Re: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie
Either people want fair and consistent treatment of all members or they want to see double standards.
There is no such dichotomy.
[...]
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.
[...]
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?
[...]
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.”
All couched in insults and intentionally disgusting, scatological and/or sexually degrading language...
Seems like bonesjones and I have been increasingly becoming good ole buddies, so I am not really sure beyond our few interactions.
Sorry, again, about getting too far in the weeds with bonesjones, and hopefully it is not distracting too much from the initial intentions of your thread.
[/quote]
, 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.
[/quote]
I surely would not know about these matters. I can only hypothesize that sometimes administrators might be leaning one way or another, and then a thread like this might push them one way or another, too.
I know also that sometimes administrators are going to have access to IP address or maybe somethings like that which might cause them to lean one way or another, too, and regular members might only be able to put together inferences rather than some of the direct evidence that might either show the alleged bad conduct or maybe disprove the alleged conduct.
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.
There are a lot of members on the forum who are way more experts than me regarding some of these dynamics, and surely in terms of my own investments, I don't get involved in that crap, so yeah, I do happen to own a few altcoins, which maybe is around 1% of my total crypto investment value (not counting the dollar which is maybe another 2% or so), but yeah, I can understand that there are a lot of attempts to appeal to get rich quick bullshit and also preying on naiveté of newer investors who believe or want to believe that they are too late to invest in bitcoin, so it would be worth their time to get distracted into various shitcoins, which surely includes getting distracted into the likely higher than 90% scams of the ICO world, too (and I am likely being way too generous to allow for the possibility that 10% might not be scams).
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.
I think that I am only superficially aware of a lot of the work of various forum members, and surely I try to keep members on my trust list that I believe are largely doing good work, so I am kind of used to seeing some of the bashing attempts on some of the members on my trustlist.
Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.
Maybe that is ultimately the right stance on a policy level, so then I guess part of the question would be whether some member is engaged in such conduct? And, if so when did the rule go into effect. If the rule is not yet in effect, then maybe there is a lobbying effort that is needed, and I am not really in any mood to lobby. But yeah, the level of conduct and whether they are in violation of forum rules ends up being part of the dispute in regards to if some members might be part of the problem and if a ban or suspension might reform them, but then there might still be a question if the evidence is strong enough, and again sometimes admin might have some more of that information that could cut either way in terms of showing guilt. So, in principle, I don't really disagree with anything that you are saying.