Quote from: SaltySpitoon on May 22, 2019, 01:28:10 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 22, 2019, 12:25:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: TMAN on May 22, 2019, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 22, 2019, 12:25:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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