Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie

[suchmoon]

They get their retribution for speaking a little too freely, and they get to send a message that anyone who is critical of them pays consequences for their actions. It is not moot at all!

What consequences? Any nutjob can create a pointless thread about anything, like you do incessantly about posts that aren't deleted to your liking. Are those threads supposed to be your retribution against users speaking too freely?

The only thing that may have consequences for hacker1001101001 is his continuing lies.

[1714615810]

1714615810

[1714615810]

1714615810

[1714615810]

1714615810

[1714615810]

1714615810

[1714615810]

1714615810

[marlboroza]

What consequences? Any nutjob can create a pointless thread about anything, like you do incessantly about posts that aren't deleted to your liking. Are those threads supposed to be your retribution against users speaking too freely?

The only thing that may have consequences for hacker1001101001 is his continuing lies.

"free speech" works only when TECSHARE is doing it. Lets not forget when he reported my post because he didn't like what I said and then he complained that moderators are censuring his right to speak freely 
Regarding this appeal of ban appeal and what bugs me here, was hacker's "spam business" known at the time he got signature ban, or it was irrelevant?

[JayJuanGee]

Also jayjuangee is clearly dishonest. Told me he is not advocating punishment for hacker now here he is giving merit to a call for a ban.
You simply can not trust these people.

Unless he want to explain?

I don't need to explain anything.

I guess that more of my attention has been drawn to the hacker matter in recent times, including that I am reading through some of the posts and I have been noticing that if some member(s) seems to have put work and research into providing evidence and logic that attempts to explain that evidence, then in my view that seems to deserve some merit(s).  So, yes, I have been moved to give some merit to some posts based on evidence, logic and sometimes what seems to be some compiling work..... and sometimes i will also give merit, and it might not agree with the conclusions that are argued in the post, but instead seems to deserve merit for raising, highlighting or clarifying some points.... hey I might not even conclude that the evidence as a whole or overall is compelling, but the post still raised a clarification or another or caused me to reconsider my thinking on some matter. 

You do seem to want read a lot into the sending of smerits... and maybe even attribute more weight to the sending of smerits than they deserve, anyhow... by the way, if a member such as myself might have only so much time that he can spare online for that day, or maybe during a window period, he might give smerits for posts that he is able to read during that window period that he is on for that day.. .or maybe he does not have any smerits to send during the window period... so he might NOT have time to be able to read some other posts that might be better on the same topic or he might not be able to give smerits because he does not have any.

In terms of substance, I do tend to believe that there are a lot of contradictions that hacker seems to be making himself, but I still have not really taken any specific kind of advocating step, beyond what I had already stated earlier, which would be that hacker might muster up to either help himself better, or maybe just move on from some of the battles and figure out ways to contribute substance to the forum in order to attempt to rebuild his credibility in those kinds of rebuilding ways, if that is possible or wanted by hacker.  I had seen one or more posts from hacker that had seemed to show that he wanted to rebuild some credibility for his account, so it seems to me that sometimes his fighting some of the matters seem to cause more contradictions, even coming from his own keyboard, rather than really working on building credibility.

By the way, I do sometimes feel that I need to attempt to apologize to other members because I understand that the topic is not about me (and frequently not about me nor about my practices or my rationale for my practices at the time of my posting the response), and so in that sense, I don't necessarily know enough about the topic, yet I end up allowing members like bonesjones to drag me into responding into an area that is almost completely off topic, and maybe it would be better if I did not say anything rather than to start out my response by saying that "I do not need to respond" and then to end up responding with an area of discussion that is largely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

[TECSHARE]

They get their retribution for speaking a little too freely, and they get to send a message that anyone who is critical of them pays consequences for their actions. It is not moot at all!

What consequences? Any nutjob can create a pointless thread about anything, like you do incessantly about posts that aren't deleted to your liking. Are those threads supposed to be your retribution against users speaking too freely?

The only thing that may have consequences for hacker1001101001 is his continuing lies.

This... as if you don't know I am responding directly to your quote.

...However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

As far as the rest of your post...

[suchmoon]

This... as if you don't know I am responding directly to your quote.

...However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

Ah, this is one of those things where you're explaining to other people that the meaning of their posts is the opposite of what the actual words say.

If hacker1001101001's posts violate rules they should be reported and if he deserves a temp-ban because of that - he should get it (or maybe get "time served" if the moderators are so inclined). Not because someone posted a wall of text arguing for double jeopardy. Which part of this is too complicated for you?

[TECSHARE]

They get their retribution for speaking a little too freely, and they get to send a message that anyone who is critical of them pays consequences for their actions. It is not moot at all!

What consequences? Any nutjob can create a pointless thread about anything, like you do incessantly about posts that aren't deleted to your liking. Are those threads supposed to be your retribution against users speaking too freely?

The only thing that may have consequences for hacker1001101001 is his continuing lies.

This... as if you don't know I am responding directly to your quote.

...However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

Ah, this is one of those things where you're explaining to other people that the meaning of their posts is the opposite of what the actual words say.

If hacker1001101001's posts violate rules they should be reported and if he deserves a temp-ban because of that - he should get it (or maybe get "time served" if the moderators are so inclined). Not because someone posted a wall of text arguing for double jeopardy. Which part of this is too complicated for you?

No, it is one of those things where I respond to a direct question from you as far as what the consequences of these retribution based peanut hunts would be. What you meant is irrelevant, unless that is, you are trying to say your words didn't mean that he could receive a temporary ban. None of the information presented is even conclusive, not that it stops you and your clown friends from trying to manufacture a self serving narrative with peanut fragments and duct tape.

[suchmoon]

What you meant is irrelevant

Fair enough. I keep forgetting that only your fantasies are relevant and saying "Lauda bad" grants amnesty of any and all rule violations. Carry on.

[nullius]

One can't become more naive, workless and mentally effected due to effects of Lockdown and Quarantine more than the OP. Seek doctor's help.

Flies into a rage at being called out for his own wrongdoing.  Remorselessly turns around and accuses his accusers, sneering at them with disgusting self-righteousness and self-satisfaction at his own feigned ethical superiority to those who caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.  Projects his own demons onto others.

Whether his reaction is more consistent with psychopathy (here dropping his mask), or an extreme reaction to narcissistic injury, I will leave for someone with a medical degree who has examined “hacker” in a professional setting.  I am not interested in fixing his mental health; that is his problem.  I am interested in protecting the forum from sockpuppeting spammer plagiarists who lie, lie, lie, change their stories, and then lie some more.

It is beyond my knowledge how this plagiarist, fraudulent bump account and spam service got the second chance.

Together with quotation of the 2019 complaints that lenience to “hacker” was unfair to other users who were banned to plagiarism, that should be /thread.

Or in rather less eloquent terms, my whole OP could have been reduced to this:

LOLWUT.  Leniency was misguided.  Ban him.

Instead, I wrote an OP which anticipated every even minimally substantial objection thus far raised in this thread.  For unfortunately, attempts to express oneself succinctly seem to be against this forum’s moderation policy:

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

• Delete reply: Re: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie in topic #5240612 by member #252510

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5422/54228988.html
With size=5pt changed to size=larger:

This coordinated effort to go after hacker1001101001 only began once he started being openly critical of Lauda. Since then it has been a nonstop procession of all the same clowns that come after anyone who ever says anything that is not glowing praise for Lauda, working overtime to find or manufacture any justification whatsoever to exercise their retribution against this user. None of this is new, nor is it a threat to the user base even if it was. This is just more of the same abuse of any system they can get their hands on to punish people who openly disagree with them.

That's ridiculous.      (I am just getting started in an experiment to work on shortening my posts)

In the overall context, that is really the appropriate response.  I would try honing my own Laconic wit, but it seems “μoλὼν λαβέ” may also be deleted.

Funny, moderator deletes more on topic posts from genuine people and leaves the ones from trolls from this very thread too. I wonder how effective the report on plagiarism would be. Seems there is on going moderation bias by somebody.

Are there new infractions?

OP could you list the end date of hacker's 60 ban.
Op could you list new sins after hacker's 60 day ban.

[...]

OR ALL THE SINS YOU HAVE PREDATE THE BAN HAMMER

iRRELEVANT; READ op.  (And please fix your caps lock.)

double jeopardy

Read the subject line, at least, before making fallacious quasi-legalistic arguments (surprising, or perhaps altogether unsurprising since you also fail to recognize the formality of a quasi-legal demand).  The word “appeal” suggests in concept that I am seeking review of the old case, not opening a new one; and the subject line, at least, should not constitute grounds for your characteristically childish, vindictive personal snipes based on rote repetition of arrant nonsense.

wall of text

wall of text

Unappealing, that is.  Anyway, this is not a court of law.  It is an Internet forum, which cannot tolerate the presence of plagiarists who run massive sockpuppet spamming operations and then repeatedly lie about it.

I strongly suggest that the administration and staff reconsider a precedent that surely can be cited with “but you unbanned this guy!!!” arguments by garden-variety copy-paste sigspammers who didn’t run organized multi-account paid ICO-spam operations.

[— nullius is evil waaaah—insult, insult, insult —]

Off-topic trolling > /dev/null

However, I do agree with this if I cherry-pick it wildly out of context:

Only context and a full and complete review of a persons entire history can provide you with a sensible objective consistent and fair course of action.

Absolutely!  Lenience for a plagiarism committed by a multi-account sockpuppeting spammer is inconsistent and manifestly unfair to everybody who has been permabanned for a single copy-paste.  Be fair:  Ban the professional spammer.

I hereby advocate only that “hacker1001101001” inclusive of all his many alts must be held to the same standard as numerous others who have been properly permabanned for plagiarism.  Or for spam.  Or both.[/list]

[bonesjonesreturns]

Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol


Bones jones = sensible consistent and fair punishment of hacker0101000101 requires context. Presents context for consideration.

Nullius = bones jones off topic troll.  Absolutely agree with bonesjones about context being essential to the process of forming sensible opinion on consistent and fair punishment for hacker0101000101. .
I am interested in protecting the forum from sock puppet sig spamming ( not the pharmacist though cos he's our pal) plagiarists.
I am also very interested in protecting scammers from fair consistent punishment which poses a greater threat to the forum.
I'm a very dangerous and retarded else I'm knowingly pushing double standards to support scammers.

Nullius for all your waffle and fluff you will never cast doubt over

1. Full context is a fundamental requirement for fair and consistent punishment
2. Those trying to prevent full context and open transparent comparison are biased and should be perceived as a threat to this forum

By all means call for punishment but don't dare to try to prevent your " suggestions" and arguments being openly examined, analysed and tested in an open and transparent and on topic manner.

Those fearing an open and transparent examination of their proposal or wanting their arguments evaluated free of context know their arguments are weak and bogus.

Your argument boils down to this

1. Scammers, auction scammers and willing scam facilitators for pay who do not admit wrong doing who collude together to game merit and trust and use red tags to silence whistleblowers ..I nullius will protect and support these by including them on default trust. They do not require a ban.

2. Plagiarist and ico sock puppet pumper ( banned for 60 days and being punished with 2 year sig ban and red tags ) ..who dared disagree with my scamming friends who I support and protect. I nullius say it is fair and consistent with my other actions to call for a perm ban for hacker0101000101 now?  Right?


Could your argument be any more broken, corrupt or dangerous?
I will support your ban for hacker0101000101 if you can demonstrate how your pals do not deserve a ban first. Lol at nullius Adding them to his inclusions and creating bogus excuses for their scamming. Ban them first then we measure hacker against them.


@jayjuangee - I only ask you remain consistent and stop trying to cast on topic highly relevant context for deciding on fair consistent punishment as off topic trolling. That is dishonest if that is what you are doing?

Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.
If you say more evidence was provided that caused you to change your mind that is fair enough. Don't claim off topic trolling when it is of paramount importance to conducting a balanced and fair debate. When people engaging in the debate either directly or by supporting with merit appear to have pulled a 180 on what they said previously then it is sensible to ask why they have done so.

I also find it strange that I present you with clear irrefutable evidence of financially motivated wrongdoing of those currently on default trust 1. Understanding I hope the leverage of being DT1 could provide a scammer you tell me you have no interest in doing homework and reviewing a few 100 words.
Amazing how you will review 1000s of words homework from nullius and marlboroza for a member that is not of DT1, already punished and red tagged and start to merit " investigative " homework and appearing to support a ban for hacker0101000101 now? Your time is not being spent with the best interest of the forum is it?

Be fair and honest for once. You are only thinking of your own popularity and not caring one bit about seeing fair consistent treatment of all members.
Don't think I will be friends with those that push double standards.  Change your ways please.
I don't think you want to support scammers but you want to be popular. Pick a side. Don't try to do both in a board that is taken over by scammers and their supporters.

Only by being unpopular in such a setting can you know you are on the correct path.

My interest is not preventing hacker0101000101 being banned, only to ensure a ban is the fair and consistent punishment he deserves while nullius protects and excuses other more serious scammers and trust abusers who are milking the forum harder of btc with their antics?

[nullius]

Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol

What a thrilling line of productive and rational on-topic debate.

If I were “hacker1001101001”, I would be shouting from the rooftops that this is a false-flag “defence” designed to destroy my reputation by making it look like my best friends and associates are disgusting cretins.  (Of course, if I were “hacker1001101001”, there would have been neither plagiarism nor ICO-bump spamming in this case; but I digress...)

Nobody can control what others say about him online; and also, for my part, I don’t generally agree with or even like everybody who ever says anything favourable to me.  Of course not.  On the flipside, I surely do not speak for everybody of whom I may speak positively from time to time; indeed, I have on occasion said some good things about people who personally dislike me, intensely dislike me, and assuredly are not my friends.

But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies.

“hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people.  He has had TEChSHARE make literal shitposts with photographs of feces to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEChSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”.  (We drink to forget...)  And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”.

“hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEChSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild.  He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions.

A man is known by the company he keeps.  It goes to character.

~

Ridiculous.

[JayJuanGee]

@jayjuangee - I only ask you remain consistent and stop trying to cast on topic highly relevant context for deciding on fair consistent punishment as off topic trolling. That is dishonest if that is what you are doing?

I am not agreeing that there is any standard that I must be consistent and fair or that I even need to be... .  I already attempted to explain to you some of the considerations that I might employ, and I did NOT even explain all considerations, which you should already be able to extrapolate from what I already said instead of striving to employ some standards that do not exist.  

Let me just run with your nonsense for a minute and hypothesize, for example, that I log on to the forum, and on a given day, and I only have 1 hour on that day that I can read posts or respond to posts, but I do not have any smerits that I can send; however, while I am reading a post, I come across a post that I consider to be merit worthy from member abracadabra_loves_jones, and for some reason I do not have a piece of paper or any way to log my positive impression of that abracadabra_loves_jones post, but I make a kind of mental note that I should send abracadabra_loves_jones an smerit, so the next time that I am online on the next day, I see another post from abracadabra_loves_jones, and so I send an smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones on day two in regards to a second post.  

Heym bonesjones might assert that my sending that smerit was not "fair and consistent" because the second post was NOT as good as the first one, and that second post was NOT even worthy of an smerit.   I might have even disagreed with some of the points that abracadabra_loves_jones made in that second post; however, the randomness of my sending the smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones on that second post ends up being inconsistent and unfair, but I give less than two fucks about that because in my mind, I had already determined that I was going to send an smerit to abracadabra_loves_jones based on that first post and I happened to NOT feel inclined to doing any research to find that first post because I fucking did not want to do any research.. even though it would have only taken me 2 more minutes (or even less than that) to find that other first post, but I did not want to spend two more minutes on that particular day, and even though everyone else concludes that I should spend 2 more minutes to find the other post in order to be fair and consistent.  Do I have discretion to decide whether to spend the extra 2 minutes or not?  I think that I do, and I believe that it is not necessary for me to have to justify that I sent the smerit to the second post rather than the first post.  

For whatever reason, I am not in a kind of a mood to make sure that I am being fair and consistent in that particular case, and I don't think that I need to be. I believe that in the hypothetical I am being totally reasonable given my own considerations.  So fuck off with your demand that I need to follow some kind of bonesjones standard of consistent and fair when I already explained to you (and probably over-explained) that I believe that I am being sufficiently reasonable in my own discretion of my own approach in terms of balancing my time and making posts and sending smerits.

By the way, I understand that I am providing a kind of dumb example above in order to make a responsive point to your standard imposition demands, bonesjones, and I am not necessarily conceding that I am just randomly sending out smerits, but I am asserting that you are trying to create a standard that does not exist.... and furthermore, none of us really hardly knows who you are anyhow (I already tried to figure this out with you), so why would you have much if any credibility to be suggesting or imposing standards, (whether smerit sending or participation standards).

Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.

There is no such dichotomy.

If you say more evidence was provided that caused you to change your mind that is fair enough.

I said what I said.

Don't claim off topic trolling when it is of paramount importance to conducting a balanced and fair debate.

Huh?  You consider that you are providing a service by off topic trolling. Interesting.

When people engaging in the debate either directly or by supporting with merit appear to have pulled a 180 on what they said previously then it is sensible to ask why they have done so.

I already answered that.

I also find it strange that I present you with clear irrefutable evidence of financially motivated wrongdoing of those currently on default trust 1.

I did not read any of your homework, and I still don't believe that I need to read homework that you assign in order to participate in various threads, whether I am posting replies or sending smerits.  We have already gone down this path, and you have not presented anything that causes me to feel that I need to do more homework or that I am missing something that is relevant to my being able to participate in the ways that I have so far chosen.

Understanding I hope the leverage of being DT1 could provide a scammer you tell me you have no interest in doing homework and reviewing a few 100 words.

I did not say that.  I said that I had enough information available to me in order to participate in whatever ways that I had already participated, and you were trying to get me to do homework in off topic and irrelevant matters.  You have not proven the relevance of whatever homework you were striving to get me to do... All I have to do is read 100 words?  I thought that I had seen way more than 100 words.  I saw your post which let's just say is 100 words, but then you have not even proven yourself to be credible in any kind of way.. right?  You are a newbie who claims to know me in various ways and you come out bashing against me and then I am supposed to all of a sudden take your word for everything... I mean your supposed 100 words..  and then I saw a bunch of other reply posts.. that is just a quagmire of largely seeming irrelevance.  

You seem to be concluding that I am just blowing you off, but I am not.  I have been spending way too much time explaining certain perspective matters to you and including responding to a lot of your nonsense by probably giving you way too much benefit of the doubt, even though you tend to assign things to me, but you really do not even respond to various points that I make, and instead you just continue to impose your self and your standards.... We have already gone over this... no?
 

Amazing how you will review 1000s of words homework from nullius and marlboroza for a member that is not of DT1

Did anyone say that I was reading any of those words in detail?  It depends on the circumstances, and sure I will look at the extent to which some members have backed up their claims, and surely it makes sense to give some additional credibility to members who have been reliable in the past.  If someone fucks you over and provides misleading information in the past, then it becomes much more difficult to let them drag you down the bullshit road again... so if you are comparing yourself to some of the other more credible members, then you are correct.. you have seemed to have already attempted to drag me down all kinds of bullshit roads and even providing lame evidence, lame facts, lame logic and coming to preposterous conclusions that are contradictory to other kinds of evidence...  

So I doubt that I am playing favorites, and if some other members fucks around with me by giving me bad information and sometimes do not even concede their own mistakes, then of course, I am going to spend less time reading anything that they have to say in the future.

, already punished and red tagged and start to merit " investigative " homework and appearing to support a ban for hacker0101000101 now?

Yes... there are some members who seem to be pushing for hacker to get more punishment.  That is true.

Your time is not being spent with the best interest of the forum is it?

We have gone over this topic before too, didn't we?  You said that your mission is to improve the forum, so that seems to be a laudable mission.  

I am NOT proclaiming that your mission would be bad, if that is what you really are trying to do.  On the other hand, just because you have a certain mission, you hardly are convincing me that I should join in your purported mission.  I barely even trust you in terms of whether I can actually rely upon some of your representations, even in our direct interactions.. the ones that we have had up until now.  And since you seem to want to twist my words, twist my intentions and to create a variety of obligations upon me, I have some difficulties in motivating myself to really follow you in any kind of way that goes beyond or direct interactions and even less so to subscribe to what you represent to be your purported mission.

Be fair and honest for once.

I have been trying to work with you... but if you are implying that I am neither honest or fair, then how can we make any progress with those kinds of seemingly unsubstantiated allegations?  I cannot even recall an instance in which I have neither been fair with you or dishonest.  So, yeah, difficult to work with you when you are just throwing out seemingly erroneous assertions.

You are only thinking of your own popularity and not caring one bit about seeing fair consistent treatment of all members.

We have already discussed these topics, and I don't see where any further elaboration is going to take us.

Don't think I will be friends with those that push double standards.  

You said that you are not looking for friends.  You are changing your mind?  Hey, I said that I was not looking for friends, either, but we did go down that exploration path, and you and I are really having some challenges in the "friends" with each other department, right?

Regarding double standards.. that just seems to be some "out there" assertion, and I am not even sure how you can apply it to me, but hey, do what you will.

Change your ways please.

You want me to change how?  To be more like you?  That is ridiculous, no?  We have already gone over this topic, too, haven't we?

I don't think you want to support scammers but you want to be popular. Pick a side.

I doubt that there is any such clear dichotomy as you are wanting to assert or even a need to pick a side, either.

Don't try to do both in a board that is taken over by scammers and their supporters.

I did not even say that I was trying to do either.  You are the one ascribing attributes to my purported motivations.

Only by being unpopular in such a setting can you know you are on the correct path.

We have all kinds of members in this forum.  They vary in their level of popularity and of course, they participate in the forum for a variety of reasons and a variety of motives that likely evolve over time, too.... At least hopefully.  Members who interact in various threads of the forum will likely evolve in a variety of ways during their forum membership.  We also have some members who register but they hardly ever post.  I personally believe that there is some value in posting and with interacting with other members, but sometimes it can take away from other important things in real life (not that forum participation is completely removed from real life).

My interest is not preventing hacker0101000101 being banned, only to ensure a ban is the fair and consistent punishment he deserves while nullius protects and excuses other more serious scammers and trust abusers who are milking the forum harder of btc with their antics?

O.k.  I don't have any problem with those kinds of goals or motives that you have.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol

What a thrilling line of productive and rational on-topic debate.

If I were “hacker1001101001”, I would be shouting from the rooftops that this is a false-flag “defence” designed to destroy my reputation by making it look like my best friends and associates are disgusting cretins.  (Of course, if I were “hacker1001101001”, there would have been neither plagiarism nor ICO-bump spamming in this case; but I digress...)

Nobody can control what others say about him online; and also, for my part, I don’t generally agree with or even like everybody who ever says anything favourable to me.  Of course not.  On the flipside, I surely do not speak for everybody of whom I may speak positively from time to time; indeed, I have on occasion said some good things about people who personally dislike me, intensely dislike me, and assuredly are not my friends.

But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies.

“hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people.  He has had TEChSHARE make literal shitposts with photographs of feces to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEChSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”.  (We drink to forget...)  And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”.

“hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEChSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild.  He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions.

A man is known by the company he keeps.  It goes to character.

~

Ridiculous.

Your entire post deliberately diverts away from the central point I am making that you are seeking to avoid.

You do not want your begging for hacker0101000101s ban to be fairly  considered and evaluated in the full context of " dangerous" and " scamming " behaviors that you support and excuse when it's your pals.

The inconvenient truth that you have demonstrated yourself to be a creepy old perv that ass kiss those you believe are female here is also relevant to my claim that your call for a ban is biased. I am hoping that this strange "I will protect scammers and support them on default trust but want people punished for showing empathy or ico bumping is just motivated by sexual urges and not because you are a scammer yourself.

That is not my central point though.  It is a pertinent point that should be considered.

If there are those that are looking at this debate wondering why nullius does seem to be sheltering scammers and including them on default trust whilst begging for bans for lesser evils of members that have had recent disagreements with those same scammers nullius shelters?
Then your previous dealings with alia (assumed female scammer nullius was slobbering over) and lauda ( purported female and certain
 scammer who nullius is slobbering over). It is important to note nullius came out of long period of inactivity and went straight after laudas the scammers prime critic on the bogus claim of him showing empathy? Red trust for empathy.Now going after hacker 01110111 after he recently fell out with your scammer pal lauda.

So in summary

1 nullius wants to employ clear double standards to justify a ban for hacker and pass it off as a total fair and consistent action on his part.

2 . Nullius wants to label " context" and his independent verifiable observable actions towards others as
Trolling and off topic because he knows once we take a deeper look at his actions they will be unfair and biased.

3. Nullius has started to realise you can not claim something is fair and consistent without context so changes his focus to a less central point which is his possible motivation for trying to push double standards.

4. I say to those reading and wondering why nullius is trying to label context as trolling and off topic. Or why nullius is including scammers,  and willing scam facilitators for pay on default trust and concocting weak and silly excuses for their directly dangerous behaviors? It may not be that nullius is stupid ( I see that looks likely) or that he is motivated by financial reasons , it seems to me be a pattern of predatory sexual frustration. Motivation for trying to unfairly punish another member is important to note.

I don't want poor old incel nullius to be considered an actual financially dangerous scammer. More of a pitiful sexual frustrated ugly old man who knows Latin and neeeechy or smeeechy whomever that is he keeps trying to impress people with. Just wants a bit of cyber sec ffs which we should not judge.

To put nullius own behavior in context. I think punishment for scammer protecting motivated by intense sexual frustration should not be a ban, but a post limit of 50 words and no double posting. A signature saying ugly old man posting,  female members beware of me in English not latin.

Context is fundamental to this discussion. Stop trying to prevent it nullius. Perhaps we will put your past into the context? How do you like that?

I am the " friend" or pal of nobody and not hacker0101000101  at all. I don't even care about hacker0101000101 since I never seen him speak up for others being abused by these scammers.

Still.  Fair is fair. I want to see transparent and consistent treatment of all members. Nothing more nothing less.

At least nullius is starting to accept context is unavoidable when discussing appropriate punishment.

Let's get to that part.
We can leave the possible or probable motivations of nullius for trying to avoid context ..once he stops trying to prevent context right?

 @jayjuangee

It seems that I have misunderstood what your merit implied.
I still feel it is weird to merit a post that may not be merit worthy or even incorrect just because you wanted to merit a different post that person made once.
I think many members would take a merit to mean that post itself was meritorious. It could be misconstrued as support.

But if that is how you wish to do things that is up to you.

This means there is no need at all to discuss a 180 that does not exist.
The only part of your post I disagree with is that i have provided you with false information previously 
That is off topic here so I will not discuss that. I say that is not true though.
I do want to make the forum better.  I believe every member must be treated consistently and fairly.
Punishment must be fair and consistent when full context is considered.
How can you say say something is consistent with no context.

Even nullius says context is very important when it suits him? Go review his posts

[nullius]

Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.

There is no such dichotomy.

[...]

Understanding I hope the leverage of being DT1 could provide a scammer you tell me you have no interest in doing homework and reviewing a few 100 words.

I did not say that.

[...]

Don't think I will be friends with those that push double standards.  

You said that you are not looking for friends.  You are changing your mind?

[...]

Change your ways please.

You want me to change how?  To be more like you?  That is ridiculous, no?  We have already gone over this topic, too, haven't we?

inb4 five thousand threads in Reputation accusing JayJuanGee of supporting proven scammers and/or being a proven scammer.  Also, Jay is a hardened sigspammer alt of a ring of sigspammers, “milking it for every satoshi.”  

All couched in insults and intentionally disgusting, scatological and/or sexually degrading language...

[...]

I am hoping that this strange "I will protect scammers and support them on default trust but want people punished for showing empathy or ico bumping is just motivated by sexual urges and not because you are a scammer yourself.

[...]

I don't want poor old incel nullius to be considered an actual financially dangerous scammer. More of a pitiful sexual frustrated ugly old man who knows Latin and neeeechy or smeeechy who every that is he keeps trying to impress people with. Just wants a bit of cyber sec ffs which we should not judge.

To put nullius own behavior in context. I think punishment for scammer protecting motivated by intense sexual frustration should not be a ban, but a post limit of 50 words and no double posting. A signature saying ugly old man posting,  female members beware of me in English not latin.

[.........]

You sound angry.

Quotes re-arranged to provide better context:

But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies.

“hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people.  He has had TEChSHARE make literal shitposts with photographs of feces to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEChSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”.  (We drink to forget...)  And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”.

“hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEChSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild.  He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions.

A man is known by the company he keeps.  It goes to character.

I am the " friend" or pal of nobody and not hacker0101000101  at all. I don't even care about hacker0101000101 since I never seen him speak up for others being abused by these scammers.

The relevant part here is “hacker’s” opinion of you and your “defence” of him, not about your opinion of him.  Does he let such things be done on his behalf, without even a peep of protest?

Only the code-illiterate “hacker0101000101” can speak for himself on that point.

(As for your allegation that you are the “‘friend’ or pal of nobody”, I protest that you are not my friend or pal.  nullius = nobody.  Whereas you are not even nobody’s friend.)

, already punished and red tagged and start to merit " investigative " homework and appearing to support a ban for hacker0101000101 now?

Yes... there are some members who seem to be pushing for hacker to get more punishment.  That is true.

Insofar as I can tell, “some members” seem to be principally me.  I can’t speak for anybody else, of course.

More generally, I am also pushing for ICO bumping to be officially recognized as spamming per se, a bannable offence.  How is it not spamming!?  And why do so many people seem to be ignoring this issue?  What  “hacker1001101001” has admitted is arguably even a more damaging form of spam than garden-variety sigspamming.

The fraudulent nature of ICO bumping is for DT to handle, to protect people from losing money.  marlboroza and others have been doing an excellent job with that.  I support their efforts; and I encourage to continue, whereas ICO-bumpers are apparently not being banned, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.

Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.

[bonesjonesreturns]

You nullius are wrong.

This is not a defense of hacker0101000101.
This is an argument that hacker0101000101  must have fair and consistent treatment.

I don't care about your protest or hacker0101000101s protest. They mean the same to me.

There are no valid protestations to ensuring fair and consistent treatment of all
Members.

Double standards are the most destructive and dangerous threat to this forum.

[nullius]

This is an argument that hacker0101000101  must have fair and consistent treatment.

[...]

Double standards are the most destructive and dangerous threat to this forum.

And that is why the spammer should never have been granted lenience for plagiarism—and should not be granted lenience for spamming.

Thank you for making my argument for why “hacker1001101001” should be banned.


Having made my point about “bonesjonesreturns”, his obscene rhetoric that no sane person would want to be associated with, and his way of accidentally advancing my argument whilst illogically pretending to do otherwise, I think that I should probably now start taking my own advice.

Code:

         +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.            
         |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:           
         |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:          
         |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='          
         |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )             
         |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\             
         +-------------------+             /         \            
                 |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \           
                 |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\          
   @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW          
   \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__           
    \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================

[JayJuanGee]

@jayjuangee

It seems that I have misunderstood what your merit implied.
I still feel it is weird to merit a post that may not be merit worthy or even incorrect just because you wanted to merit a different post that person made once.
I think many members would take a merit to mean that post itself was meritorious. It could be misconstrued as support.

But if that is how you wish to do things that is up to you.

Largely, I was providing examples in which merit could be given, and that does not even signify that I make merit allocations in that kind of way, even if it might happen from time to time.  I am not completely pulling the examples out of the air, but just because they are used as examples does not mean that they are wide-spread or even were happening in this particular case, and in the end, like I said several times, I don't need to justify why I sent an smerit in one case or not in another for any given post or even if the post was meritorious.  

Of course, if you can figure out some bad motive, that might be another story... but I do not have to prove a good motive.. yes, I recognize that you are suggesting that if a good motive does not exist, and if I cannot justify a good motive, then therefore, we can reasonably conclude that a bad motive exists...

Usually, the standard would be the opposite of what you are seeming to imply, and that is that the burden is on the accuser to both show a bad motive and to provide some evidence of such bad motive before a good motive might need to be shown, and surely you have not even come close to showing any bad motive from me, and instead you just want to throw out accusations and implications that a bad motive must exist if a good motive is not proven...  Weird right?  A BIG leap of logic, right?  Confusing right?

I understand that some people might not understand the difference between alleging that I have a bad motive and trying to show such motive as compared with my NOT having to show a good motive.. and maybe it is ridiculous for me to even be discussing such weeds of principles with someone like you who just seems to want to twist ideas and principles and just make shit up in order that you can outline some standard that is ONLY understood by yourself and just ongoingly muddies the waters.  For example, my NOT showing a good motive or even feeling that I need to show any kind of good motive, does not even mean that my motives were not good, it just means that I do not have to show what my motive was, good or otherwise, so you can read all kinds of bad motives into purported merit sending based on vague allegations of my lacking of good motive, yet you have not proven shit, beyond just making some vague allegations, and like I said those are two different standards, and confuses the matter to be attempting to equate the having of a bad motive by not showing of a good motive and to convolute them on a regular basis.

This means there is no need at all to discuss a 180 that does not exist.

That is true.  We have already discussed such hypothesis more than it deserves to be discussed.  I have just been entertaining your nonsense on a regular basis, which is surely not winning me any popularity contests, if anyone were to want to hold a popularity contest in the near future.

The only part of your post I disagree with is that i have provided you with false information previously  

Hm..? at least, we might be making some progress towards some semblance of agreement, and it could be that either I am describing this idea of false information badly or that you are mischaracterizing what I said.

Let me try to clarify:  I think that I was trying to suggest that sometimes if I get the sense that you are leading me down bad paths and stretches of logic, then I lose confidence with you.  So technically you might be correct that the information that you provided is not false, but instead the information that you provide seems to be striving to reach stretches for conclusions, and then I feel deceived because you had insisted that I reach certain conclusions based on what seems to be insufficient evidence from my point of view or you are using logic that does not support such conclusions or mixing up of standards, so yeah, technically you might be correct that the information that you are using is not false, but I might get the sense that I was duped because you assigned too much weight to certain kinds of information that I believe did not deserve anything close to that quantity of weight.    And, sure, also if I perceive that you are purposefully withholding certain kinds of information from me that I believe is pertinent and relevant, too, then that is going to cause me a considerable amount of skepticism of your presentations, even if technically you have not stated anything that is actually false... so yeah, my description of you providing "false" information might not have been the right word choice or way of framing what I was attempting to say.

That is off topic here so I will not discuss that. I say that is not true though.

Of course, we can assert that certain kinds of information is relevant, including the biasness of the accuser, but the alleged biasness of the accuser would be less relevant and a stretch of logic from my point of view... so yeah, there are ways that you can proclaim that biasness of the accuser is relevant, but there are burdens of proof in terms of evidence provided and logic provided in claiming those kinds of purported dynamics, and the actual allegations are the most relevant rather than the accusations of biasness.  

Sure, we could battle for days on how much relevance is certain claims and who has the burden to provide evidence and logic, and surely we are probably talking about matter of degree of relevance rather than absolutes, but I still think that dealing with the actual allegations is way the fuck more relevant than getting into the weeds of accusations of biasness... Let's get past the actual allegations part first, and if later, we need to figure out if biasness matters then maybe that could be a topic, but it still seems like way more of a divergence that might be 1% relevant to the topic rather than 90% relevant of what is actually the topic of the thread.. so I am largely saying let's try to get through the more relevant stuff first.. and if we make progress on the more relevant stuff then maybe we can address that seemingly tangential stuff at some later point.

I do want to make the forum better.  I believe every member must be treated consistently and fairly.

Yes.. abstractly these are good principles.

Punishment must be fair and consistent when full context is considered.

All kinds of ways to talk about this. You are saying talking about a topic of punishment and advocating punishment is punishment?  Sending smerits is punishment or not sending them? red tagging is punishment?  Members are going to decide their involvement these other behaviors in the same kinds of ways that I had described about sending smerits, so are you describing some kind of motivation description that I need to do, again?  ultimately you are becoming quite vague.

How can you say say something is consistent with no context.

I am not sure I am saying that.  I am saying that whatever I did in terms of sending smerits, posting messages or responding to you has enough context and justifications so that I do not have any obligations to research further, even if you give me some assignments.

Even nullius says context is very important when it suits him? Go review his posts

I have read some posts that nullius writes and some evidence and logic that he provides for his points.  I suppose if people do not believe him or believe that he has provided bad evidence, then he might sometimes supplement what he had provided.  I don't think that there is anything notorious about what nullius is saying in this thread, but of course, he started this thread, and I found out about this thread from the hacker thread, so yeah there has been some assertions in this thread that nullius has not backed up some of his claims enough, or that he is not really saying anything new, so that is part of the ongoing discussion.

Most posters are going to attempt to provide some context for what they are asserting, whether nullius or otherwise, and the context that is relevant to nullius and to you would likely be different ways of posting or emphasizing evidence or logic, so then we would still get into questions regarding what the evidence is, what is the logic and what is being proposed as the action.., including maybe some invitation for others who disagree with the content to attempt to state their disagreements to the evidence that was provided or maybe to attempt to clarify some points in regards to the evidence, logic or even if the proposed action is reasonable given the evidence.  

It seems to me that I don't need to go study into nullius in order to either send smerits in this thread or to post or even to respond to you, so I am not sure what benefit is going to provide for me to study nullius's posts more than I have already done.    

[JayJuanGee]

Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.

There is no such dichotomy.

[...]

Understanding I hope the leverage of being DT1 could provide a scammer you tell me you have no interest in doing homework and reviewing a few 100 words.

I did not say that.

[...]

Don't think I will be friends with those that push double standards.  

You said that you are not looking for friends.  You are changing your mind?

[...]

Change your ways please.

You want me to change how?  To be more like you?  That is ridiculous, no?  We have already gone over this topic, too, haven't we?

inb4 five thousand threads in Reputation accusing JayJuanGee of supporting proven scammers and/or being a proven scammer.  Also, Jay is a hardened sigspammer alt of a ring of sigspammers, “milking it for every satoshi.”  

All couched in insults and intentionally disgusting, scatological and/or sexually degrading language...

Seems like bonesjones and I have been increasingly becoming good ole buddies, so I am not really sure beyond our few interactions.

Sorry, again, about getting too far in the weeds with bonesjones, and hopefully it is not distracting too much from the initial intentions of your thread.

, already punished and red tagged and start to merit " investigative " homework and appearing to support a ban for hacker0101000101 now?

Yes... there are some members who seem to be pushing for hacker to get more punishment.  That is true.

Insofar as I can tell, “some members” seem to be principally me.  I can’t speak for anybody else, of course.

I surely would not know about these matters.  I can only hypothesize that sometimes administrators might be leaning one way or another, and then a thread like this might push them one way or another, too.  


I know also that sometimes administrators are going to have access to IP address or maybe somethings like that which might cause them to lean one way or another, too, and regular members might only be able to put together inferences rather than some of the direct evidence that might either show the alleged bad conduct or maybe disprove the alleged conduct.

More generally, I am also pushing for ICO bumping to be officially recognized as spamming per se, a bannable offence.  How is it not spamming!?  And why do so many people seem to be ignoring this issue?  What  “hacker1001101001” has admitted is arguably even a more damaging form of spam than garden-variety sigspamming.

There are a lot of members on the forum who are way more experts than me regarding some of these dynamics, and surely in terms of my own investments, I don't get involved in that crap, so yeah, I do happen to own a few altcoins, which maybe is around 1% of my total crypto investment value (not counting the dollar which is maybe another 2% or so), but yeah, I can understand that there are a lot of attempts to appeal to get rich quick bullshit and also preying on naiveté of newer investors who believe or want to believe that they are too late to invest in bitcoin, so it would be worth their time to get distracted into various shitcoins, which surely includes getting distracted into the likely higher than 90% scams of the ICO world, too (and I am likely being way too generous to allow for the possibility that 10% might not be scams).

The fraudulent nature of ICO bumping is for DT to handle, to protect people from losing money.  marlboroza and others have been doing an excellent job with that.  I support their efforts; and I encourage to continue, whereas ICO-bumpers are apparently not being banned, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.

I think that I am only superficially aware of a lot of the work of various forum members, and surely I try to keep members on my trust list that I believe are largely doing good work, so I am kind of used to seeing some of the bashing attempts on some of the members on my trustlist.  

Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.

Maybe that is ultimately the right stance on a policy level, so then I guess part of the question would be whether some member is engaged in such conduct? And, if so when did the rule go into effect.  If the rule is not yet in effect, then maybe there is a lobbying effort that is needed, and I am not really in any mood to lobby.  But yeah, the level of conduct and whether they are in violation of forum rules ends up being part of the dispute in regards to if some members might be part of the problem and if a ban or suspension might reform them, but then there might still be a question if the evidence is strong enough, and again sometimes admin might have some more of that information that could cut either way in terms of showing guilt.  So, in principle, I don't really disagree with anything that you are saying.

[bonesjonesreturns]

This is an argument that hacker0101000101  must have fair and consistent treatment.

[...]

Double standards are the most destructive and dangerous threat to this forum.

And that is why the spammer should never have been granted lenience for plagiarism—and should not be granted lenience for spamming.

Thank you for making my argument for why “hacker1001101001” should be banned.


Having made my point about “bonesjonesreturns”, his obscene rhetoric that no sane person would want to be associated with, and his way of accidentally advancing my argument whilst illogically pretending to do otherwise, I think that I should probably now start taking my own advice.

Code:

         +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.            
         |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:           
         |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:          
         |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='          
         |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )             
         |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\             
         +-------------------+             /         \            
                 |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \           
                 |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\          
   @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW          
   \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__           
    \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================

Here we witness nullius running away. Cherry picking and actually removing context to distort what I am saying.
Before self proclaiming his double standards to be fair and credible grounds for punishment it seems.
Avoiding the Full context of perm banning hacker0101000101.
He is running away because he knows I will be calling for a full detailed comparison of his scamming friends irrefutable independently verifiable directly financially  dangerous behaviors VS copy and paste and ico bumping. Full context for determining  fair and consistent punishment.

Full context. Not just the context you want to allow.

Nullius are you afraid here and now to compare the independently verifiable observable behaviors of your friend lauda the scammer, tman the auction scammer and nutildah the willing scam facilitator for pay who tried to delete the evidence when busted.
Who cycle merits, trust includes and red tag whistle blowers who present evidence of their wrong doing.
Who you nullius claim are default trust 1 material worthy of praise. Who you concoct feeble and weak excuses for.
Who you protect and support by going after these scammers critics

To compare them with hacker0101000101s copy and paste and his purported ico bumping.
Who has already been banned. Who is already red tagged. Who has a 2 year sig ban. Who has admitted he done wrong and has not used red tags to try to silence his whistleblowers?

I will add value to hacker0101000101 only because having the courage to stand up to the scammers you are assisting nullius provides extreme value to the forum.

Shall we do a full and deep comparison of these members and see who requires attention first?

Your fake concern for the forums safety is laughable.
You want to kiss up to lauda and try to sound smart so she (he) will cyber sex you. Only verbally though I notice you said lol no wonder alia cut you off... back to your pillow as alia who knew you best here said lol

Are you ready for a full comparison hacker0101000101  vs lauda nutildah tman ?
Then we perm ban those that place the forum at most danger by keeping the status quo

Amazes me how you believe your pattern of slobbering and excusing scammers you think are female should not be a concern to the forum.

Back to your wank pillow nullius wait for laudas next cyber sex verbal session lol, I bet he's laughing at you . Your double standards and fake concern that drive you to trust abuse and call for bans on those that stand up against your sexy scamming goddess lauda are obvious and transparent..

" I don't have 1.2 btc"  what a loser. No wonder you can't pay for cyber sex like all the other  more successful old pervs? Strange alia never wondered how such  a " genius" is such a loser and cheap skate. Supporting scammers on DT is not the way to satisfaction nullius.

Nullius wants fair to mean we promote scammers to default trust and perm ban those who speak up against them who have some less serious dirt on them for which they have already been punished for.

I mean you can be consistent. You can consistently support scammers you think are female. Does not mean it is fair or is beneficial for the forum.  

I am ready and waiting to debate with nullius hacker0101000101  being perm banned in the context of pushing lauda tman and nutildah on to DT1 as he is suggesting with them having only rewards and no punishment for their far more serious dangerous behaviors.
If we determine they are all dangerous all can be perm banned. Not just singling hacker out.

I do not support perm ban of hacker0101000101 until we take care of far more serious threats that are sitting in default trust right now.   
I certainly dont support a bunch of scammers trying to punish others for lesser evils.



 

[nullius]

The origin of the word “spam” in the context of Internet spam.

ICO bump services:

• Are incentivized posts on threads which are totally off-topic in the only forum where incentivized posts of any kind are allowed (i.e., Games and Rounds).
• Are usually paid in shitcoins.
• Have no conceivable design purpose other than to evade the limitation on the frequency at which a topic OP is allowed to bump his own topic.

In addition to being definitional paid spammers, ICO bumpers thus violate multiple explicit rules of this forum:

Boldface is mprep’s; the emphasis is only hereby relevant insofar as bumped ICO topics are obviously not in Games and Rounds:

I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.

It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word.  I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam.  Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.

Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.

<...>

That's already covered by the list of rules since it:

1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours.
2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin.
3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic)

Here are the corresponding rules:

2. No off-topic posts.

<...>

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

14. All altcoin related discussion belongs in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's child boards. [3][4][e]

15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways. [6][e]

<...>

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

Therefore:

• Forum users should be guided accordingly.
• Investigators should report ICO bumpers and their posts for rules violations.
• I urge the administration to review the case of a longtime spammer who was granted leniency for plagiarism!

Thanks for the replies, Jay.  My forum time is strictly limited now; some other time, I will need to catch up with your replies here and elsewhere.  Your thorough posts are read and appreciated.

More generally, I may be gone from the forum on and off for at least the next few weeks.  I will be going back through to reply on multiple different topics that I recently seem to have been ignoring, and catching up with some folks in PMs that deserve my undivided attention.

[hacker1001101001]

Therefore:

• I urge the administration to review the case of a longtime spammer who was granted leniency for plagiarism!

I would urge administration to ban the OP for his offtopic trolling ( with uninteresting and time' wasting walls of text), his overall double standard nature which is crystal clear here and for having accusations of being in internal relationships with an "underage e-whore" and even for doubting the ownership moto behind the bitcoin.org website which is serving as an guiding platform for information about Bitcoin to many newbies from years. He is more like some of the Chinese news reports, they would only report things which suits there agenda... Yet don't care about anything as an whole.

Boomer !

"Bun" him please !

How is the quarantine time going ? I feel the waste of it on your side.