Out of curiosity, who did you buy from?

Someone has admitted to plagiarizing.

It is not a conspiracy theory nor is it off topic. The way lauda is acting is consistent with him trying to setup an excuse for plagiarizing.

This sticks out like a sore thumb in part because he has advocated for tagging people for doing nearly every other action.

I think laudas punishment for plagiarism, if he is found to have plagiarized to be the same as everyone else, and his deleted posts and alts should also be checked.

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.

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.

Well some of the plagiarism was done well before plagiarism was (known to be) a problem. When I was in the business years ago, I never would have thought to check for plagiarism, and I don’t believe anyone ever asked me about plagiarism when buying an account from me.

I think it should be easy to detect if an account was sold a long time ago based on IP evidence and password changes. I don’t think many people would think to fake an account sale that would be apparent to the admins to evade plagiarism from years ago, as IMO those plagiarizing thought it would go unnoticed indefinitely. 

Ideally we can get the plagiarism problem under control so that all prior plagiarism is found and punished as appropriate and future plagiarism is quickly uncovered.

I don’t think anyone is getting banned for accidental plagiarism such as forgetting to cite a source. Nor is anyone getting banned for responding to a quote that lacks any kind of source.

Bans are not being given because of broken BB code. They are being given out because someone clearly tried to pass off someone else’s words as their own. Often the copied words would appear to be nonsense if it were to be assumed to not be plagiarized. Almost always there is a financial motivation.

I am in favor of allowing someone to stay if the plagiarism was from a long time ago and they have subsequently shown themselves to otherwise be productive forum members. However there should be severe punishment.

If this is true and those currently using the accounts are going to be held to account for the plagiarism of the farmer, we might as well ban account sales, even if you can’t prevent all of them. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect someone to check for plagiarism when they buy an account, or even know how to effectively check. This way if someone is banned for plagiarism the farmer did, there wouldn’t be an injustice because they should have been banned for using the purchased account anyway (or the purchased account should have been locked).

I don’t think it would be difficult to generally tell if a person in good standing had purchased their account after the time of plagiarism.

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

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

You are mistaken my friend. Merit spent when you have available source merit comes from your source merit balance, not your sMerit balance. As such, I have some available sMerit that remains unspent.

I am not sure if most merit sources spend more than their source merit each month, but if not, I would imagine many merit sources have considerable sMerit if they earn a decent amount of merit. The way things are looking, I will run out of both source merit and sMerit before the end of the month, but I plan on addressing this by earning more merit.

Update as to under what circumstances newbies can be banned

I believe he actually added 8 new merit sources because one was removed.

Because scans are not moderated here and because the mods cannot know for sure if something is a scam or not.

I am glad he went out of his way to help you participate in a new signature campaign. Your antidote doesn’t really have anything to do with Hhampuz personality benefiting from the campaigns he runs while harming his clients.

Are you talking about integrity such as accepting his friend who recently had plagiarized at the time?

Second chance? At what exactly? Speak slowly so I can understand.


I think I already know the answer....not criticizing you and your friends.

You are correct I have no altruistic reason to keep my signature up, as stated the signature remained up because I wanted to point out there are no negative reputation harm to livecoin - the entity Hhampuz is ultimately getting paid by to maximize advertisements for -- of my wearing their signature.

Hhazmpuz's reply confirms that:
He confirmed the reason he did not want me wearing the signature was because I was no longer being paid.

This is my point. Hhampuz is specifically declining to utilize the most effective advertiser, so to personally benefit. He also accepted a friend of his, who at the time had been caught (and had negative trust for at the time) plagiarizing in recent months. I am not calling him out on this because I am involved, I am more than willing to call him (or anyone else) out on this, regardless of who is involved. Neither of these things can align with any claim that Hhampuz is acting in the best interest of his client. The line that he has "full authority" or whatever over his advertising campaigns is BS because that does not give him a license to act to the detriment to his clients (who are ultimately paying participants), especially when he receives a personal benefit.

This sounds good, but creates disincentives to work and be a productive member of society. If all of these needs are met, why would someone work?

Providing all of the above is not only expensive, but it will lead to very few people having adequate of the above because there are not enough people working to produce the above.


In general, few people will intentionally have their property sitting vacant. Most people who invest in real estate will attempt to find tenants willing to pay rent who can produce income for the investor until he sells the property.

I continue to wear the signature to show there is no repetitional concern of my advertising for livecoin.

You are intentionally not hiring the most effective advertisers so that you obtain personal benefits. This is in effect you taking a little bit of the advertising budget off the top for your personal use.

Your post indicate my advertising for livecoin is no detriment to their reputation, and your PM indicated to me that you acknowledge livecoin has received an outsized positive benefit to my advertising.

This is not unlike how you accepted a friend of yours into another one of your campaigns that you knew was plagiarizing post -- you accepted an inferior advertiser who you knew was not going to make good posts into your campaign because he was your friend and you would benefit.

I don’t think the ban message being displayed is preventing anyone from getting a second chance.

Signature advertising should not be someone's job. If this is someone's primary source of income, they are not someone we particularly want here.

I am not saying someone should absolutely, under no circumstances ever get hired to advertise on their signature again if they are caught plagiarizing. I am saying potential advertisers (employers) should be warned as to their history so they can take this information into consideration.

There are a decent amount of circumstances in which I would *not* personally hire someone who previously plagiarized, especially if they tried to cover it up after they were caught.

Like I said, what they did is very similar to stealing money (from advertisers) when they believe no one was looking.

I am not sure this is something I would want associated with my business. It is also an added risk because these people have shown themselves willing to try to obtain money under false pretenses.