Sure, I'll bite
1. You're quite selective in who's judgement you value. Unfortunately for you, cryptohunter's opinion isn't even a majority in this thread, and until recently he
didn't even know DT existed.
2. Many users say that.
3. If it's helping users, why did you delete it instead of correcting your wrongs?
4. DarkStar_ reported your plagiarism, I corrected my mistake in the username.
5. Screenshotting PMs is
not done, so don't do it. I did read your thread and your deleted topic.
6. It seems like you don't want to understand the point. I've seen a
higher ranked and much more loved dark green trusted user getting banned for plagiarism, the rules are the same for everyone.
7. Lol. Feel free to make a poll on helpfulness: LoyceV vs Rambotnic.
What makes you think usd sales through escrow make you more valuable as a user, and why would that have anything to do with your plagiarism?
Hi, firstly I want to say I have no personal issue at all with thepharmacist (who i'm familiar with from the alt board years back) nor yourself who I don't believe I have encountered before I met you the other day where you kindly provided some stats. Many thanks.
I always feel for the small guy in a situation where he finds himself on fragile ground and not entirely of his own fault.
However let's try and solve this matter without any prior bias.
I can not see any room for opinion. If we are simply to go by the rules of this board as they are written below.
"33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]
...
Examples:
...
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.
Anything outside of that is speculation and guessing. There could be implied meanings to many of the unofficial rules. Which as you correctly state here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36030624 are not set in stone anyway.
It is observable that TP said "You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words." on the 5th november.
TP then left on the 5th of november the negative trust saying the OP is a plagiarist. Observable also.
You can therefore observe
he left the feedback whilst being under a false impression that the OP had claimed the work as his own -- when clearly he had not been guilty of this.
You can clearly observe the OP wrote at the top of his post "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."
Writing that is a clear indication that this work is not his own. This meets the full and total expectation of the rule as it is written. Anything implied further than that is speculation.
Anything else now is really not relevant but I believe there are more mitigating circumstances in his favour.
1. he is not a bot and clearly does not go around copy and pasting as a habit looking through his post history
2. he clearly would not go and post this in meta (which is where i was told it was posted) in amongst all the largest ban hammers reside looking for these kind of things if he knew he was committing a perma ban offense. It does not make sense.
3. marlboroza on 08-11-2018, 23:25:04 - although sticking to his view that full references should be give he goes on to say that after reviewing a few things he believes also this was perhaps not intentional by the op. This demonstrates to me a reasonable person whom i merited for this sensible consideration.
4. the rules are there not to get rid of genuine users nor users that make an unintentional mistake (not that he made one going on the board rules as they are written) they are there as you say to stop spam bots and real content thieves.
To just speculate and generate discussion on your points whilst we wait for confirmation from the op. So hopefully we can get a sensible solution.
*** edit i see he posted already *** so only some are relevant.
1. not sure why my lack of knowledge regarding DT is relevant? can you explain? also I would propose the the majority have not yet had time to take into consideration and comment back on the observable events that I have picked up on.
2. He can confirm he is not a bot i guess.
3. He deleted after being told by "authority figures he had done wrong" so delete, edit, does not really matter he posted in meta so I doubt he was trying to go under the radar in the first place. He probably was in panic after being told the ban hammer was rising and was convinced (I believe wrongly so) that he broke rule 33.
4. DarkStar_ ( i am speculating) may feel that the guy deserves a pass or perhaps we are being a bit harsh. I say this because my post defending the OP received a merit from him. Now that is speculation, he may have clicked merit by accident, he may have just though the post was funny or some other reason.
6. when looking at this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/banned-account-question-3432369 i see a totally different case of someone with no disclaimer or reference at all therefore breaking board rules and allegedly on the basis of a sig campaign. I am not judging them but its not a fair comparison. He has apparent motive and broke the rule 33. Even so i see many DT members arguing for him not getting banned
you here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36030624 saying even the rules here can have exceptions they are a guide not a set of firm rules.. and some other quite sensible comments regarding your own possible unintentional referencing linking mistakes that could be open to plagiarism claims. And some quite human looking text regarding stress and other things that could create human error.
7. is not really relevant to this.
Again this is nothing personal I have no issue with anyone on this entire thread at all. It is just to see the small guy getting squeezed for what I believe was an obvious (perceived by some) mistake by a lot of high profile members is not fair.
Although if I have made a mistake in this post I enjoy finding the optimal outcome so i will check back to see the case against the OP again soon.
We need to cut a balance between getting rid of shitpost scammers who are here to pump scam icos and other scam bots account builders etc and stamping on real users who make the odd honest mistake. I can understand that the few of you that do most of the fighting of this nightmare are kind of jaded from it and I know copy and paste is a very bad thing for the forum itself indeed and does need to be clamped down on hard.
I know everyone is getting tight on this now even memes etc.
So perhaps a slight update to the rules going further on 33 saying - - url reference at a minimum but full source reference if there is one.