Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 05:11:39 PM

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 02:21:24 PM

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

There is no such dichotomy.

[...]

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 02:21:24 PM

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.

[...]

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 02:21:24 PM

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?

[...]

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 02:21:24 PM

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.” Cheesy

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

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 05:45:57 PM

[...]

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:

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 05:45:57 PM

Quote from: nullius on Today at 04:05:23 PM

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.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 05:11:39 PM

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on Today at 02:21:24 PM

, 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.