Post
Topic
Board Meta
Merits 1 from 1 user
Re: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie
by
JayJuanGee
on 24/04/2020, 19:41:33 UTC
⭐ Merited by nullius (1)
Jayjuangee seems content to accept my stated versions of what I perceive to be our differences of opinion.

No you are trying to goad me into speaking further about what seems to be largely irrelevant, and you have not really established the relevance.

Your proposed topic seems to be:  Let's compare hacker to nullius, and even if nullius does not seem to mind going with you down these seemingly irrelevant avenues, I am having difficulties finding how it could be very relevant at all to the OP.... and I am not even sure how much more even needs to be said about OP and the various back and forth that came out of that, so far.  The case seems to have been made, and it is up to admin if they believe that there is sufficient new information to act any further than what they already did in regards to hacker.. what they may have known upon dishing out previous punishments and/or if they might have overlooked some behaviors that are substantively and meaningfully relevant in terms of changing the level of the current punishment.

Nullius is of course TPOTO.

Fair enough that you were referring to Nullius because I truly was confused about whether you were referring to me.  I still find that it is a bit of a stretch in terms of how much milage you are trying to get out of this purported nullius weakness, but hey, you have a right to have your little theories, even if they might only be tangentially relevant in my current thinking.  By the way, I have heard you beat those theories to death already, so I am not really inclined to keep going down that path with you because there are only so many hours in the day to spend mental energies in regards to purported personal motivations.

Hacker0101000101  is a very very low level threat to this forum in the context of those trying to get him banned.

There are allegations of continued behavior, and I suppose that there are allegations that if some of that ICO bumping and the keeping of multiple fake accounts in order to continue the scam, then there is a problem with whether a proven liar can continue to be trusted in regards to some of the potentially ongoing behavior.  I am just stating the allegations, and I am not really sure whether any of this had already been considered by admin or if there is a current need for admin to reconsider whether the current punishment continues to be fitting, in regards to hacker.

No question about it. That is why they are afraid to compare.

That's it, you seem to want to create a compare contrast thread, and maybe that would be an o.k. thread to start, if you have not already started one of those.  I have seen threads that seem to be aimed at attacking Lauda and Nullius.. but I have also seen some threads that they create themselves that seem to invite such scrutiny.  I did not consider this thread to be a compare and contrast thread, even though you, bonesjones, seem to want to take it in that direction and even Nullius seems willing to entertain you in that area from what I have seen.  I am not going to go there, because I feel that I barely even know the allegations, but from time to time, I will see some posts from various members that seem to clarify some of the allegations and the evidence upon which it seems to be built (and sometimes even pointing out the areas in which the evidence or logic is lacking).

I don't want to see those that will support and excuse scammers trying to incite punishment for members guilty of lesser evils .
Especially when it is clearly motivated by hacker speaking out against these scammers.

Seems to me that the theme about retaliation from lauda against hacker had already been explored in at least a couple of other threads, and really there was not much if any evidence to support such retaliation claims (I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the topic), but whatever, you keep going on and on about that purported retaliation angle, too.  I think that either the evidence against hacker stands up or it does not... and purported evidence of lauda retaliating seems to be a stretch at best... but you keep saying it over and over, so maybe that makes the retaliation angle to be more plausible to be true.  Is that the logic that you are employing in your argumentation method, bones?