Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account

[suchmoon]

You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

Once I see uniform reactions I will believe them. Somebody should run covert experiments around here. Where a puppet master when you need him?  

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

[1714635845]

1714635845

[1714635845]

1714635845

[1714635845]

1714635845

[1714635845]

1714635845

[nullius]

@hacker is this bought account?

Good question.

Getting excluded over a flag in refusal to DOXX somebody while keeping the flag to protect the public. I stated it because I do not want to do it not to this guy, not to TECSHARE, CH or whoever next is mounting stupid attacks against me.

Now, two aphorisms come to mind:

• “No good deed goes unpunished.”
• “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.

The logical cases of suchmoon:

• “Damned if you do...”  Lauda hypothetically drops dox:  “Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.”
• “...damned if you don’t.  Lauda actually acts in good faith to try to avoid dropping dox, even if it is justified due to being evidence (which you say must be publicly disclosed) to support a flag:  She is flagging without evidence, and threatening people.

You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

Red herring.  Nobody can actually dox Lauda, except maybe the NSA (who may or may not be able to dox anybody).

Her hypothetical statement clearly illustrated the hypocrisy of people who object to her actions of avoiding disclosure of “hacker’s” dox, whereas the rabble would cheer if she were to be doxed.  Anything else you read into it is just that.

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

More red herrings.

Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her

It does not work like that.  [...]  This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.

What I call “apology culture” does have the effect of encouraging insincere apologies as the basis for peremptory demands of being allowed to get away with anything.

~

you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda

~

Yes, one can't lick it better than your adviced approach.

The principal purpose of the fence is to keep you out:

The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.

That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā.  (I will be pleased if anybody can correct my inconsistent declensions here.)

But it is irrelevant to Lauda.

Whilst travelling on business in Carpathia,
I doxed Lauda:

P.S.,

~

You are full of shit !

Complaints > /dev/null

[Lauda]

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

That is correct, I agree with said statement. Re: Quickseller, I initially wrote "the puppet master" and quickly changed to "a puppet master" because I realized it might instantly be associated with him (which was not my intention)!
Answers needed if honesty is really part of your character (I already thanked you for it):

1)

@hacker is this bought account?

2)

In this case it does, because I am guaranteeing the validity of the evidence. Do you want me to get witnesses and to quote statements for the record? Sigh. If you want, then ask him to post the same confirmation from poochpocket. At that point, after he posts, I would demand you support both flags because of said actions though. Sigh #2.

I think that would be the better thing to do so we can all move on from it, surely he would have no problem admitting it again but from his alt-account this time.

Fair is fair. I will cross re-request in the other thread. If he is any bit of honest, he will not delay this.

Answer when you can.

[morvillz7z]

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

poochpocket was rejected twice:

BTC address: 1HsHvwtS17HEhMmpqSfozAF1Sryq8t2Bu4

Would be glad to work with you OG Wink

Re-applying

hacker1001101001 was accepted later on:

Applying for the campaign. Hope I fit your criteria. (56 earned merits)

BTC Address: 1JAYESHqohMYvXS4Do6ZNEYJiwZ588MVKi

OTHER PARTICIPANTS:
1. bhadz - 3PE477hFrrWZRgAchSWkTb6FZD4yG3vBJm
2. hacker1001101001 - 1JAYESHqohMYvXS4Do6ZNEYJiwZ588MVKi
3. eagle10 - 3NtTmkxPPP58LoiRGfiZi8EibFErKfquK8
4. bavicrypto - 1bavisasY5WBjC2ob5CLn5XGriWez52k5
5. rosezionjohn - 3KrrTLCBYifobkcyVATN8DSPF7MUqTfZ5A

[hacker1001101001]

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

That is correct, I agree with said statement. Re: Quickseller, I initially wrote "the puppet master" and quickly changed to "a puppet master" because I realized it might instantly be associated with him (which was not my intention)!
Answers needed if honesty is really part of your character (I already thanked you for it):

1)

@hacker is this bought account?

2)

In this case it does, because I am guaranteeing the validity of the evidence. Do you want me to get witnesses and to quote statements for the record? Sigh. If you want, then ask him to post the same confirmation from poochpocket. At that point, after he posts, I would demand you support both flags because of said actions though. Sigh #2.

I think that would be the better thing to do so we can all move on from it, surely he would have no problem admitting it again but from his alt-account this time.

Fair is fair. I will cross re-request in the other thread. If he is any bit of honest, he will not delay this.

Answer when you can.

I am not going to get caught up in your evil minded attempts, I have already admitted it honestly. But your words are nowhere to be taken into consideration to me as you are known as and are the biggest decepter of this forum which you blame me of.

You claming you were not trying to threaten me with DOXXING is totally bullshit. The evidence is in this thread itself.

What is my crime you are claiming to be as highly risky here as to be worth of a red tag, and a flag and now even attempting and threatening to doxx my info to prove my alt ?

This only shows how low you can go to protect your abusive practices here when someone tries to speak out about it. All of this is totally an attack due to me speaking about your wrong doings and brings nothing good to the community overall as you claim.

[suchmoon]

Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.

The logical cases of suchmoon:

• “Damned if you do...”  Lauda hypothetically drops dox:  “Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.”
• “...damned if you don’t.  Lauda actually acts in good faith to try to avoid dropping dox, even if it is justified due to being evidence (which you say must be publicly disclosed) to support a flag:  She is flagging without evidence, and threatening people.

You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

Red herring.  Nobody can actually dox Lauda, except maybe the NSA (who may or may not be able to dox anybody).

Her hypothetical statement clearly illustrated the hypocrisy of people who object to her actions of avoiding disclosure of “hacker’s” dox, whereas the rabble would cheer if she were to be doxed.  Anything else you read into it is just that.

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

More red herrings.

Please refrain from making shit up. Thanks.

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?

~

You should confirm it from the other account, LoyceV makes a good point:

The Flag is on poochpocket, not on hacker1001101001. I didn't read all the details, but it doesn't seem right hacker1001101001 can confirm this on behalf of poochpocket. Anyone can claim the exact same thing about my account, that doesn't mean it's true. So it shouldn't count as evidence.

It doesn't change anything for you anyway.

[Lauda]

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?

Those found to be spamming or posting from multiple accounts with the same IP will be removed immediately.

Should be clear enough?
I gave you another chance here:

Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her

It does not work like that. You can apologize a million times to me, it does not matter. I do not need nor want your apologies. You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.

I am not going to get caught up in your evil minded attempts, I have already admitted it honestly. But your words are nowhere to be taken into consideration to me as you are known as and are the biggest decepter of this forum which you blame me of.
You claming you were not trying to threaten me with DOXXING is totally bullshit. The evidence is in this thread itself.
What is my crime you are claiming to be as highly risky here as to be worth of a red tag, and a flag and now even attempting and threatening to doxx my info to prove my alt ?
This only shows how low you can go to protect your abusive practices here when someone tries to speak out about it. All of this is totally an attack due to me speaking about your wrong doings and brings nothing good to the community overall as you claim.

However, you have decided to show your true colors. You can forget about restoring reputation to this or your other alt accounts now. Sorry it had to be this way, but you have made this choice. You reap what you sow.

[morvillz7z]

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?

Those found to be spamming or posting from multiple accounts with the same IP will be removed immediately.

Should be clear enough?

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

[Lauda]

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?

Those found to be spamming or posting from multiple accounts with the same IP will be removed immediately.

Should be clear enough?

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?

I believe the rule is badly written, but the intent is clear. E.g. If you really wanted to interpret it literally, then posting from multiple accounts (your alts) using different IPs would be allowed - this is a ridiculous interpretation.

Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

Especially given that the rule was there, thus he did it knowingly, yes.

[suchmoon]

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that...

I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP.

[Lauda]

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that...

I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP.

I believe the rule is badly written, but the intent is clear.

That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.

[PrimeNumber7]

I would like to know just how bad hacker’s spamming was to the forum. How large of a shilling army did he have? How long ago did he stop bump spamming (in relation to when the bump spam protections went into place)?

I don’t think he had/has only two forum accounts but I don’t have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.

I don’t like the use of sock puppets to support and agree with each other and I think it is a bad look when people do this. I say the same thing about sending merit. If anyone has done this before they should stop. This kind of thing gets noticed and it reflects poorly on those who do this.

I think hacker should consent to theymos looking into these questions and reporting what he finds. There is already evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

[suchmoon]

That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.

If it really matters (I don't think it does in the grand scheme of things) then yes, it should be up to the campaign manager when the rule is worded as stupidly as it is.

I don’t like the use of sock puppets to support and agree with each other and I think it is a bad look when people do this. I say the same thing about sending merit. If anyone has done this before they should stop. This kind of thing gets noticed and it reflects poorly on those who do this.

Great. Can't wait for you to stop.

[Lauda]

I don’t think he had/has only two forum accounts but I don’t have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.

Continuous dishonest behavior has not stopped and by the looks of it is not stopping. A single account being sold without any victims warrants the account being flagged, ICO bumping on any scale warrants more.

That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.

If it really matters (I don't think it does in the grand scheme of things) then yes, it should be up to the campaign manager when the rule is worded as stupidly as it is.

Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though.

[marlboroza]

Red herring.  

[...]

More red herrings.

I am not quite sure why you attacked suchmoon, but "if you don't confess I will publish your dox" is?

it was when I was a newbie here

He was the person who is the part of the process who dragged me to Bitcointalk explicitly.

But you see, account hacker1001101001 was registered on June 05, 2017 and account poochpocket on March 29, 2014 and you also said...

I don't control any other account than this on the forum now

..and today you said...

Yes, the account is in control of me.

..did you buy this account? Since when is this account under your control?

[Lauda]

Red herring.  

[...]

More red herrings.

I am not quite sure why you attacked suchmoon, but "if you don't confess I will publish your dox" is?

He did not really attack suchmoon and suchmooon did not really attack me either (including suchmoon's misunderstanding of my words, and nulliuses misunderstanding of her words), I think you are all losing proper interpretations due to whatever (read it all again objectively, within context). Ignore the word DOX, replace it with "If you do not confess yourself, I will be forced to publish the evidence" - nothing is wrong with this and gives the culprit a chance to admit should he want to  (while avoiding any unnecessary damage by releasing the evidence). The only reason it was said was precisely because the DOX is the evidence (otherwise the evidence - whatever it may have been - would have been released instantly) - something which I do not want to post and can not almost find any scenarios under which I would. I have no other evidence (that is publicly known). Clear now?

I don't control any other account than this on the forum now

..and today you said...

Yes, the account is in control of me.

..did you buy this account? Since when is this account under your control?

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  

[TECSHARE]

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that...

I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP.

A common sense interpretation of this rule, at its maximum restrictiveness, would seem to dictate to me that this rule is attempting to bar an individual from actively enrolling multiple accounts. The simple fact he had previously applied and been rejected on an alt is not evidence of malfeasance or even a contractual violation.

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  

Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.

[Lauda]

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  

Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.
[1] I happily condone liars and frauds.

[1] FTFY. If you need more assistance in making you a bit honest, please do ask and I will help.

[TECSHARE]

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  

Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.
[1] I happily condone liars and frauds.

[1] FTFY. If you need more assistance in making you a bit honest, please do ask and I will help.

Ah veiled threads for not complying with your baseless smearfest. Very becoming of you.

[suchmoon]

Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though.

Without OgNasty's opinion we can't really know if what hacker1001101001/poochpocket did was against the rules of the campaign or not. It's not that I'm "keen on exact wording", it's just that poor wording in this case doesn't really make the intent as clear as you claimed.

And even if it is clear... Replace hacker1001101001/poochpocket with another set of alts in this scenario - would you still make the same claim? Remove all the other transgressions hacker1001101001/poochpocket is accused of from consideration - would you still red-trust/flag him for this signature application? If the answer is "no" then it probably doesn't matter much if at all.