Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.


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.
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 this member must now be banned perm?


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.


@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.

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.