That's a very poor analogy, bordering on irresponsible. Consider this analogy instead: "A landlord (Betcoin) believes that someone broke the posted rules of the apartment complex they manage, and know that the culprit had a grey Honda Civic with license plate XYZ (the bitcoin address) playing Wu-Tang (his bet choices). When Jimin Jibao pulls up to the apartment complex in the same vehicle playing Ghostface's Fishscale album, the landlord takes away Jimin's keys (account access). Jimin still has furniture and personal effects in his apartment, but does not know their value (current account balance)."

Based on that:

1) Can you see the difference in implied knowledge between your analogy (You watch it happening) and what Betcoin has publicly admitted (We know that Jimin and KILLYMNE used the same address and made similar bets)?
 
2) In the apartment analogy, do you believe that the landlord should refuse to answer any questions from a tenant whose property they currently hold? Can you see how the phrasing choice of "a murder" might be emotionally loaded in a way that "a property dispute" isn't?

You might find this nitpicky, but for someone representing Betcoin even marginally, you need to. Any professional relationship with them - especially a monetary one - means you should be holding yourself to a higher standard than regular posters to avoid any perception of dishonesty. In this case, I think you failed, champ.

Did you even read the post? I gave examples of Lauda's posts having two grammatical "voices" - one unique to Lauda (with common ESL errors), and one shared by the alleged plagiarized content (with noticeably better use of punctuation, except for where Lauda is substituting in their own words, or "word-spinning").

I mentioned it backing up Kalemder's post:

and Suchmoon's:

I fail to see in what universe this would be called "defending" Lauda. Either you're skimming (in which case, why even comment?) or you have reading comprehension issues that need to be sorted out.

Yikes!

Something that I find interesting in this situation is that there's a noticeable difference in grammatical errors between the alleged plagiarized content and the added "word-spun" filler - equivalent to the difference between a well-read-but-not-native English speaker and a native English speaker. These inconsistencies are sometimes clear even in the same quote. It adds credence to Kalemder and Suchmoon's comments regarding "word-spinning".

Bold emphasis is mine, red remains from previous posts in order to indicate alleged plagiarized content.

---

---

Incorrect comma usage:


This is a noticeable change in comma proficiency mid-post. Non-native speakers often struggle with comma usage following introductory phrases: "Actually", used as an introductory phrase, is always followed by a comma.

The comma usage in "A lot of things use SHA, for example banks." reinforces this difference. A comma is (incorrectly) used to indicate an upcoming example, where a colon would be more appropriate. "A lot of things use SHA: for example, banks." would be grammatically correct but still clunky. "A lot of things use SHA: banks, for example." would be appropriate.

Compare this to AzN1337c0d3r's mirrored content, where we see much more consistent comma usage in the same situation:

---

I've included two more examples of comma usage from above to reinforce that this does not appear to be a one-off mistake. "Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster" and "To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits." are both examples where the following clause needs to be indicated with a comma. Interestingly, the second example there is written correctly in the alleged source material:



I'm beating a dead horse here, but "I have not forgotten about D-wave though." should have a comma between "D-wave" and "though". Otherwise, an adverb will be confused for a conjunction with no follow-up (and thereby no function. Hah!)

---

---

Extraneous text:


One thing taught to all students in a second language program is "Read your sentence out loud." This is a common error when inserting symbols: incorrectly applied, you make existing text redundant. In this case, Lauda's version out loud would sound like "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD - equals is generally a strategic attempt...", while the alleged source material would be grammatically correct. To me, this is the most damning evidence of text edited post facto by someone with a different reading/writing level.

---

---

Again - these are mistakes you would expect to see consistently made. A fluctuation in the grasp of English grammar should not be seen mid-post, and definitely should not be clearly separated between the black text unique to Lauda and the red text of the alleged source material. I invite others to criticize as needed.

To be clear, I have no vested interest in whether anyone is banned or not. I have some opinions about what I consider to be flaws in Lauda's judgment (I don't believe that a word like "pajeet" can be separated from its intentionally-racist 4chan origins), but I find them largely irrelevant to this topic or the decision at hand.

inb4 "nice first post", "hop on your main acct", etc. The rules of language don't change based on your activity level. I've been a lurker for years, and a cursory mod search would show I'm not on TOR, not using a VPN, and have sent PMs to board members regarding similar topics.