Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.
You seem to be trying to equate different kinds of activities.
I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature. There are a lot of members who wear signatures and they have rights to wear signatures. I used to wear a signature and I was paid, but I discontinued because I found it to be too much of a hassle to keep up with it... But, sure some members participate in signature campaigns and others promote themselves and other engage in some combination of promoting themselves and promoting some kind of business while getting paid for that. Signatures are part of forum culture (and privilege too).
Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings, and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.
Specifics are required. Else I will simply say you are incorrect
Start presenting specific examples.
Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough.
I will ask for specific examples and you will not provide any that will hold up to scrutiny.
You have different opinions that lead you incorrectly to assume that I am making weak arguments
Without providing the specifics I am continually requesting it appears to me you are deliberately not providing them due to suspecting your claims are not solid.
I don't yet know if you truly believe what you say or you are just saying that to remain popular with these corrupt coding scammers that via the broken and poor designs here have seized hold of some power to crush free speech and milk the board dry for themselves.
I don't yet say you are supporting this behavior but I find your one way criticism with no specifics very suspicious. I suspect you wish to remain popular. That is understandable but still I can not permit this unfair sided attacks on my arguments without requesting specific examples.
If they do not relate to this appraisal of fair and consistent punishment for hacker then as I have said many times I am more than willing to debate this all with you in an open and transparent manner.
I don't think any member with directly financially motivated wrong doing should be
1 allowed into a position of trust
2 earn further from the forum
I think we must ensure all members are treated equally.
Certainly no scammers and their supporters colluding to punish others for lesser crimes whilst rewarding each other with trust includes and all milking the best sig spots
Nope.
Hacker has been punished...if they want more punishment let them demonstrate in the context of their own behaviour it is fair and consistent and in the forums best interest not just their own.
I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong. Nobody says shit about these bunch of scammers and cheaters all allowing each other a free pass and a nice clap on the back.
Hacker has also at least had some quite tough punishment
Give these real scammers a 2 yr sig ban. Let's hear them squeal. They are only here to milk the bitcoin from their posts.
They likely never post again after a few weeks.
In the context of lauda, nutildah, tman et al
Hacker is a lesser evil and a far lower priority threat.
They have all shown to be on the next level up of ruthless deliberate scamming or willing to facilitate scamming for a fee
And trust abuse aka giving red to those that mention their wrongdoing
Crushing free speech and totally perverting the intended use of red tags
They should be given as a warning to avoid scammers, not for scammers to deter members from warning others about their scamming.
Disgraceful.