That post is only useful to those that are willing to accept that systems should remain in place that allow the innocent to be mistreated in the first place.
That post is a good guide if you only wish for your own red trust removed and care not about others being mistreated by the systems that are left free to do so at will.
Leaving systems to remain where abuse of innocents is acceptable and sanctioned therefore allows free speech to be crushed.
In life one must not only consider their own welfare because eventually ignoring the mistreatment of other innocents will negatively impact on the entire system which we are all part of. The eventual outcome will be - be join the abusers or get abused.
You certainly do have the right to wage a war against ANYONE that supports or sanctions the abuse of innocent people. They are no better than the abusers and actually worse because generally the abuser has some direct selfish gain (which humans understand) the supporters of abusers are simply ass licking wussies that just want to be shielded from abuse or get into positions to abuse themselves. Absolute dirt.
I for one will never suck up and slime around them for approval and for trust abuse to be reversed. Remove it else be reminded of the truth regarding your actions over and over until it sinks in that I will not permit it to go unanswered. I have plenty of time and plenty of enthusiasm. I never came looking for trouble with these people they showed up in my threads abusing me verbally with lies and then tried to bully me with their red paint because i dared to stand up to them and tell the truth regarding their own lies and deceit.
Remove the abuse and improve yourselves or be removed from the trust system. Those are the only options ahead.
The point that I've been trying to get at, is that innocent is subjective. Some people think account sales make you guilty. Some people don't. If you leave someone negative feedback that says, "I'm leaving this person negative feedback for buying/selling an account" then only the people who think account sales make you guilty would care. Those who don't care don't magically see the negative comment as anything more severe like fraud.
Sure, you can wage war against anyone who gives you an unfair shake, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You don't need to suck up to someone, if you just act like a normal human being under the assumption that a mistake was made, these things solve themselves more often than not. Otherwise you just deal with your difference of opinion and move on. Flying off the handle just makes you look guilty to people you may have looked innocent to otherwise.
Or, you can fly off the handle and just use escrow I suppose, though then people worry about giving their address out to someone who can't act civil.
More to the OP's point, accounts that incorrectly cited things from 2014 aren't getting banned for plagiarism. The whole plagiarism thing didn't come about until fairly recently, so its not dealt with in the same way. Old posts are typically left alone as well, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by posts from 2014 getting accounts in trouble now. If we had steadfast rules that said plagiarism = ban, moderator discretion on the matter wouldn't exist. That moderator discretion is what allows them to see the difference in intent when it came to copying a news article five years ago, versus someone stealing ideas to disguise their spam posts to up their post counts.
I can not agree.
1. persons who stand up for what is honest and true ( by reasonable human standards) are to be trusted more than those that wish to crush their right to honest and fair treatment.
2. The best scammers are very civil you won't get far as con man attracting attention to yourself and becoming very unpopular. They are no less likely to sell your address or keep your btc. They are civil until they vanish with your money.
3. I actually find it very gross to watch people that are obviously wronged (by any reasonable humans opinion) just enduring it and trying to slink around people and win favours that way. Of course you can and should try being reasonable at first but once you realise they have no intention at all of being reasonable in return then as thule says the options tend to run out. Accept the abuse or make it uncomfortable for the abusers and all their supporters or even the weak that will not stick their necks out to do the right thing.
Now of course the subjectivity is where these abusers can lurk untouched. This is just an excuse for them because they can construct all kinds of unreasonable nonsense and just say that is their opinion, and since its subjective then can then grasp at the weakest and most improbable connections to piece together some specious theory as to why you are untrustworthy pr "guilty" and not the innocent party.
Hence the absolute need for standards which will prevent such gross abuse.
I mean one can always make some nonsense argument that is highly improbable verging on ludicrous to justify their actions.
For example. (you is not you SS in particular but anyone wishing to just use subjectivity as means to make unreasonable arguments)
You steal someones expensive car and then smash it into them - killing them -- having never met them or heard of them before.
Most reasonable persons would say he was the innocent party.
You will claim he was not innocent. He was wealthy and you were poor. He should not have been so greedy and donated his money to charity not waste it on expensive cars. His greed killed him. You are innocent and now have the mental scaring to deal with having had to witness his putrid greedy body explode on the windshield, you therefore require compensation from his family members.
Or if that did not go over well with the judge, then you could say that you just saw him eating lemons and therefore he was just obviously untrustworthy and net negative to society. Where is your reward?
Subjectivity allows all kinds of madness to be crafted into specious explanations of selfless guardianship /being a good cop. However, in some cases it is actually just the control and abuse of honest members who are the innocent victims, they are then cast in a poor light by weight of numbers that collude as one gang of self enriching bullies.
You need criteria that is applied to everyone equally or that is unfair in itself. All DT need to follow the same mandate and same criteria. Any grey areas that pop up will have to go to a higher power. However, flout the mandate and criteria more than once you're out. Hence they will be super sure before attracting the attention of that higher power.
