Quote from: CryptopreneurBrainboss on May 23, 2019, 04:11:52 AM

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

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

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

Quote from: Steamtyme on May 23, 2019, 04:15:42 AM

Quote from: nutildah on May 23, 2019, 04:06:28 AM

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

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

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

Quote from: Steamtyme on May 23, 2019, 04:15:42 AM

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

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