[Ban Appeal] bill gator

[Flying Hellfish]

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

If embracing a QS conspiracy theory is the last move he has to make it would be sad indeed...  That being said nothing would surprise me at this point and he has nothing really left to lose.

[BitcoinSupremo]

A lot of ass kissing between DT-wannabes and DT members in this thread. A lot of merited posts which do not deserve merits between each other. Sounds just like the communist regime I described a few pages earlier, not that I care at all about what happens here anymore just making people see what is really happening.

[cabalism13]

A lot of ass kissing between DT-wannabes and DT members in this thread. A lot of merited posts which do not deserve merits between each other. Sounds just like the communist regime I described a few pages earlier, not that I care at all about what happens here anymore just making people see what is really happening.

Well, have a look at that... Look whose talking about UNDESERVING. You may lick the foxhole if you want some Merits, not the majority of the public cares about what's going on about Bill's  account, they do more care about Bitcoins rather than this shitty whole thing about a plagiarized contents which the OP believes he doesn't did that.

Just STFU, and live your life into the shadows, you're also being one of the cunts that Thule's running along side him.
Atleast these members that you're pointing as DT-wannabes isn't involved with shady businesses like selling accounts and having an involvement with scammers.

[theymos]

This is part of why account trading is strongly discouraged. Usually we won't even consider this excuse, since only admins can properly investigate it, it takes too much time, it's often too ambiguous, and you really shouldn't be trading accounts anyway. But especially for very veteran members, we do occasionally look into these claims and reconsider the matter based on them. This isn't the first case like this: there are a surprising number of notable members who originally bought their accounts.

After looking at the logs, I find it likely that this story is true, so it wasn't him personally who did the plagiarism. Trading accounts is strongly discouraged, but not against the rules. Therefore, the ban is removed.

This action may be controversial, and now I'll probably have everyone appealing based on "I bought the account from my neighbor!" (Which I'll nearly always reject...) But even though it is largely bill gator's fault, I just find it on the whole too unfair to treat him as though he did something when I'm looking at evidence showing that he didn't.

[nutildah]

After looking at the logs, I find it likely that this story is true, so it wasn't him personally who did the plagiarism. Trading accounts is strongly discouraged, but not against the rules. Therefore, the ban is removed.

And there you have it!

How do you feel about the idea of statutes of limitations on plagiarism cases? I think punishing somebody for a one-off offense done years ago (talking like 3 or more years ago) is a bit too stringent and the current plagiabot running around is a bit out of hand, leading to the banning of people for a mistake committed in 2014. Maybe the query or the rule should be tightened a bit. Just my opinion.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

@theymos you know though your intervention on this particular issue will only make things worst. The account is already destroy with red tags and he has already lost his spot on the chipmixer campaign. Don't see how benefits the ban lifting was to him and this will only stir another reputed veteran argument on Reputation board well I'm keeping my popcorn ready for this one. Off to reputation board.

My thoughts, you'll have used this case as a perfect example to pass a message that buying of account is discourage and plagiarism is unexcusable by allowing him to serve his 60days temp ban and unban his signature privilege after then for the reason you stated above. Well you know what's best for the forum so kudos.

[Steamtyme]

How do you feel about the idea of statutes of limitations on plagiarism cases? I think punishing somebody for a one-off offense done years ago (talking like 3 or more years ago) is a bit too stringent and the current plagiabot running around is a bit out of hand, leading to the banning of people for a mistake committed in 2014. Maybe the query or the rule should be tightened a bit. Just my opinion.

Glad to see theymos's action here. It does show that there are still people looking over cases and reviewing the circumstances; much to the dismay of most of the complaints out there. The rest is for the "Trust" network to sort out for itself.

I don't agree with easing up on what the Bot is searching. If someone made the one mistake years ago, then they are receiving leniency, we've seen it for so many people now. If it's happening now instead of 4 or 5 years ago, probably better for them; as it's not a permaban. Had it happened then they would be Ban evading and there is no case for them to complain if they get caught. Anyone receiving these bans should just serve the time and wear the signature with gratitude, for their second chance.

Edit: I said this elsewhere and sums up my feelings fairly well.

~snip~
For me personally this situation shows poor judgement on their part, but needs to be reviewed based on each case. If they have anything less than this reaction:

I have no problem with my “I’m an idiot and fckd up” banner. I’d have accepted much worse.  I deserve it, and so does anyone else who had or will be issued one. We all make mistakes in life, it’s about acknowledging them, getting back up, correcting your mistakes, moving on, and doing better.

~snip~

[lobcmt2]

theymos has very straight and confident approach when he solves case manually, even handle case manually requires lot of time and flexible treatments, that might cause controversy in the forum. As a core approach of theymos, it is likely that only users that have good reputation, and good net-effects deserve his time to handle manually when serious accusation pops up.

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.

Every case needs to be handled individually.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

[hilariousetc]

@theymos you know though your intervention on this particular issue will only make things worst. The account is already destroy with red tags and he has already lost his spot on the chipmixer campaign. Don't see how benefits the ban lifting was to him and this will only stir another reputed veteran argument on Reputation board well I'm keeping my popcorn ready for this one. Off to reputation board.

My thoughts, you'll have used this case as a perfect example to pass a message that buying of account is discourage and plagiarism is unexcusable by allowing him to serve his 60days temp ban and unban his signature privilege after then for the reason you stated above. Well you know what's best for the forum so kudos.

I kinda agree especially given the circumstances of the reputation of his account now. I totally understand theymos is doing what he feels is right and punishing someone for something they didn't do is wrong, but 60 days isn't long to wait and he can't really monetise his signature for much if at all now so whether he has one or not makes little difference, but it opens up a whole new can of worms. As theymos stated, people will now run with this "bought account" excuse. In fact, there's probably lots of bought accounts that were farmed in this way that are now more notable members. For all the problems this is likely going to cause I think it would have been best to just let the ban run, especially if looking into these cases by admins in detail isn't going to be commonplace as a whole lot of people are probably not going to get the same lenience or fairness.

How do you feel about the idea of statutes of limitations on plagiarism cases? I think punishing somebody for a one-off offense done years ago (talking like 3 or more years ago) is a bit too stringent and the current plagiabot running around is a bit out of hand, leading to the banning of people for a mistake committed in 2014. Maybe the query or the rule should be tightened a bit. Just my opinion.

Glad to see theymos's action here. It does show that there are still people looking over cases and reviewing the circumstances; much to the dismay of most of the complaints out there. The rest is for the "Trust" network to sort out for itself.

But if it's only going to be once in a blue moon it'll be unfair to all the other cases that don't ever get looked into.

I don't agree with easing up on what the Bot is searching. If someone made the one mistake years ago, then they are receiving leniency, we've seen it for so many people now. If it's happening now instead of 4 or 5 years ago, probably better for them; as it's not a permaban. Had it happened then they would be Ban evading and there is no case for them to complain if they get caught. Anyone receiving these bans should just serve the time and wear the signature with gratitude, for their second chance.

It shouldn't 'ease up' and should continue doing what it's doing, but discussing how we deal and punish 'historic' cases can certainly be up for debate. Sometimes I do feel it's harsh giving a year ban for one plagiarism made years ago, but the extent of their plagiarism may never be fully detected. I'm sure there's been a hell of a lot of people cleaning out their accounts of any posts they likely didn't make but to find them all amongst thousands would be very difficult. The bot won't find everything either, and I'm not sure how well it finds word spinners etc if at all.

[bill gator]

This isn't the first case like this: there are a surprising number of notable members who originally bought their accounts.

After looking at the logs, I find it likely that this story is true ... Therefore, the ban is removed.

I just find it on the whole too unfair to treat him as though he did something when I'm looking at evidence showing that he didn't.

Feels good to be back; thank you theymos.

If anyone counters, I'll counter the counter: Say no to account dealers.

I wish your principles were consistent even half of the time.

I don't care what year it was ...

Always convenient, never consistent.

... months ago after the iluvbitcoins debacle ...

Interesting how that one turned out, right? Unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, iluvbitcoins also bought their account - except they bought it as a legendary, with trust-feedback years after I did. I'm convinced I have that story wrong though, because the actions of certain members are contradictory when comparing my situation and iluvbitcoins - please correct me where I'm wrong.

Thank you for not being one of the weak-spined muppets that dances to the bullets at their feet.

Imagine plagiarizing, being let off with a temp ban, and then still appealing.

Yet here we are.

Dude you just dug your own grave with that statement.

No, I made the situation transparent and allowed the proper people to make the call.

...

Sorry QS, this time around, it really was me explaining my situation. You'll get em next time, though!

Anyone else getting a feeling that 60 days later bill gator may try to tell us that it wasn't him

Anyone else as excited for me to be back as I am?

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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but from the way you articulated that it sounds like you would be more supportive of my judgement if I silently accepted the punishment for a crime I didn't commit rather than explaining what actually happened and accepting what will come from my true actions.

nothing would surprise me at this point and he has nothing really left to lose.

Statements like this are surprising to hear from someone you considered a friend.

Now that my ban is lifted, it would seem the next objective is to appeal for consistency within the DT network; either tag all of us bought accounts, set a statute of limitations, or at least stop being so obvious when you play favorites.

Appeal successful, locking thread.