Your example is not plagiarism. There is a clear extra "/quote" bracket that has no "open quote" bracket, and there is a quote that is inaccurately attributed to someone who did not make a post, but was quoting someone else in his post. You also copied the entire portion of a post, and clearly responded to the content of the post under the post.

If you had not caught your mistake, your post should have been reported, and a moderator responding to the report should have fixed the broken quote. From a moderation perspective, there shouldn't be any question of plagiarism in the above post.

In my experience, it is more common for mods and admins to look for reasons not to ban users who are breaking the rules, than to look for reasons to ban users who have broken rules.

Okay, that is not something I had substantially noticed before. I have negative opinions regarding copying content (even when citing said content), as I discuss below, however, I don't think this substantiates any kind of long-term ban, nor long-term signature ban.

My opinion is that this kind of content is low value in nature. I wish people would not do this. However, as long as forum rules (and practice) allow this, I cannot in good faith favor a ban for doing this.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If Dean unilaterally changed the terms of the BKB tokens, you would have a breach of contract claim against him.

If someone owes you money as evidenced by a bond, you cannot sell the said bond for a discount and expect the creditor to pay you the difference between the sale price of the bond and 100 cents on the dollar of the face value of the said bond. The buyer of the said bond can negotiate with the creditor to settle the debt, which may or may not involve the creditor receiving less than the face value of the bond.

Biology tells us that only women can get pregnant. However, it is often the case that men are pressuring pregnant women to get an abortion because they want nothing to do (including financially) with the baby.

If radical, far-leftists were serious about "my body, my choice, they would make it illegal for men to pressure women to get abortions for unwanted babies. This is not the case, leftists, celebrate late-term abortions, and encourage women to cede the choice to get an abortion to leftist men who wish to avoid responsibility to pressure women to get an abortion.

I came here to ask about this very issue. Is there any evidence that Dean is in fact trying to make investors whole by buying the old BKB tokens?

If someone had sold at a low price, their claim would have transferred to whoever purchased their tokens.

IMO a HW wallet will reduce risk over using a "written" wallet.

When you want to spend your coin, you will generally need to travel from where the private key is located to your home with your private key. If your seed is written on a paper (or steel) wallet, there is the risk that someone will steal your seed while you are en route to your home, and if this happens, the thief will have access to the plaintext seed. If you are using a HW wallet, and this was to happen, the thief will generally need specialized equipment, and advanced technical ability to potentially access your seed and the above will not guarantee access to your seed.

I am not sure I agree with your conclusions.

Those that look for plagiarism by people who disagree with the person are not against "any" plagiarism, they are aginst people who think differently, and who criticize them.

I would also point out that in the past, DarkStar_ has offered bounties for people who are able to find substantial rule-breaking that results in a participant being removed from his campaign. So there is a financial incentive for people to look for things such as plagiarism, alt accounts, and other frowned upon behavior by those in the CM campaign.

Why would you wipe the seeds from the hardware wallets? Why don't you store the hardware wallets with the backup seeds? If you are already planning on storing the seeds someplace, storing hardware wallets containing the seeds will not increase risk of theft of your (friend's) seeds.

Keep in mind that it is a best practice to have your backups stored in at least two mediums of storage.

Is this the only time you have plagiarized anything? Were you participating in a signature campaign when you posted that thread?

The thread in question was open for at least an hour, so I am not sure how credible the argument that "you were rushing" to lock the thread is.

I would support a temp ban + signature ban if you have no other instances of plagiarism. If you were not participating in a signature campaign at the time, I would argue for additional leniency. This is based on your merit history (which implies your contributions to the forum).

---

Edit:
It has been brought to my attention that Mpamaegbu wrote the following in his alledged plagiarized post:
IMO, the above shows the OP did not intend to plagiarize when he made his post, despite how much I oppose the type of behavior I think he was engaging in.

It remains my belief that the post in question was a low-value post. I don't believe a single instance of a low-value post has resulted in any kind of substantial ban. At most, I would advocate for a 3 day ban, and no signature ban. This is assuming there are no additional instances of plagiarism in his post history.

I would point out that people can (and do) report plagiarism anonymously via the report to moderator button.

I am not sure I agree with your stance, but I think he likely is hoping to get merit from his public reports. 
I can only speculate if what you are saying is true, and it may be true. However, there are some people who look for plagiarism by people that disagree with them, and/or that are critical of them.

Plagiarism had gone unnoticed and unhandled for such a long time that some people have weaponized it.

In the past, people were given merit for these types of posts. Often, the source link is in very small font, and what appears to be a useful post is actually something with no original content from a single source.

---

If an article is copied, and there is not sufficient additional content or commentary, the post will likely be against copyright laws. I don't think the forum attracts enough traffic, nor does this happen enough for most news organizations to really care about this happening here though.

There are a lot of people who basically copy entire articles in a thread and have a citation at the bottom of the post. This is not plagiarism, but IMO is another problem as the post has virtually no original content nor commentary. The above is often not even someone summarizing an article, it is copying entire articles.

According to the documentation, for all intents and purposes, you must be hosting your own email server in order to use this program. You cannot use popular email providers such as gmail (unless such email provider decides to offer this type of service in the future).

I don't see many email providers offering this type of service due to the increased risk of account hijackings. The majority of email services are intended for personal use, and this type of service is really for business users.

Yes, I was trying to say the code was unintentionally changed, either because the code that displays the number of users was changed, or because the output of code that the above display code depends on was changed.

Per theymos above, this has to do with old deleted posts being removed from the forum database. Depending on when this was implemented in relation to when the feature to display the number of posts deleted from a self mod thread was implemented, either I was right, or theymos did not consider certain edge cases when writing the code for this feature.

I think Mpamaegbu likely intentionally plagiarized his post. The post in question is several years old, and I am not sure if he was participating in a signature campaign at the time. IMO he is sufficiently established of a forum member that a temp ban, rather than a permaban would probably be in order.

Although none of the cases in the OP apply, there are potential situations in which plagiarism could be "unintentional". For example, someone could copy content from multiple sources to make a well-rounded argument, and not properly cite said sources. If someone can quote many sources to make a coherent post that is informative and on-topic, I would be okay with allowing them to receive a warning. The sources would need to be diverse enough to show the person was putting in substantial effort into his post, and the post needs to be something that the average user reading the subject thread would find interesting, and not believe to be nonsense.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

Two of the now-deleted posts were scrapped in 2021, according to your site. If they were deleted post-beginning-of-2021, the number of posts deleted number is inaccurate.

There are several features added to the SMF 1.1.19 codebase, and I don't believe the code for these features is public. Some of the modifications to SMF 1.1.19 may have been to close security holes/issues.

While following the terms in the OP (which primarily consist of the requirement that PenTesters not cause disruption to the forum, and not access 3rd party data, you can find security weaknesses in the forum software, and collect the respective bounties.

I don't believe the disclosure of the number of posts deleted by x forum members in self-moderated threads is a standard SMF feature. So if you were to use SMF "out of the box" a user with a self-moderated thread would not have this information presented.
 
Clearly, either code was "stepped on" or code was changed that interferes with accurate reporting of deletions from self-moderated threads.

PayPal, etc transactions are reversible, so if a twitter account hack results in someone sending payments to one of these types of accounts, the payments can be reversed. This is not true for bitcoin nor LN payments.

Like I mentioned, twitter reduced the future potential benefit to a similar hack as what took place in 2020 by preventing users from being able to post bitcoin addresses.