I don't see how that legitimate disagreement. I couldn't possibly imagine why DarkStar would counter on someone who a) Is definitely guilty of what he/she was accused of. b) Reacts the way that he reacted.
Well DarkStar_'s explanation was that this is a matter for the mods to take care of and not DT--and in fact DarkStar_ was one of the members who reported Rambotnic's post to begin with and I assume he thought it was plagiarism. As I said, while still respecting DarkStar_, I have to disagree with his actions here. I agree that moderators should have dealt with the report differently than the way they did, but sometimes mods fail to act or make mistakes.
Aside from the plagiarism issue, I can't get past my feeling that Rambotnic is a member who contributes nothing. He think's he's helpful, but I see his posts as giant walls of nonsense. Not slinging any mud here, but I'm also wondering why cryptohunter is defending Rambotnic so vigorously. The neg I left him was appropriately given and the forum would be a much better place without members like him. DarkStar_ already left a counter positive, so I don't know why this is still being discussed.
Look it is very simple.
1. You initially claimed he was claiming the work as his own. This was proven false.
2. You consider his posts as shit posting - I have demonstrated that is not essentially true by any criteria I have noticed is widely accepted and I don't think others will share your opinion. If you ban every person whom posts to his standard you can start banning a huge proportion of the board that actually does nothing against the rules and does not harm directly anyone else. He is certainly not a shit post scamming spammer who have ruined the alt board. You do not have the right to evaluate his posts alone and decide he is not worthy of being a member.
3. You then admit he was not claiming the work as his own.
4. You said you would expect other members (staff or dt) to disagree with you if you were wrong. -- They have. You still do not listen.
I find it more than strange that you have reviewed all of the observable evidence that I provided on the other post and still insist he deserves a perma ban? That is a very serious punishment.
Now I notice you don't want to mud sling but seem very interested to know why I am sticking up for what is clearly a fair and correct decision by DS? why would the motive of my interest change the observable events?
Let's say i am discovered to be the actual devil or just a person whom likes to cause trouble for no reason. How could I hack into the board or go back in time and change what people can observe has taken place. It does not matter who presents observable events because there is no trust required. I am asking for no trust I am asking people review the observable events and make their own minds up.
What part specifically interests you, and what would you like to know? Am I his father? the devil? this is a tactic a lot of people resort to to not deal with observable events and not one people should be diverted by.
It is very simple I have always done so and especially when people in perceived power seem to be picking on those of perceived lesser power for no good reason.
I was bored browsing this board and noticed his thread. I would do the same for anyone.
Someone trying to help others and getting banned for that or red trust is something I would always comment on and try to change.
I agree though I find it strange this is still ongoing. If you will not remove it there is nothing more to be done at this point. Although historically I believe it will turn out to be a mistake on your part to leave it there and will not be one of your finest decisions.
People can only make so many bad decisions before the credibility of that person is reduced dramatically.
