Re: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie
⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
I am a dumb.
How about you GTFO already? Nobody asked you anything. 
Actually, somebody is asking him questions, which he is ignoring:
Elaborate recent ICO bumps coming from accounts closely connected to you.
BUMP!
Unpaid, non-ICO BUMP!
...and other substantial questions being ignored on that thread, including:
Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic?
PrimeNumber7, take note!
given the amount of time that has elapsed
The code-illiterate “hacker” was banned less than one year ago, which is a long time only to children; and there is evidence that he was involved in ICO bumping as recently as five months ago, which is a long time only to infants. If you want to argue a legal analogy, legal statutes of limitations are much longer; and in some jurisdictions, in some types of cases, if there is substantial evidence of a fraud upon the court, then a judgment can be set aside long on motion even long after appeals are out of time.
Note also “hacker’s” total lack of remorse—actually, the opposite of remorse: A self-righteous belligerence toward anybody who questions his spam business.
Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?
I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time )
Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future.
Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions.
Questions are being asked. But the indignant “hacker” has “had enough”.
Dumb s’kiddie, big-talking hacker wannabe. [...] According to your customary personal text, “NO SYSTEM IS SAFE !”—what, from you? Well, you are an Advanced Persistent Threat for causing spam, spam, plagiarism, spam, spam, spam and spam some spam spam annoyance.
I would consider banning him for his previous misdeeds something very similar to enforcing an ex post facto law.
Well, I see that you noticed how I despise Wikipedia legal arguments. ;-)
Just how is this in any way “very similar to” an ex post facto law? Spamming generally has always been against the rules. Quoting mprep’s reply to me, I cited three very specific rules which have been “on the books” for a long time.
The time passed since an offence is also completely irrelevant to the question of whether a law is ex post facto.
(And since you linked to Cornell LII, I will presume that you did not mix up your terminology with some other concept.)
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I am answering it because it is a serious attempt to argue a counterpoint; at least that is a refreshing change from the trolls’ responses.
I note also that although I tend to couch arguments very roughly in quasi-legal language, I do so for the sake of precise analysis, and not to suggest that legal standards should apply to forum policy.
Anyway, this is not a court of law. It is an Internet forum, which cannot tolerate the presence of plagiarists who run massive sockpuppet spamming operations and then repeatedly lie about it.
Reductio ad absurdum, theymos (and by extension, those to whom he delegates ban-hammers) have a right to ban people based on disliking their eyes, or on flips of a coin. I think that would be (to understate the matter) grossly stupid policy; and I would publicly express my opinion on the topic. That is a reductio ad absurdum. Here, on the flipside, I am arguing that forum administrative policy does not adequately protect the community from spam, if it does not take appropriate and necessary measures in what I am arguing as a test case for a crackdown on spammers.
It is a suitable test case: A forum user was granted lenience and unbanned, then subsequently discovered to be an unrepentant spammer. If the ban hammer comes down on him, that will send a clear message about spam, and encourage reports from investigators. If it does not, it shows that the rules are ineffectual and arbitrary, and spammers can get away with anything.
Which rule am I breaking ?
Are you serious?
Above, I quoted mprep on multiple rules broken by your ICO bump “business”, also known as spam. Also, your plagiarism was obviously against the rules—and you were only unbanned due to being granted a lenience that you do not deserve, apparently based on a mistaken impression that you were generally a good user who did one thing wrong, once.
Hacker1001101001's probable bump spamming should have been apparent to the admins when he was unbanned, and given the amount of time that has elapsed since I believe he did this, I don't think it would be appropriate to prosecute him for this.
FTFY. It was not apparent, therefore your argument is nullified. It was not even hidden from my post history, and was public to anyone checking it, I am sure there were many more aspects taken into consideration behind my unban,
Translation: “I had them fooled real good. Therefore, I deserve to get away with it! How dare you call me out for bad things I did, which apparently were not taken into consideration eleven months ago, and which continued at least as recently as five months ago!?”