~
As I've said before, to me the issue here is the thoroughly deceptive way Quickseller is trying to sockpuppet his way into whatever it is that he wants to achieve - to earn from sig campaigns, or to regain his DT "powers", or to prove that account farming is cool... who knows.
I think it is probably QS but what are you all going to do about it? And what do you think should be done about it?
Maybe that should be the title of a thread.. "What should be done about PN7 probably being an alt of QS?"..
Lit up red or just plenty of neutrals?
I can't speak for nutildah but I personally don't particularly care for any specific outcome other than perhaps not wanting to have QS/PN7/etc in DT. Unfortunately with the DT1 inflation and random selection it's almost inevitable that he'll get in at some point.
How everyone else interprets the presented information is up to them.
Some totally unscientific numbers to complement the nice rainbow diagram above:
- |passphrais|immidiatel|boarder|rodger ver|monitory|underlying root cause|sow discord|maximum benefit of the doubt|
----------------------------|----------|----------|-------|----------|--------|---------------------|-----------|----------------------------|
passphrais |- |2 |3 |3 |2 |2 |2 |2 |
immidiatel |2 |- |11 |2 |3 |2 |2 |2 |
boarder |3 |11 |- |5 |6 |2 |2 |2 |
rodger ver |3 |2 |5 |- |2 |2 |2 |2 |
monitory |2 |3 |6 |2 |- |2 |3 |2 |
underlying root cause |2 |2 |2 |2 |2 |- |2 |2 |
sow discord |2 |2 |2 |2 |3 |2 |- |2 |
maximum benefit of the doubt|2 |2 |2 |2 |2 |2 |2 |- |
Each number shows how many different users used each pair of words/phrases. 2 means it's just Quickseller and PrimeNumber7. So out of 28 possible combinations 21 are unique to those two accounts. I couldn't find a quick and easy way to make a 3-dimensional one but there is only one triple combination that has more than those two users. Beyond that (4 or more out of 8
) it's only QS and PN7.
I think I know the potential rebuttal to that. Those words and phrases could have been picked in such a way that only those accounts are matched. But since I know for a fact that's not what happened this is sufficiently convincing for me. Others are free to do their own research although aside from some verbal gymnastics there doesn't seem to be much interest in that.
"transparently" was excluded as it's too context-sensitive.