I am not familiar with him, but once you are certain someone is a troll, it is probably best to simply ignore him. If there is a post you come across that you can quickly respond to off the top of your head with little effort, you can respond if you wish.

There are a decent number of people whose goal appears to be only to waste others time and effort rebuking points. You can make your point and show your logic, however at a point this becomes futile.

I am guessing he blocked PMs for a reason. Probably one similar to why he doesn’t want to hear from you. He is unlikely to read your message anyway. (It’s also possible he hasn’t unblocked PMs from newbies).

The real risk is that someone would download all of the posts and impersonate the forum by telling everyone they have been logged out to get plaintext passwords. They might even say PMs are down to further delay suspicion. They could also impersonate reputable people to ask for money/loans/investments.

This was because the forum server needed to calculate everyone’s trust score who appeared on someone’s trust page. This could not be done periodically globally because everyone’s trust settings, including their trust list is potentially different.

---

I don’t necessarily think it is a good thing to have sent a lot of negative ratings. Above all, it is important to have accurate ratings, including those that meet the definition of the description of the type of rating you are giving and that third parties are not in disagreement with. Another useful metric would include the number of people that openly dispute your ratings, although it should be acknowledged that some people will simply be unreasonable and will refuse to accept their behavior indicates they are either a scammer or will try to scam in the future.

Also, uncovering a difficult to detect scam that has gone unnoticed by others is better than tagging many low hanging fruits and/or tagging after checking others’ work.

Why do you think these people are plagiarizing? What are their incentives to do this? Are they trying to rank up their accounts? Are they trying to use SEO to help their websites?

I would suggest that accounts get permabanned and this would get reduced to a signature ban (after an x day “hard” ban) upon the person appealing the ban.

Merry Christmas to everyone. (On Christmas).

Happy holidays to those who don’t celebrate Christmas.

This thread is in regards to those banned for plagiarism. There is little reason for someone to plagiarize if they don’t think it will help them earn money, either immediately or in the future via a higher ranking account.

I suspect these people are few and far between. Especially if you consider that some of these people are trying to rank up their accounts to use paid signatures in the future.

I think it would be different if she was not participating in the hearings and not voting on cases versus her being old and in poor health (and saying things like a certain resolution will hurt people’s feelings).

There is no limit as to the number of Supreme Court justices. If she, or another Justice is unable to vote on a regular basis, the president may simply end up nominating another SC justice.

I don’t doubt she is trying to do that, but based on her health, I don’t know how successful she will be in doing that. I also don’t know if that will be what’s best for her and her family.

I doubt Hilary can get confirmed, even if Democrats has a 60 vote majority/10 vote cushion. I also have doubts that Biden can even get the nomination. The Democrats have moved far enough left because of trump that I suspect they will nominate someone with ideology similar to Sanders (eg a socialist), who has no real chance of getting elected even if trump was caught in bed with Putin.

Kavanaugh hasn’t shifted the court as far right as some have predicted because Roberts has played the role of a swing vote. I suspect this will change once Ginsberg leaves the bench.

Interestingly, some reputable economists were calling for a rate decrease, and many others, including the WSJ editorial board was calling for rates to be held steady out of the latest Federal Reserve Board meeting this past week. However the Fed decided to take rates by a quarter point (25 basis points), and financial markets did not react kindly, with broad based US equity markets falling 4-5% over two days.

They probably won’t be against her. Perhaps there will be accusations she either looked the other way or tried to cover up claims of rape against those under her supervision.

With the news that Ruth Bader Ginsberg having a cancerous tumor removed from her lung, one must wonder how much longer she will last on the Supreme Court. Especially considering her hospitalization a few months ago, I would encourage her to retire and enjoy her elder years.

With the above taken into consideration, I would speculate that Amy Coney Barrett will be the next nominee to the US Supreme Court, especially if Trump is re-elected in 2020. This would result in the Supreme Court taking a major shift towards originalism, in that it will read the constitution as written, and will no longer unilaterally change the constitution from the bench for political purposes, without the consent of the citizens who the constitution governs.

When do you think Barrett will be nominated? Will Soros backed groups attack her the same way they attacked Kavanaugh (with baseless accusations)? 

I read what I assume is the OP and I had two thoughts:

1- Your English doesn’t appear to be very good and I would suggest you primarily post in sections in which your primary language is spoken.
2- I wanted to give you merit because I am in favor of your idea, and that a merit marketplace would likely result in better posts because it would align incentives of signature advertisers (those who wear paid ads) with having a forum that intelligent discussion takes place. However upon review of your posts convinced me not to. 

A mod could institute a ban that would automatically go into effect in the future and the review could be done if/when they appeal the ban.

I actually already posted a potential solution to this

I would be in favor of forcing users to pay a fine to get unbanned along with possibly a second fine to have signatures reenabled. Also, the users signature would have less functionality than it would normally otherwise have. One option might be to have a ban result in negative merit and activity to keep things fairly simple.

I am not a huge fan of the merit system, but if it remains, it would be logical for merit to play a role in being able to use a meaningful signature again. 100 merit is probably too high though as very few have received this much merit.

Too bad I was saying he was doing something that indicates he is a scammer and said he might be a harmless troll.

Nice strawman.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Both positive and negative ratings have a clear description and if the situation doesn’t match the description (reasonably), it is abuse.

Being a troll has nothing to do with the chances of someone not honoring their obligations in a trade, which is what the trust system is supposed to help people measure.

The same can be said in many other reasons for giving out ratings.