Negative rating from The Pharmacist

[Rambotnic]

Once this is over, i will once again open the same guide but this time i will credit it by the way Staff tell me to do it.

You could write it with your own words based on your experience instead using different sources. That would be great topic.
I will stick to my opinion that such topic's shouldn't be allowed for several reasons and also I would like to say that cryptohunter has good point. OP said content was taken from different sources, so maybe they really didn't know that they have to credit source.

No one would like how many times i was scammed to share my own experience I've been from the people who blindly trust unknowns over the internet and most of the time i was fucked
Instead of sharing my bad experience, i find those sources as really legitimate and they could really help people
Just next time i will credit fully the creators and not only mention they were collected from few sources.

[cryptohunter]

I see no exact method of correctly referencing source in the rules.  Is it not enought to clearly say I found these guides on the net and provide them here for others to look at??

They way he did it was very clearly not enough.  If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"?  Nope, and even though bitcointalk doesn't have guidelines on source citation, it should be obvious that you need to (at the very least) reference where you're quoting material from.  The best way to do it IMO is provide a link and put the quoted text inside a quote box just as if you were quoting a bitcointalk post.  

If you look at this post history he would appear to be very helpful to new traders over quite a long period.

I think your estimation of the helpfulness of his posts and your definition of "a long period" are vastly inflated.  He registered in March of this year and most of his posts are straight-up gibberish.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to hear from staff.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but DT trust comes with responsibility to make the right call. There is sometimes no need for opinion when it is there in black and white. No amount of staff can change observable fact.

You said and I quote

"You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words."


This is observably incorrect.

You then said

"They way he did it was very clearly not enough.  If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"? "

So you are now saying okay he did not claim it as his own but you do not believe that just sticking by rule 33 is enough (not claiming it as your own work) and you believe one should follow one of the academic bodies guides for citing a reference.

These are totally different claims and are actually mutually exclusive.

The only reasonable explanation for making 2 totally different and mutually exclusive claims is simply when someone reported it as plagiarism you just  missed his statement clearly saying at the top of his post stating "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."

Having now seen this statement.. you have changed the charge  from claiming it as his own work to claiming it is other peoples work but not being specific enough.

These are totally different claims .

Even though as you say this would not satisfy any college to reference in that way you would not be said to be committing plagiarism. Your tutor would likely just give you a guide to follow the next time and you would receive no marks or credit.

For example

someone once said -- From error to error one discovers the entire truth


"From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud (following perhaps some dating, and other info I can't locate right now)


The second will contribute to attaining extra marks the first will simply be ignored as insufficient detail. Neither will get you accused of taking the work for yourself or plagiarism and certainly neither will get your made a pariah or kicked from the course.

It's okay to make a mistake but digging heels in waiting for other DT or staff to say it's okay may work but is not the right course of action.

Your red trust statement of "This account will hopefully be banned, but in the off chance it doesn't, this member is a plagiarizer and doesn't even seem to understand what plagiarism is."

seems totally out of proportion to the alleged breaking of the rules - which to anyone taking the rules at face value seem to have been adhered to.

I don't see how staff can alter any of the observable events here and back up the desire to have him banned.

Bitcointalk is going down a dark path if a few people can start to push such hardline action.

I have nothing personal against you or any of the DT trust people really that i know of. I have never encountered an issue before with any of them.

Bitcointalk is a place which has displayed a very laissez faire approach over the years. It is sad now that financial gain has motivated the destruction of that approach working as well.

Incidentally, I had never really heard of nor paid attention to Default trust before. Where can I find a list of these DT members? how were they selected for such a responsibility?

Even the "rules" say unofficial?? how can one be banned from a forum if these are not the official rules. They are guides to be used as per common sense because official rules would need a lot more clarity or constant moderation by ONLY the person who runs the board. This is a separate issue I guess and not one we need to open now anyway.

[Rambotnic]

I still hope Pharmacist will reconsider his decision and remove the negative feedback from my profile. From my side, next time i will credit the sources by names not by links to not advertise another forums.

[LoyceV]

I've seen this thread for the past days, so I'll add my 2 Satoshis.

If i deserve 1-3-6 months ban for that i will gladly take it.

The punishment for plagiarism is a permanent ban.

1. Yes i did violate bitcointalk rule without knowing that so i deserve somekind of punishment.

And yet, you said Read the forum rules!!! -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 in the very post that got you a red tag. How can you claim not to know the rules, or how can you tell people they have to read the rules if you didn't?

You would probably have gotten away with your plagiarism if it wouldn't be such a massive problem on this forum. Because so many people (and bots) do it, even reported cases sometimes get away with it instead of getting banned.

If they will be helpful to the newbies to prevent being scammed i don't see reason why ?

I don't think it's helpful for Newbies at all. Adding [Must Read] to the title twice sounds spammy and the whole post was a large collection of mostly irrelevant text without a clear structure. No Newbie is going to read that. If you want an example of a structured helpful post, look here.

Still i like this negative rep to be removed from my profile because i did nothing else than trying to help the community with helpful information how to stay safe and use escrow.

I'm pretty sure DarkStar_ The Pharmacist is willing to remove it once you're banned for plagiarism.
(my mistake, DarkStar_ reported the plagiarism)

I would like to start that thread have nothing to do with requesting removal of my negative feedback.

Really? Then why did you say this 3 days later:

Pharmacist, please, reconsider your decision and remove the negative feedback from my profile.

A lot more smart and educated people than you explained what and how this is not plagiarism and just badly credited thread.

So you're saying we if all spam bots add "this post was taken from sources around the internet" to all their posts, nobody can ever be banned for plagiarism again? I disagree.

[Rambotnic]

Another person not reading the thread sadly...

1. I was thinking that i violate rules, but after clearly reading cryptohunter statements and my posts, now im sure that i didn't violate the rules but badly credited the sources.
Also there is no official rules but i also respect the not official ones.

2. I'm not like the other people and i'm not bot also Why i am not like other people? Well if you read the thread fully you will understand that i don't care like merits, ranks and any benefits like all people do care here same  

3. If you don't think my guide which prevents newbies to be scammed and suggested always to use escrow, and calling my guide spammy that's to bad for you but happily not for the other people which will help them to prevent being scammed

4. DarkStar_ have nothing to do with this thread and never was part of it, another proof that you trying to place statements without even reading this thread fully and the statements on it.

5. As everyone our opinions and requests can be changed every hour depends on the position. Why i changed my opinion and want now my negative feedback to be removed ? Well because im here to help people not only doing trades, and im doing it right. A simple mistake from my side for not crediting full the sources doesn't mean i'm not helpful and i don't help people Don't make me screenshot my 17 pages of inbox history to show you how many people i help with information about escrow usage and stuff like that I don't think someone who didn't read this thread fully really care i am helpful or not

6. Why we keep talking for bots ? Do you think i am bot or something ? Or you think i have anything to do with any bots or their activity ? Why should helpful person should be considered as bot and why you even compare me with bots?

7. At least if you want to be helpful to the community, then do it?   Or you are afraid for doing little bit mistake and risk your rank and feedback ? Attacking people without reading their thread, their guide, and their statements not makes you really a person who care about newbies around

And regards on your Legendary status and your positive feedback, but even my "non-trusted" feedback is more valuable in usd and activity than yours, and believe me, im going to keep help people around and rise my feedback with valuable but not in big count as numbers trades.

People asking on this thread why i do repeat myself.
Well that's the reason, because most of them don't even read the thread like you.
Thanks for your opinion, no matter bad or good, believe me i respect it !

[LoyceV]

Sure, I'll bite
1. You're quite selective in who's judgement you value. Unfortunately for you, cryptohunter's opinion isn't even a majority in this thread, and until recently he didn't even know DT existed.
2. Many users say that.
3. If it's helping users, why did you delete it instead of correcting your wrongs?
4. DarkStar_ reported your plagiarism, I corrected my mistake in the username.
5. Screenshotting PMs is not done, so don't do it. I did read your thread and your deleted topic.
6. It seems like you don't want to understand the point. I've seen a higher ranked and much more loved dark green trusted user getting banned for plagiarism, the rules are the same for everyone.
7. Lol. Feel free to make a poll on helpfulness: LoyceV vs Rambotnic.
What makes you think usd sales through escrow make you more valuable as a user, and why would that have anything to do with your plagiarism?

[Rambotnic]

1. No matter cryptohunter, bitcoinhunter or litecoinhunter I respect everyone opinion no matter is bad or good.
The value of the statements its more than the count of them and i share the same view and same feelings when i try to help people.
No matter what your opinion will be good or bad, i also respect it and learn from it
We all should learn from the bad things (criticism) and trying to be better, not watching only the good things to our names and what we do

2. Many people say that but not many people proving it with their activity ? I'm here to prove it not to only say it My activity is transparent, and every single negative feedback from salty scammer i exposed anywhere will be another proof im doing the things right! (I'm talking about the people im asking for proofs for their sales or suggestion of using escrow and their denial and so)

3. I deleted my thread because based on DT Member opinion its not something right to be there no matter it was credited to "unknown sources". I clearly stated after this misunderstanding got fixed, i will once again open this guide and will post the correct credits by names and not links (i don't want to advertise another forums with links). Just to mention i would never also report myself (and yes i reported myself) if i didn't feel, believed and respected Pharmacist decision in first view. In second view i still respect and understand Pharmacist opinion but same as my guide it was taken rashly and without full reading that i put credit to the sources but not fully as some people expect that.

4. I also reported myself A mod can confirm it, i have nothing to hide here, because i don't feel doing the wrong thing. If helping people with information is wrong, then "excuse" me

5. My guide is still active in the archive version and can be found here -> https://archive.st/archive/2018/11/bitcointalk.org/p3sv/bitcointalk.org/index.html
Thanks god its not deleted and i can re-open it again with the same text but little bit edited this time, and every time i have to add something to make the guide even more helpful for everyone.

6. Seems like you don't want to understand not me.
That's not plagiarism at its full meaning, just badly credited thread. Also, its not me, you or anyone than MOD who can decide about it.
I will be more than happy to see also like everyone else (i hope you to) official bitcointalk rules, not just not official ones.

7. I have nothing against you, and this thread have nothing to do with you by the way to open anything against you.
I'm here to help people, not to fight people Opening any "vs" thread is against the things im trying to achieve here
I want to help and protect people, i don't want to "vs" anyone or trying to prove who is more trusted, you, me or anyone here
You had more time on this forum to have more trades and connections with people.
But for the small time i've used this forum, i made enough VALUABLE in costs but not in count trades to prove im not around to mess and waste people time.
Like every single living human i did few mistakes which im learning from and moving on for better
Why i think escrow trades makes my trades more valuable ? Because valuable trades is valuable trades with or without escrow The amount of cash on it its the same.
And my trades using escrow just stands on my guide and my statements that everyone should use escrow for his own safety.
If you track my post history, i even reject some part of offers to me when people ask to pay me upfront and suggest them for using escrow.
Why im doing that instead of earning trust for people paying me upfront and trusting me? Because i feel responsible to offer the other party better and secure way of trading using escrow for their own security and good.
I don't mind ALL my trades goes thru escrow but not just people trusting me randomly with some amounts no matter they are 5$ or 50,000$.
Consider im doing the right thing and i have nothing to hide, i don't feel bad for doing valuable trades with escrow, trying to help people and warn them to stay safe and such of things.

Thanks for reading my long reply!

[cryptohunter]

Sure, I'll bite
1. You're quite selective in who's judgement you value. Unfortunately for you, cryptohunter's opinion isn't even a majority in this thread, and until recently he didn't even know DT existed.
2. Many users say that.
3. If it's helping users, why did you delete it instead of correcting your wrongs?
4. DarkStar_ reported your plagiarism, I corrected my mistake in the username.
5. Screenshotting PMs is not done, so don't do it. I did read your thread and your deleted topic.
6. It seems like you don't want to understand the point. I've seen a higher ranked and much more loved dark green trusted user getting banned for plagiarism, the rules are the same for everyone.
7. Lol. Feel free to make a poll on helpfulness: LoyceV vs Rambotnic.
What makes you think usd sales through escrow make you more valuable as a user, and why would that have anything to do with your plagiarism?

Hi, firstly I want to say I have no personal issue at all with thepharmacist (who i'm familiar with from the alt board years back) nor yourself who I don't believe I have encountered before I met you the other day where you kindly provided some stats. Many thanks.

I always feel for the small guy in a situation where he finds himself on fragile ground and not entirely of his own fault.

However let's try and solve this matter without any prior bias.


I can not see any room for opinion. If we are simply to go by the rules of this board as they are written below.

"33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]
...
Examples:
...
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.


Anything outside of that is speculation and guessing. There could be implied meanings to many of the unofficial rules. Which as you correctly state here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg36030624#msg36030624 are not set in stone anyway.


It is observable that TP said "You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words." on the 5th november.

TP then left on the 5th of november the negative trust saying the OP is a plagiarist. Observable also.

You can therefore observe he left the feedback whilst being under a false impression that the OP had claimed the work as his own -- when clearly he had not been guilty of this.

You can clearly observe the OP wrote at the top of his post "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."

Writing that is a clear indication that this work is not his own. This meets the full and total expectation of the rule as it is written. Anything implied further than that is speculation.

Anything else now is really not  relevant but I believe there are more mitigating circumstances in his favour.


1. he is not a bot and clearly does not go around copy and pasting as a habit looking through his post history
2. he clearly would not go and post this in meta (which is where i was told it was posted) in amongst all the largest ban hammers reside looking for these kind of things if he knew he was committing a perma ban offense. It does not make sense.
3. marlboroza on 08-11-2018, 23:25:04 - although sticking to his view that full references should be give he goes on to say that after reviewing a few things he believes also this was perhaps not intentional by the op. This demonstrates to me a reasonable person whom i merited for this sensible consideration.
4. the rules are there not to get rid of genuine users nor users that make an unintentional mistake (not that he made one going on the board rules as they are written) they are there as you say to stop spam bots and real content thieves.


To just speculate and generate discussion on your points whilst we wait for confirmation from the op. So hopefully we can get a sensible solution.

*** edit i see he posted already *** so only some are relevant.

1. not sure why my lack of knowledge regarding DT is relevant? can you explain? also I would propose the the majority have not yet had time to take into consideration and comment back on the observable events that I have picked up on.
2. He can confirm he is not a bot i guess.
3. He deleted after being told by "authority figures he had done wrong" so delete, edit, does not really matter he posted in meta so I doubt he was trying to go under the radar in the first place. He probably was in panic after being told the ban hammer was rising and was convinced (I believe wrongly so) that he broke rule 33.
4. DarkStar_ ( i am speculating) may feel that the guy deserves a pass or perhaps we are being a bit harsh. I say this because my post defending the OP received a merit from him. Now that is speculation, he may have clicked merit by accident, he may have just though the post was funny or some other reason.
6. when looking at this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.0 i see a totally different case of someone with no disclaimer or reference at all therefore breaking board rules and allegedly on the basis of a sig campaign. I am not judging them but its not a fair comparison. He has apparent motive and broke the rule 33. Even so i see many DT members arguing for him not getting banned you here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg36030624#msg36030624 saying even the rules here can have exceptions they are a guide not a set of firm rules.. and some other quite sensible comments regarding your own possible unintentional referencing linking mistakes that could be open to plagiarism claims. And some quite human looking text regarding stress and other things that could create human error.
7. is not really relevant to this.


Again this is nothing personal I have no issue with anyone on this entire thread at all. It is just to see the small guy getting squeezed for what I believe was an obvious (perceived by some) mistake by a lot of high profile members is not fair.

Although if I have made a mistake in this post I enjoy finding the optimal outcome so i will check back to see the case against the OP again soon.

We need to cut a balance between getting rid of shitpost scammers who are here to pump scam icos and other scam bots account builders etc and stamping on real users who make the odd honest mistake.  I can understand that the few of you that do most of the fighting of this nightmare are kind of jaded from it and I know copy and paste is a very bad thing for the forum itself indeed and does need to be clamped down on hard.

I know everyone is getting tight on this now even memes etc.

So perhaps a slight update to the rules going further on 33 saying - - url reference at a minimum but full source reference if there is one.

[DarkStar_]

4. DarkStar_ ( i am speculating) may feel that the guy deserves a pass or perhaps we are being a bit harsh. I say this because my post defending the OP received a merit from him. Now that is speculation, he may have clicked merit by accident, he may have just though the post was funny or some other reason.

My belief is that they shouldn't have a negative trust feedback because it's breaking forum rules and not necessarily something untrustworthy. He has (practically) no incentive to copy and paste and wouldn't profit off of it.

I believe it's best to let forum administration decide.

[cryptohunter]

4. DarkStar_ ( i am speculating) may feel that the guy deserves a pass or perhaps we are being a bit harsh. I say this because my post defending the OP received a merit from him. Now that is speculation, he may have clicked merit by accident, he may have just though the post was funny or some other reason.

My belief is that they shouldn't have a negative trust feedback because it's breaking forum rules and not necessarily something untrustworthy. He has (practically) no incentive to copy and paste and wouldn't profit off of it.

I believe it's best to let forum administration decide.

Thanks very much for clearing that up.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I believe it's best to let forum administration decide.

I would be inclined to agree with you on that if I fully trusted the mods to do their job 100%, but I don't.  We've even got staff like hilariousandco telling permabanned members to start over with new accounts because enforcement is so lax (and I've pleaded with him to not do this).  The shitposting and plagiarism problem is so bad because of either lack of clear rules or enforcement of the rules that are clear.  That's where DT members who are active in tagging scammers and other miscreants have always come in handy.

In Rambotnic's case, it was not clear at all where he was sourcing his information from, and cryptohunter can argue the observable facts until his fingertips bleed, but my opinion on the matter is that Rambotnic is both a plagiarist and a chronic shitposter--exactly what this forum doesn't need.  A permaban would be a much better solution, but red trust will have to suffice here.

[cryptohunter]

I believe it's best to let forum administration decide.

I would be inclined to agree with you on that if I fully trusted the mods to do their job 100%, but I don't.  We've even got staff like hilariousandco telling permabanned members to start over with new accounts because enforcement is so lax (and I've pleaded with him to not do this).  The shitposting and plagiarism problem is so bad because of either lack of clear rules or enforcement of the rules that are clear.  That's where DT members who are active in tagging scammers and other miscreants have always come in handy.

In Rambotnic's case, it was not clear at all where he was sourcing his information from, and cryptohunter can argue the observable facts until his fingertips bleed, but my opinion on the matter is that Rambotnic is both a plagiarist and a chronic shitposter--exactly what this forum doesn't need.  A permaban would be a much better solution, but red trust will have to suffice here.

I challenge anyone here to read through the OP's entire post history and then tell me he is a shit poster  that the forum does not want and provide evidence

1. He is a legitimate trader.
2. He always advocates using safe trading practice with bitcointalk own escrows.
3. He does not make any needless shitposts AT ALL or at least a tiny % less than most people here
4. He has highlighted and reported several scammers and phishing site link posters
5. He is often warning people on threads where noob accounts are asking for unreasonable trust and are high risk. Replying on such threads things such as " no way will I be sending to a new account first" - or " 1000btc no escrow sounds legit" are warnings that to me are totally justified on noob bait threads.
6. I have learned 1 very important thing that I did not know reading through these posts.
7. He has very low motivation to shit post - he is not even wearing a sig so needs no inflated post count.


I strongly refute that this person can be classed as a useless member of this forum nor a shit poster.


Saying this person should be perma banned on the basis of

1. breaking the forum rules of crediting yourself with other peoples work

2. being a shit poster of no worth

Is observably incorrect on both accounts.

You are again mistaken that short and concise posts regarding price , escrow availability , shipping ect  are essentially shit posting. This is not the case for trading. There is no requirement to make long posts for legitimate trades.

He is a legitimate trader who seems fair and helpful to others too. This is there for anyone to examine. Go ahead go through his entire post history. I do not doing trading here really but bitcoin/crypto's can use all the honest traders they can get right now.

I understand you do a lot of good work and must be frustrated at all this scammers and bots and other various schemes. This person is obviously not someone that deserves to be grouped in with them. You have made a mistake I believe in good faith based on a report and flagged it red.  

However I had expected that you had just missed a lot of information since you had been busy fighting other scammers and jumped to the wrong conclusion in this case. Fair enough, anyone can make a mistake. But this is a lot more concerning for those that have a sense of fair play I think. You are still advocating a perma ban when to me even the red trust there (of major damage to a trader like him) this is very harsh.

I think removing it would provide you with more credibility than keeping it there long term.

[Rambotnic]

The weird thing here is that Pharmacist thinks that i did it to earn any benefits ranks or merits.
My very first posts here on this forum laughing at people who fight for merits and claiming im not here for that and i don't need even a single merit.
The only thing im here to win by helping people is "Thanks".
I'm not shit poster, i don't care about my post count and i don't care about your merit system.
All i want is to make trades without looking like a scammer with that tag.
To help people with everything i can and nothing more.
I'm not here to earn ranks and use my signature to earn money like most people do.
Actually i don't plan joining in any campaigns that involve signatures and stuff like that.
Also i never had suspicious activity or any shady behavior.
You can't just judge someone for simple mistake for not crediting fully off-topic sources.
Or you are sinless...
Don't put all scammers, shit posters and everyone bad around with me.
I was and will always be in the other side.
Actually, sadly i believe i was scammed today...

[cryptohunter]

The weird thing here is that Pharmacist thinks that i did it to earn any benefits ranks or merits.
My very first posts here on this forum laughing at people who fight for merits and claiming im not here for that and i don't need even a single merit.
The only thing im here to win by helping people is "Thanks".
I'm not shit poster, i don't care about my post count and i don't care about your merit system.
All i want is to make trades without looking like a scammer with that tag.
To help people with everything i can and nothing more.
I'm not here to earn ranks and use my signature to earn money like most people do.
Actually i don't plan joining in any campaigns that involve signatures and stuff like that.
Also i never had suspicious activity or any shady behavior.
You can't just judge someone for simple mistake for not crediting fully off-topic sources.
Or you are sinless...
Don't put all scammers, shit posters and everyone bad around with me.
I was and will always be in the other side.
Actually, sadly i believe i was scammed today...

DarkStar_   has demonstrated great character here and fair play toward you by restoring your trust to 0 from -1. Fair play and humanity would I hope be the KEY ingredient to being a DT member. I honestly think this is one of the most fairest and considerate actions I have seen on this board in a long time.

I hope that you (the OP) yourself will make great effort from this point forward to demonstrate your acknowledgement of  his effort here and really become a long term valuable member of this board. As a trader trust score is very important so be careful as possible to demonstrate you are honest and genuine..(which so far i think you have)

To those that stuck to the perma ban suggestion even after taking into consideration the observable facts.... I really hope that you are judged by those that show more humanity and fair play than  you have shown here if you are to one day make an honest mistake.



 

[Rambotnic]

Thanks DarkStar_ !
At least people won't treat me like a scammer because of the red trust.
But i still want to apologise Pharmacist that i didn't fully credit the sources but only noted it was used sources.
Once again i respect everyone opinion and i do respect the criticism from Pharmacist also.
I hope he would also give me second chance and understand i never had bad intentions doing the guide but only wanted to help people.

[LoyceV]

May I make an out-of-the-box suggestion? I've suggested before that plagiarists can get an out-of-jail-card if they report a few higher ranking members for plagiarism. This gives plagiarists the chance to redeem themselves: they contribute to the forum, and lower the total amount of plagiarism. Within official forum rules this doesn't work, but if all involved parties agree, it can work here.

My proposal @The Pharmacist and @Rambotnic would be:
1. Rambotnic reports at least 2 users for plagiarism. To prevent abuse, the users need to have a higher account rating than Rambotnic (253 Activity or higher; Member or higher).
2. Once confirmed (and banned), The Pharmacist removes the red trust on Rambotnic.

[cryptohunter]

May I make an out-of-the-box suggestion? I've suggested before that plagiarists can get an out-of-jail-card if they report a few higher ranking members for plagiarism. This gives plagiarists the chance to redeem themselves: they contribute to the forum, and lower the total amount of plagiarism. Within official forum rules this doesn't work, but if all involved parties agree, it can work here.

My proposal @The Pharmacist and @Rambotnic would be:
1. Rambotnic reports at least 2 users for plagiarism. To prevent abuse, the users need to have a higher account rating than Rambotnic (253 Activity or higher; Member or higher).
2. Once confirmed (and banned), The Pharmacist removes the red trust on Rambotnic.

 Do you know even memes are starting to be considered as copyright theft which is something that is actually more serious in most cases than plagiarism. Although I believe there is an over lap in this very complex area. Soon if we are not careful we will wipe out a lot of good members.

I do see the the net gain of such an idea in terms of ridding the board of people who are intentionally doing wrong.

However, to be totally honest if people are intentionally plagiarising here for financial gain (not just trying to post something relevant to help others like some argued the guy from the collectibles forum was doing ) they should be banned. Getting them to snitch on 2 others will probably not change the type of person they are and not prevent future schemes they may be planning. If they are bad eggs they should be deleted. For me it is all about establishing intent to find the real bad guys who are here to scam others. I have seen several times people will ask a question and someone else will cut and paste the answer from the net. This is before icos and sigs they were just doing it to be helpful. These should get a temp ban or warning. These are not essentially bad eggs.

For me personally it is clear TP ( who i believe is a usually constructive member who has probably been of great benefit to the board over-all although i had not seen him post on the alt board for a long time so almost forgot who he was but when he was there he seemed a good member I remember him joining and asking questions back then)  clearly based his initial decision upon incorrect assumptions. This was a mistake. This is understandable and there is no problem with that. However now we dispelled the initial 2 reasons upon which he justified the red tag - - let's just remove it.

Your idea is clever but I do not like the idea of someone who is clearly a bad egg getting a pass whatever they do next. Some bad eggs just will never change. Get rid of them. As much as I dislike plagiarism if it is deliberate , repeated and for only financial gain it is still secondary to those running huge scams to defraud peoples btc away from them directly. Although this overlap once again. Intent is so important.  This guy on the evidence available is not a bad egg.

Nothing stopping OP reporting bad eggs in future and has done in the past so I don't think he even needs motivation.

Of course that is up to him but motivating someone become a snitch ( i snitch on real scammers for sure by facing them down in their threads and have done it perhaps more with big scams than 99.99% of this board )  if they have not done something intentionally wrong can cause them problems. Trust me that if you make trouble for the wrong people on here you need to know what you are getting yourself into and make your own decision to out them. Forcing people into such action could be dangerous ground.

I like your idea and you seem like a smart person but just extra things to consider before going forward with that.

TP may stick to his word and remove negative trust now that he sees some other people other than myself feel it could be overly harsh in this case. I think he will.







 

[Rambotnic]

May I make an out-of-the-box suggestion? I've suggested before that plagiarists can get an out-of-jail-card if they report a few higher ranking members for plagiarism. This gives plagiarists the chance to redeem themselves: they contribute to the forum, and lower the total amount of plagiarism. Within official forum rules this doesn't work, but if all involved parties agree, it can work here.

My proposal @The Pharmacist and @Rambotnic would be:
1. Rambotnic reports at least 2 users for plagiarism. To prevent abuse, the users need to have a higher account rating than Rambotnic (253 Activity or higher; Member or higher).
2. Once confirmed (and banned), The Pharmacist removes the red trust on Rambotnic.

Actually i report threads/people for much serious problems than plagiarism
I report threads/people and suggest newbies to stay safe and use escrow.
No matter my badly credited thread can't harm people, other people trying to harm people by scamming them
I do report scammers or potential/obvious ones by exposing their intentions.
Some of you may tell my warnings/suggests to people to use escrow and such as spam, but believe me i'm pretty sure they saved at least one innocent person so far
And based on the angry OP's which turn against me instead of proving me wrong, i was 100% in the right time and right place.
I hope Pharmacist will never agree on something like that, but i also hope that he is human like everyone else and understand people do mistakes sometime like my case.
We all should deserve second chance, especially in cases like mine which people could not be harmed with my information but only get some help.
Also everyone around using their own powers by their own view and 99,99% of them do not follow the rules strictly.
After doing that mistake, i read the un-official rules few times and i can see that many many people being red tagged for something not violating the rules - buying/selling accounts.
I'm not involved in any activity like that and i don't really care about any sales of that type but if its allowed by the rules, why people break the rules by tagging them?
That's theme for another thread but just trying to point that my "mistake" is far away from the bad things people do around.

[Rambotnic]

Bump and still looking to resolve the negative feedback from Pharmacist.

[TMAN]

Bump and still looking to resolve the negative feedback from Pharmacist.

TP won’t help you, you are an idiot and a fool mr policeman