Topic: Negative rating from The Pharmacist - page 2. (Read 2072 times)

I've seen this thread for the past days, so I'll add my 2 Satoshis.

The punishment for plagiarism is a permanent ban.

And yet, you said Read the forum rules!!! -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 in the very post that got you a red tag. How can you claim not to know the rules, or how can you tell people they have to read the rules if you didn't?

You would probably have gotten away with your plagiarism if it wouldn't be such a massive problem on this forum. Because so many people (and bots) do it, even reported cases sometimes get away with it instead of getting banned.

I don't think it's helpful for Newbies at all. Adding [Must Read] to the title twice sounds spammy and the whole post was a large collection of mostly irrelevant text without a clear structure. No Newbie is going to read that. If you want an example of a structured helpful post, look here.

I'm pretty sure DarkStar_ The Pharmacist is willing to remove it once you're banned for plagiarism.
(my mistake, DarkStar_ reported the plagiarism)

Really? Then why did you say this 3 days later:

So you're saying we if all spam bots add "this post was taken from sources around the internet" to all their posts, nobody can ever be banned for plagiarism again? I disagree.

I still hope Pharmacist will reconsider his decision and remove the negative feedback from my profile. From my side, next time i will credit the sources by names not by links to not advertise another forums.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but DT trust comes with responsibility to make the right call. There is sometimes no need for opinion when it is there in black and white. No amount of staff can change observable fact.

You said and I quote

"You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words."


This is observably incorrect.

You then said

"They way he did it was very clearly not enough.  If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"? "

So you are now saying okay he did not claim it as his own but you do not believe that just sticking by rule 33 is enough (not claiming it as your own work) and you believe one should follow one of the academic bodies guides for citing a reference.

These are totally different claims and are actually mutually exclusive.

The only reasonable explanation for making 2 totally different and mutually exclusive claims is simply when someone reported it as plagiarism you just  missed his statement clearly saying at the top of his post stating "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."

Having now seen this statement.. you have changed the charge  from claiming it as his own work to claiming it is other peoples work but not being specific enough.

These are totally different claims .

Even though as you say this would not satisfy any college to reference in that way you would not be said to be committing plagiarism. Your tutor would likely just give you a guide to follow the next time and you would receive no marks or credit.

For example

someone once said -- From error to error one discovers the entire truth


"From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud (following perhaps some dating, and other info I can't locate right now)


The second will contribute to attaining extra marks the first will simply be ignored as insufficient detail. Neither will get you accused of taking the work for yourself or plagiarism and certainly neither will get your made a pariah or kicked from the course.

It's okay to make a mistake but digging heels in waiting for other DT or staff to say it's okay may work but is not the right course of action.

Your red trust statement of "This account will hopefully be banned, but in the off chance it doesn't, this member is a plagiarizer and doesn't even seem to understand what plagiarism is."

seems totally out of proportion to the alleged breaking of the rules - which to anyone taking the rules at face value seem to have been adhered to.

I don't see how staff can alter any of the observable events here and back up the desire to have him banned.

Bitcointalk is going down a dark path if a few people can start to push such hardline action.

I have nothing personal against you or any of the DT trust people really that i know of. I have never encountered an issue before with any of them.

Bitcointalk is a place which has displayed a very laissez faire approach over the years. It is sad now that financial gain has motivated the destruction of that approach working as well.

Incidentally, I had never really heard of nor paid attention to Default trust before. Where can I find a list of these DT members? how were they selected for such a responsibility?

Even the "rules" say unofficial?? how can one be banned from a forum if these are not the official rules. They are guides to be used as per common sense because official rules would need a lot more clarity or constant moderation by ONLY the person who runs the board. This is a separate issue I guess and not one we need to open now anyway.

No one would like how many times i was scammed to share my own experience I've been from the people who blindly trust unknowns over the internet and most of the time i was fucked
Instead of sharing my bad experience, i find those sources as really legitimate and they could really help people
Just next time i will credit fully the creators and not only mention they were collected from few sources.

You could write it with your own words based on your experience instead using different sources. That would be great topic.

---

I will stick to my opinion that such topic's shouldn't be allowed for several reasons and also I would like to say that cryptohunter has good point. OP said content was taken from different sources, so maybe they really didn't know that they have to credit source.

I would like to see that passion against the scammers which running ponzi schemes and illegal stuff around.
Just because i didn't credited them by the way you want to see it, that doesn't mean i didn't say its from few other sources.
If you want something to be done by some way, then tell theymos to make you admin, and make official bitcointalk rules because there is only un-official ones so far.
I see so many things which is not okay around and no one doing nothing about it.
I spend more than 12 hours reporting more than 200+ threads on the alt market with 96% accuracy and you telling me that i'm useless from the day i join this website?
Well actually i do help people, not only with reports, with questions to OP threads which was clearly scams and information by private messages, by i also suggest every single person to use escrow.
Once this is over, i will once again open the same guide but this time i will credit it by the way Staff tell me to do it.
I hope this time someone won't say "You are not allowed to advertise other forums" with the links to the guides.
Yes i am helpful to the community, without powers like yours for sure i'm less helpful than you but, if you using them like that, that makes it 1:0 for me.
With or without red tag i still help people around and doing trades.
Its just i don't feel comfortable to have "trade with caution" tag consider this "violation" has nothing to do with trades, and the "violation" it self show to people how to actually trade safety.
It makes no sense to make someone profile looks like he's scammer/bad person, consider im totally the inverse.
You just had more time on this forum to be more trusted than me.
But i have all the time to prove myself in future, and believe me, watching your attitude, and watching mine, i will surpass most people around.

They way he did it was very clearly not enough.  If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"?  Nope, and even though bitcointalk doesn't have guidelines on source citation, it should be obvious that you need to (at the very least) reference where you're quoting material from.  The best way to do it IMO is provide a link and put the quoted text inside a quote box just as if you were quoting a bitcointalk post. 

I think your estimation of the helpfulness of his posts and your definition of "a long period" are vastly inflated.  He registered in March of this year and most of his posts are straight-up gibberish.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to hear from staff.

He clearly said 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."


So

1. are you saying that was not there when you looked at it

or

2. you are saying that it was there but still you believe he was trying to claim this work as his own?

I see no exact method of correctly referencing source in the rules.  Is it not enought to clearly say I found these guides on the net and provide them here for others to look at??

If you look at this post history he would appear to be very helpful to new traders over quite a long period.

Removing the red trust would seem the only fair thing to do.

There is no way that anyone would consider it fair he was going to get banned. That would be completely insane. There are  proven scammers on this board that are not banned and don't even have red trust.

My guide can be seen here -> https://archive.st/archive/2018/11/bitcointalk.org/p3sv/bitcointalk.org/index.html
I have no power to edit this archived thread.
I clearly stated it was taken from few sources.
"I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."
I never had bad intentions and never wanted to harm anyone.
Actually it is impossible my guide to harm anyone.

If i was doing the wrong thing, i would agree with every single bad opinion.
But consider i just made a little mistake by not crediting full i don't have to be judged like that.
Consider i don't care about any merits,ranks and everything, people like you from DT should help me with information what im doing wrong to fix it, so i could be able to help people around with information without violating the rules.

Looks like the original thread Rambotnic posted that was the basis for the plagiarism report was deleted, because I can't view it anymore.  I'm assuming a mod deleted it, but I'm wondering why he wasn't banned for plagiarism.  I don't recall reading a post by a mod on this issue, and I'd like to know what the deal is.

Having said that, when I hand out red trust wrongly I usually get dissenting opinions by trusted members (DT or otherwise), and that's definitely not the case here.  Most of them saw what Rambotnic wrote as plagiarized content just like I did--and I wasn't even one of the people who reported it to the mods.  The feedback is completely justified IMO, though I'd still like to hear a mod's opinion on this.

A lot more smart and educated people than you explained what and how this is not plagiarism and just badly credited thread.
Don't play smart, that's not for you
Watch your own business and let the grown people consider something you don't have anything to do with.
Useless people like you who don't give a shit and doing nothing for this community should bypass threads like my guide and this one.
You don't care to help people, and u never will

Don't repeats those words again and again,if you copied from some other source as well it will be called as plagiarism too.

Yes,it is a huge crime to help others with other's article.

I'm not going to be banned. The reason is false and that's not plagiarism.
It's badly credited thread.
I clearly stated the guides its mixed and taken from different sources, i just didn't add which sources which i will in my next thread with same guide.
There is no "stronger" and "weak" feedback.
Everyone do mistakes, me, Pharmacist, you...
People should trade me with caution because i like to guide them thru safe trades and escrow ? Seems legit...
If that's the logic, everyone around who offer help, security and knowledge how to stay safe should be traded with caution!
That's huge crime to help and educate people about safety and secure trades!
Good will always win evil ! Truth will always win lies. No matter you, me or anyone is around... That's why we are all here and alive Because good and truth always win.

*Even if i get banned for that, if my guide helps even 1 person to prevent being scammed, my mission is completed

I don't think it is going to be removed until your account will be banned because TP's feedback on you looks much stronger about why he gave this to you.

Maybe those negative trust can be diluted when you have more positive feedbacks from DT members so better lock this thread now and continue to trade.

Still waiting this to be resolved and my tag "trade with caution" to be removed.
I don't get the idea of that "trade with caution" tag of my profile?
People should trade with caution with me because i help them with guide how to stay safe and use escrow?
This is ridiculous...
Pharmacist, please, reconsider your decision and remove the negative feedback from my profile.

That was the post -> https://archive.st/archive/2018/11/bitcointalk.org/p3sv/bitcointalk.org/index.html

Could I look at the post.

If he said he pulled it from other sources it is not the same as plagiarizing it.

Yeah his form was less then perfect but it he said is was not his work and he used other sources it is more of a case of imperfect crediting and not plagerizing.

So does someone have the post?

Since he was tagged someone should have saved the evidence .

I would like to read what he said.

Still i like this negative rep to be removed from my profile because i did nothing else than trying to help the community with helpful information how to stay safe and use escrow.

LOL.... calm down this is just an internet forum. Everything will be okay. You sound near the edge.

If you believe you have a case then make a thread and have it examined.

If you have been unjustly treated then it can be reversed. However if under the microscope you are found to be a scammer in anyway then I think asking for review could result in more serious consequences.

Choose wisely.

Thanks for the kind words.

I am now looking at the trust ratings of various accounts.

TRUST really does need to be updated here because.

Red trust glowing next to your name where it says trade with caution - - btc risked? what about alt coin risked etc. This was obviously initially developed for traders to identify btc scammers years previously.

to many this would imply the person has actually scammed someone and they have lost financially as a direct result.

However, I was given negative trust rating because - - - I DID NOT FIGHT THE SCAM THAT SCAMMED HIM???  Now I know at one time I was fighting lots of scams but this is when there were not so many projects. No 1 person can fight every single scam.

Who left this neg??  A legend member??

The other turds leaving me negative are known and proven scammers because I tried to destroy their scams.

However DT trust members should have very strict and clear criteria for being able to leave negative trust and really things that do not effect people financially directly and deliberately should not get a trade with caution red mark.

They should get a have broken the board rules yellow score and for repeated flouting a temp ban then perma ban.

Some people on this board have turned into bullies actually over time. They were quite humble when they first came to this board.

It's okay to be heavy handed with full on scammers but with people that have displayed they are nice people generally helping others you can not be allowed to fuck them over hard for their first mistake. I'm not even sure in this guys case he has broken board rules. Are there strict guidelines for referencing available to follow. Is the url enough in all cases? what if that is suspect as the original source?

I would expect making it very clear these are not your own words is a good start as per the rules on here as far as I can see.