I was genuinely surprised to find out that bill had been banned for plagiarism. I found his posts to be wordy and contrived to the point of being monotonous, even verging on spammy, but I never would have pegged him for a plagiarist. The excuse that the account was purchased makes perfect sense.
You know I say no to account dealers, but I said months ago after the iluvbitcoins debacle that I would only be tagging them from then on, with no exceptions for mitigating circumstances--and I'm sticking to that. Of course I respect your opinion and I'm not going to counter any feedback, which I've previously said I'm not a fan of anyway.
I have to disagree with you on this TP. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and you can react any way you choose, but one needs to ask why the member bought the bill gator account. Was it because he didn't like the name he had already chosen for his account as the OP claims, or was it because he got CMAS listed for his wordy monotony? Buying an account is cheating, plain and simple. It's no different than buying or forging a college degree, in my opinion. You can argue that bill has been a contributing member of the community, and makes decent, articulate posts, but it was rooted in deception.
If it wasn't intended to deceive the community why wouldn't he have disclosed that he had purchased the account right from the start? Why didn't he just start with a fresh account? The answer is likely to qualify for sig and bounty campaigns in which his other account was no longer welcome.
As far as the shitposting goes, I haven't taken a look at bg's post history but he got accepted into the Chipmixer campaign, so the quality of his posts can't be that bad. I certainly know he can write coherently and isn't a typical sig spammer by any means.
No, bill isn't your typical sig spammer, and he did earn his way onto the most coveted campaign on the forum. And I mean that, he earned his way onto that campaign. It's not like he bought a great account, got accepted into chipmixer and started posting shit. It was his own words that got him into that spot.
I'm all in favor of being lenient on people who make mistakes early on, but the deceit he has perpetrated on the community makes me less sympathetic for his case. Whats fair is fair: If bill can prove that he purchased the account after the post in question, then I wouldn't mind seeing his ban being lifted. He shouldn't be punished for a crime he did not commit. But buying an account without a public disclosure at the time is something that negates any trust I had for him.
I don't think bill bought the account to scam anyone, if so he's very slow to build up to that. But he's been deceptive none the less.