[Ban Appeal] bill gator

[SaltySpitoon]

Plagiarism was neither explicitly against the rules when he bought the account nor was it a known problem. He should have known not to plagiarize himself (by all accounts he did not), but I don't think he had any reason to believe others were plagiarizing.

I don’t think he had any reasonable reason to check for plagiarism when he bought it, and I don’t think any of the tools that checked post quality would look into potential plagiarism.

As previously stated, if account buyers are going to be held responsible for the actions of prior owners, account sales might as well be disallowed.

It technically was, we just called it spam at the time as it was not common with non newbie accounts. Account farmers were a problem even back then, and plagiarism itself wasn't uncommon. Account farmers had hundreds of accounts and they'd share posts in megathreads and places they could get away with it. Those accounts were nuked/banned, but none of them ever appealed because they knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bill's account was one that slipped through the cracks, and later got flagged by the bot.

[1715124263]

1715124263

[1715124263]

1715124263

[TMAN]

The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him.

Ok - lets play what ifs again...

if it isnt Bill - so what?
if it is Bill - So what?

either he did copy pasta and most people will exclude from DT, or he didn't and he will be excluded and tagged for buying an account. I don't get what your hardon is here unless it was you who actually started this thread.

[Quickseller]

Plagiarism was neither explicitly against the rules when he bought the account nor was it a known problem. He should have known not to plagiarize himself (by all accounts he did not), but I don't think he had any reason to believe others were plagiarizing.

I don’t think he had any reasonable reason to check for plagiarism when he bought it, and I don’t think any of the tools that checked post quality would look into potential plagiarism.

As previously stated, if account buyers are going to be held responsible for the actions of prior owners, account sales might as well be disallowed.

It technically was, we just called it spam at the time as it was not common with non newbie accounts. Account farmers were a problem even back then, and plagiarism itself wasn't uncommon. Account farmers had hundreds of accounts and they'd share posts in megathreads and places they could get away with it. Those accounts were nuked/banned, but none of them ever appealed because they knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bill's account was one that slipped through the cracks, and later got flagged by the bot.

So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did.

Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common.

All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account.

The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him.

Ok - lets play what ifs again...

if it isnt Bill - so what?
if it is Bill - So what?

either he did copy pasta and most people will exclude from DT, or he didn't and he will be excluded and tagged for buying an account. I don't get what your hardon is here unless it was you who actually started this thread.

The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie

[Flying Hellfish]

When a person buys an existing account it should be common sense that you're buying a used product and any buyer with a little common sense should consider it "as is", it's the buyers responsibility to make sure the account is "road worthy" as he is the one "driving" it on our roads.  If you need a new car/account you should get it from the manufacture then you would be assured of it's authenticity.

A few weeks ago and bill gator would have been perma banned and everyone would have been arguing for a temp ban and sig ban or some kind of compromise.

I like bill gator, I don't think he is a scammer but I do think he should be happy he wasn't "shit canned" and he can come back in a couple months to be part of the community.  This also makes me call into question his judgement and I now question if he is right to receive my support for a DT1 position.

[SaltySpitoon]

So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did.

Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common.

All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account.

I would agree with your conclusion, and my opinion is that Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism/post quality. Im sure you recall how accounts were marketed back then, and post quality was always a factor. I remember playing with the account tool that everyone used and having it judge my post quality. While I agree that improving your post history is a good way to decrease the penalties, if you break a rule and you aren't caught you aren't punished. As soon as you get caught, you are likely to be punished. Will a moderator give you more consideration if you have 1 bad post for every 100 good? Certainly more so than someone with 10 posts with half of them being bad.

The risk as you said was that he would receive a temp ban, and he did. I'm not sure that it warrants a 60 day ban given the offense to contribution ratio, but thats if we operate under the assumption that there was only a single case of plagiarism in Bill's post history.

[TMAN]

The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie

Lauda is blowing smoke probably to just piss you off fella - your biting only encourages more of it. In your hypothetical story here, should the wordsmith Bill come back and prove that the OP (who has a thesaurus stuffed in every orifice) is not Bill I will happily remove my tag and will lean on Lauda to remove as well. You seem obsessed with tags so much more since OG is no longer on DT and its a bit worrying, the old dictatorship is over, DT is self governing and if a tag is unjust members of DT talk to each other and help resolve anything that is seen as incorrect by a number of people. The new system is working as you can see with OG and Bill being excluded by more senior members than included - yet you will also see that that teeGUMES is on DT as the issue with regards to Vod was handled in a respectable way.

so, "if" you are right the tags at the moment will be removed and they aren't doing any harm whilst the member in question is banned if the member does not come back and post before the ban is over we can conclude that the OP is Bill. Now to further indulge you, every fucking other person on this fucking forum can add 2+2 and see that the OP was written by the same scummy prick who bought the fucking account, weaseled his way with tiny deals to have a decent level of trust, continued to shit words out and then write a fucking essay on every post then get onto DT..

[The Cryptovator]

The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him.

Well, I know it's possible perhaps someone trying to want abasement bill gator account. Who know may be it's well planned including ban. But, but .. my question is, bill gator main account is still online today. Do you believe he will not visit meta section and he isn't aware about this drama ? If yes, then he will not make post with his original alt account? Because he have got ban it's true like star. Please use common sense sometimes.

[r1s2g3]

I know bill gator and pugman from the thread A simple bitcoin Q/A. Learn new and interesting stuff about bitcoin.
Honestly this is one of the thread that helped me in my learning journey so I respect that guy for that.


I read that few people suspect that OP  is not actually  bill gator but it narrows down to 1 possibility only that user who reported the bill gator created the thread. Actually what surprised me that both original and plagiarized post exists

The future looks pretty solid to me. Despite all the fluctuations it seems that Bitcoin market is capable of standing up and hold a steady market price which will eventually lead to large scale adoption.

The future looks pretty solid to me. Despite all the fluctuations it seems that Bitcoin market is capable of standing up and hold a steady market price which will eventually lead to large scale adoption.

But what I see from the earlier threads that plagiarized posts are deleted.

It also look suspicious why somebody doing the appeal just want to post one post and do want to defend himself /herself?

Everybody knows what exactly self admittance of account buying means and so experienced user admitting it (when denied previously on pretext of friend), does not sound logical to me.


PS: So many edit, I do not know how it get messed up.





   

[Quickseller]

So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did.

Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common.

All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account.

I would agree with your conclusion, and my opinion is that Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism/post quality. Im sure you recall how accounts were marketed back then, and post quality was always a factor. I remember playing with the account tool that everyone used and having it judge my post quality. While I agree that improving your post history is a good way to decrease the penalties, if you break a rule and you aren't caught you aren't punished. As soon as you get caught, you are likely to be punished. Will a moderator give you more consideration if you have 1 bad post for every 100 good? Certainly more so than someone with 10 posts with half of them being bad.

The risk as you said was that he would receive a temp ban, and he did. I'm not sure that it warrants a 60 day ban given the offense to contribution ratio, but thats if we operate under the assumption that there was only a single case of plagiarism in Bill's post history.

I agree 100% that he should have checked post quality, but I am not aware of any basis for checking for plagiarism in 2015. If he had gotten banned for spamming in 2015 that lasted a week, I would be on the same page, but it is 2019 and his ban is ~8 weeks and has a 102 week sig ban.

It is my understanding that sig spammers were generally receiving a 3 or 7 day ban for a first offense back then, not the 60 day ban plus a 2 year sig ban he received. I am also not aware of anyone receiving a ban for insubstantial posts with a paid sig well after post quality has improved.

The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie

Lauda is blowing smoke probably to just piss you off fella - your biting only encourages more of it. In your hypothetical story here, should the wordsmith Bill come back and prove that the OP (who has a thesaurus stuffed in every orifice) is not Bill I will happily remove my tag and will lean on Lauda to remove as well. You seem obsessed with tags so much more since OG is no longer on DT and its a bit worrying, the old dictatorship is over, DT is self governing and if a tag is unjust members of DT talk to each other and help resolve anything that is seen as incorrect by a number of people. The new system is working as you can see with OG and Bill being excluded by more senior members than included - yet you will also see that that teeGUMES is on DT as the issue with regards to Vod was handled in a respectable way.

so, "if" you are right the tags at the moment will be removed and they aren't doing any harm whilst the member in question is banned if the member does not come back and post before the ban is over we can conclude that the OP is Bill. Now to further indulge you, every fucking other person on this fucking forum can add 2+2 and see that the OP was written by the same scummy prick who bought the fucking account, weaseled his way with tiny deals to have a decent level of trust, continued to shit words out and then write a fucking essay on every post then get onto DT..

Lauda is not blowing smoke. Bill did something that lauda doesn’t like and he is looking for an excuse to give negative trust.

It is not possible to prove a one post newbie is not an alt of someone. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone could possibly do that.

[Lauda]

Everybody knows what exactly self admittance of account buying means and so experienced user admitting it (when denied previously on pretext of friend), does not sound logical to me.

You seriously think that baboon gator is capable of logic? That joke isn't even amusing. His DT and "trustworthy" days are over.

[bitmover]

This is so crazy  

When I created my account here and began using the forum, bill gator helped  a lot with his thread sMerit Post-Review. Merit was a new thing in the forum, and he gave me a few and incentive me to make good posts. He was one of those trusted users from the community which was somehow an example of good members to me.

[r1s2g3]

Everybody knows what exactly self admittance of account buying means and so experienced user admitting it (when denied previously on pretext of friend), does not sound logical to me.

You seriously think that baboon gator is capable of logic? That joke isn't even amusing. His DT and "trustworthy" days are over.

Ironically, baboons are  capable of logic. But OP, here looks plainly stupid, creating a thread when the punishment is already lenient and frowning the whole community.

[Flying Hellfish]

...

How did the supposed alt know that bill gator was banned to rush here and make this conspiracy theory work?  Just because something is technically a non zero chance of happening doesn't mean it's worth considering.  For example I think there is a non zero chance you are not a full fledged lying scamming cunt fart, however anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells shouldn't trust you with anything of value in any way shape or form.

[Quickseller]

...

How did the supposed alt know that bill gator was banned to rush here and make this conspiracy theory work? 

I knew he was banned days ago when his signature reflected:

Banned from displaying signatures until May 18, 2021, 08:56:42 PM

The above in addition to the fact that he hasn’t posted in several days, starting prior to when he was banned. I believe he was banned on May 19 just before 9PM.

I would presume that anyone else could make the same conclusion.

(Technically I don’t *know* he was banned at all or at that time, but it is reasonable for one to reach the conclusion).

[suchmoon]

Everybody knows what exactly self admittance of account buying means and so experienced user admitting it (when denied previously on pretext of friend), does not sound logical to me.

You seriously think that baboon gator is capable of logic? That joke isn't even amusing. His DT and "trustworthy" days are over.

Ironically, baboons are  capable of logic. But OP, here looks plainly stupid, creating a thread when the punishment is already lenient and frowning the whole community.

I think the account is dead to him anyway, what with the temp ban and the sig ban (no more signature earnings) so it's a last-ditch long-shot effort to revert the ban. Nothing to lose. Sometimes extreme honesty can work. I don't think it will in this case though. Too many lies make the newfound honesty questionable.

[Harlot]

So much for trying, telling another crime doesn't solve your other problen on the past plagiarized post. If you would only have waited for at least 2 months you won't have been tag by them. I don't even know why you just had not waited for two months as most of the ban appeals I see are about members having a perma ban status and when lifted they'll have just right about your punishment so obviously what your punishment now is something that permabanned users are hoping to get.

[The-One-Above-All]

Everybody knows what exactly self admittance of account buying means and so experienced user admitting it (when denied previously on pretext of friend), does not sound logical to me.

You seriously think that baboon gator is capable of logic? That joke isn't even amusing. His DT and "trustworthy" days are over.

Ironically, baboons are  capable of logic. But OP, here looks plainly stupid, creating a thread when the punishment is already lenient and frowning the whole community.

I think the account is dead to him anyway, what with the temp ban and the sig ban (no more signature earnings) so it's a last-ditch long-shot effort to revert the ban. Nothing to lose. Sometimes extreme honesty can work. I don't think it will in this case though. Too many lies make the newfound honesty questionable.

LOL at snitchmoon and lauda the liar here.  Talking about lies and logic??

1. Lauda has been found guilty of lying for financial reward (scamming) probable extortion, shady escrow, trust abuse... and yet suchmoron has NO PROBLEM trusting them and including them on DT1. Anything that comes from its slobbering chops is questionable.

Suchmoon is the front man/bbw for this lauda/tman/owlcatz/yogg scammy little bunch of dirt bags.

I tell you what snitch moon, dig your BBW nose into all the dirt you can find on bill gator and I will bring all the dirt on lauda, tman, and we can compare in public?  we will see who is less trustworthy and who it would be far more dangerous to set in a position of DT1.

I don't give one shit about bill gator, that fool never stuck up for the true legend at all, and joined in when it suited him to be part of their gang of dirt bags. I suspect he only appealed out of greed for his sig.

However, double standards need to be pointed out in every thread. They are ON TOPIC and RELEVANT because they furnish the reader with the full and deep understanding of the matters at hand, and peoples possible motives and reasons for the opinions they give with no real grounding or demonstrate the context they are trying to build for offering those opinions are false or misleading.

I would rather see billgator in DT1 than that blob snichmoon or its master lauda. Although all 3 are likely highly unsuitable.

I don't care about his appeal either way, who cares about a sig ban. However, his red tags for buying an account can only remain by lauda and tman or ANY OTHER DT if they also red tag nutildah.  No more double standards.

Keep his sig ban on (who cares) but remove his red tags and stop discussing him as untrustworthy and unworthy of DT1 based on things you give others a pass on and are guilty of yourselves.

[marlboroza]

If Bill Gator was not told which post was plagiarized when he was banned, then the question becomes how did the OP know which post he was banned for *before* he opened this thread.

If we make assumption that Bill is telling the truth, he would know that plagiarism could have happened before November 07 (another assumption is that Bill didn't c/p anything after Nov.)

There are only 100 posts before Nov 07, it wouldn't be so hard for them to check post history of previous owner and to assume that they are banned because of that post. But that is really strange. I went to see first page of account's post history and it took me exactly 1 minute to find this:

That's really not a fair comparison. I like both series, but I don't compare them to each other, because they are too different. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was written for adults, the Harry Potter series is, at its core, a children's series. I would also argue that Rowling created a very complete universe

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/1c5iwz/lord_of_the_rings_vs_harry_potter/


Post #7:

This is a disease that is killing 50% of the people who contract it, and we are being told that contracting the disease is very difficult. yet those trained medically and in protective gear are catching it at a somewhat alarming rate.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2i7pbe/ebola_something_that_isnt_adding_up/


On the same page (#1):

one concern that immediately springs to mind is if you want to deposit a large number of coins in any exchange ,
it could easily end up disappearing

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293432.0

yes,The patent summary says, “The invention provides the isolated human Ebola (hEbola) viruses denoted as Bundibugyo (EboBun) deposited with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America) on November 26, 2007 and accorded an accession number 200706291.” -
wow

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringepics/comments/2jit12/i_deleted_him_after_this/
Not sure about source of that source.

This flight was traveling along a route it had regularly used on a daily basis in recent weeks. (Flights over conflict zones are actually common. The Federal Aviation Administration banned U.S. carriers from flying over certain areas above Crimea and the Black Sea

Not sure who is source, anyway, it was posted here (connection is not secure) https://www.wackbag.com/threads/breaking-777-crashes-on-russian-border.157764/page-4


Maybe Bill looked for plagiarism from Nov 07 backwards? Well, anyway, I don't see anyone came here to say OP is not Bill except you, so we can also do it your way and assume that "you know the truth" because "you are Bill" and OP is person or bot who reported Bill.

------------------------------

I should have done more due diligence when I purchased the account originally, but all of the posts were so bad it seemed impossible that they would be plagiarized.

I don't think you are being honest here.

And, as I can see you have bought account to join bitmixer's signature campaign:

November 8th I signed up, so I'll just be sitting in wait until my week timer has ticked!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=425135.msg12949827#msg12949827

Ok, and I just have one final question before I get out of your hair..
I will be a Senior member soon and I would love to stay with this signature campaign as long as possible.

So I call this one big BS:

Once I came here, I fell in love with the technology, the community and created an account. The problem became, that I named my account after someone close to me and that was something I wanted to step away from.

Mr. Fake Bill probably meant to say that they fell in love with bitmixer's signature campaign and only problem was - ranking up speed.

[SaltySpitoon]

]I agree 100% that he should have checked post quality, but I am not aware of any basis for checking for plagiarism in 2015. If he had gotten banned for spamming in 2015 that lasted a week, I would be on the same page, but it is 2019 and his ban is ~8 weeks and has a 102 week sig ban.

It is my understanding that sig spammers were generally receiving a 3 or 7 day ban for a first offense back then, not the 60 day ban plus a 2 year sig ban he received. I am also not aware of anyone receiving a ban for insubstantial posts with a paid sig well after post quality has improved.

With regards to not knowing to check for plagiarism in 2015, I get where you are coming from, but I think thats just one of the risks of buying a used account. If a scammer sold their account before the scam accusation was made public, the new owner would get a raw deal from buying the account. I'd essentially equate it to Bill getting scammed by the account farmer, again assuming the story is true. There isn't really a way for the forum to handle it, rather than just saying, hey that sucks. I'm assuming you've read at least a handful of ban appeals where the people claim to have never done anything wrong, outraged about their false accusation, only to have someone skim through their posts, quote what got them banned, and then they go silent. Imagine what the hundreds of accounts banned for plagiarism would try if there was an inch to give regarding responsibility for actions made by an account.

My personal opinion assuming that there was a single case of plagiarism and we aren't all looking past another 15 offenses that weren't made public, is that the sig ban should stay in place and the 60 day ban should be removed. That said, with the people that are having their permabans removed, aren't they getting off with just signature bans? That leads me to believe there may be more going on than we see. Its tough to compare the punishment from 2015 to now. Sig spammers that plagiarized in 2015 just got nuked, but thats also because there weren't higher ranked members that plagiarized.

[suchmoon]

Anyone else getting a feeling that 60 days later bill gator may try to tell us that it wasn't him who posted this appeal that backfired on him, and that he didn't actually purchase the account