE PROOF. Well for one, lauda seems pretty hell bent on seeing that Bill Gator is tagged, regardless of what anyone else thinks. So there are the people with a similar mindset. |
|
|
|
It's quite murky. It's easy on random shit-posting baboons in pay-per-post campaigns. Say I had forgotten to include that source today. Would you have banned me? Note: Even though I wear a signature, I am not required to do anything thus making 1 or 1000 posts makes no difference. Financial motivation is a no-go here, and I most certainly did not intend to pass that as "my own work". So? Nonsense. if you have a paid sig that doesn’t require any specific number of posts, if you don’t make sufficient numbers of posts the company will decide to stop paying you to advertise. This is true even if you don’t have a specific post count expectation. Nobody asked you anything you filthy degenerate. What I wrote is objectively true, I generate more advertisement without posting anything than most people do by actively posting. Go back to your account-farming pajeet hole. Me thinks lauda has plagiarized in the past. If this is true, if the administration is not running the plagiarism bot themselves, the question becomes if the person running the bot is trustworthy enough to report lauda. It would probably be a good idea to have the bot go back and check the 3000+ posts lauda deleted on his alt account and any other alt accounts he has. It did have the quote I think.
I that case no sane person would report it and certainly no mod would ban for it. I think I have my answer |
|
|
|
Before you guys tagged him, does any of you have a solid proof that the OP is bill gator himself?
Looks like a scandal planned by Lauda and Tman to remove people who doesn't lick their ass.A made up post.
Playing politics on an online forum, get out of your basements you fucking incel virgins.Get a life!
This post is a prime example of totalitarianism on this forum.
Reminds me of The animal farm.
I am curious if there is evidence the OP is the same as Bill Gator. The answer would be especially telling considering the reaction of certain members here. Read the OP, bulshit bulshit 32 words when 2 will do, it’s like a tramp stamp on a cheap woman, I can smell the shitty perfume from the other side of the earth. There is literally zero proof the OP is an alt of Bill Gator. Everything he posted is public information. I am not sure if those getting bans are receiving any kind of notification of the post found to have plagiarized, but many people opening ban appeal threads appear to not know what specific post of theirs was caught. However in the OP's case, he knew exactly what post he copied, even though he is not the one who wrote the post. He also says he will not reply to this thread, which is unexpected of someone in his position. A review of the security log and Bill Gator's post history does make me believe his account was likely sold on Nov 7, 2015, as claimed in the OP. This is based on public information available to anyone. When the account was likely transferred, it only had 107 posts, and appears to be a textbook example of someone buying an account to get around the long wait times between posts. edit: This person claims to not know what post got him banned for plagiarism (presumably) and he was banned on the 20th, while Bill Gator was banned on the 19th according to his signature. This would lead me to believe the mods are *not* telling those who are banned which of their posts were found to be plagiarized. |
|
|
|
Before you guys tagged him, does any of you have a solid proof that the OP is bill gator himself?
Looks like a scandal planned by Lauda and Tman to remove people who doesn't lick their ass.A made up post.
Playing politics on an online forum, get out of your basements you fucking incel virgins.Get a life!
This post is a prime example of totalitarianism on this forum.
Reminds me of The animal farm.
I am curious if there is evidence the OP is the same as Bill Gator. The answer would be especially telling considering the reaction of certain members here. |
|
|
|
there was nothing to gain from the post Account farming is what was gained from that post. It's the risk of buying an account: you buy it's entire history too. If this is going to be the standard, account sales really should be banned. That was 2015, dude. The account buying problem was nowhere near as bad as it has since become, and account dealers didn't start getting tagged until 2016.
I don't care what year it was when you come at me with bullshit in order to create a false defense for your past actions. This is a play out of the CH-book, and I won't let it slip. If anyone counters, I'll counter the counter: Say no to account dealers. To make matters worse, it was bought primarily for shitposting which he has been doing. No thanks. I am guessing you are not going to support people tagging you for doing just this. I guess your policy is ‘rules for thee but not for me’ Or perhaps the tag is actually in response to his recent criticism of vod (and his tag against vod). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
