How is it FUD? The user was trying get heard and was being ignored. I was right there in chat with him for several hours there was no response.
Banning someone who is trying to redeem themselves is not a power that should rest within the hands of any single person. Nor should it be up to a "council" or tribunal.
His problem is he didn't edit a source article enough. But that's a couple of paragraphs without citation.
It's not enough to get a college paper rejected, let alone an account ban. His great sin was that he didn't respond to @pfunk in sufficient time.
A college student doing that would, at a minimum, have a failing grade on that paper. Most likely they would also be under consideration for further disciplinary action.
Yeah ok but an outright ban? Everything this guy says is being flagged now. You can't permanently expel a student for a single bad paper. His follow on work is uniquely his own, but EVERYTHING he does is being flagged.
The punishment does not fit the crime, then you're calling this article FUD but there is nothing he is saying which is spreading anything other than "help me, I'm being attacked and can't figure out how to get out from under it.".
Their response to me was not to address the plagiarism, it was to cover it up and then make a post lying about it. After I pointed out their lies, they made a new post. If they had time to make a new post, they had time to respond to my question about why they were trying to scam Steemit.
You didn't answer my question either, you defended your position.
I think we all see plainly now why you hold the position you do and the events leading up to your decision to do this, so there is no further need to defend it. However that was a single event and his refusal to answer is not an admission of guilt. Frankly he probably didn't realize it was a sincere question he was being asked. I know I read it and I don't feel any sincerity it felt like a troll to me. Why would you subtract value from steemit by trolling rather than proposing acceptable solutions for remediation?
He likely viewed it as a trolling remark and ignored it. If it's a sincere question, consider rephrasing it so that it doesn't sound like you're having a bad day and taking it out on someone else.
So what can @serioustruth do to redeem himself and be removed from the black list?
Your question was directed to bacchist. My response was only to you saying the sin was not responding. Since you're not being specific about which comment felt like trolling: My comments on their posts before this one were clear, and not trolling. It was clear plagiarism in their EQ/IQ post, and it was clear that they were lying in their second, which I sufficiently proved there.
This single event proved this account owner's character to me. Their continued dishonest appeals only solidify it for me.
How is it FUD? The user was trying get heard and was being ignored. I was right there in chat with him for several hours there was no response.
Banning someone who is trying to redeem themselves is not a power that should rest within the hands of any single person. Nor should it be up to a "council" or tribunal.
His problem is he didn't edit a source article enough. But that's a couple of paragraphs without citation.
It's not enough to get a college paper rejected, let alone an account ban. His great sin was that he didn't respond to @pfunk in sufficient time.
A college student doing that would, at a minimum, have a failing grade on that paper. Most likely they would also be under consideration for further disciplinary action.
Yeah ok but an outright ban? Everything this guy says is being flagged now. You can't permanently expel a student for a single bad paper. His follow on work is uniquely his own, but EVERYTHING he does is being flagged.
The punishment does not fit the crime, then you're calling this article FUD but there is nothing he is saying which is spreading anything other than "help me, I'm being attacked and can't figure out how to get out from under it.".
That's an issue between them. If they are able to resolve their differences, they can move on. Posting negative claims about the platform is FUD.
Their response to me was not to address the plagiarism, it was to cover it up and then make a post lying about it. After I pointed out their lies, they made a new post. If they had time to make a new post, they had time to respond to my question about why they were trying to scam Steemit.
You didn't answer my question either, you defended your position.
I think we all see plainly now why you hold the position you do and the events leading up to your decision to do this, so there is no further need to defend it. However that was a single event and his refusal to answer is not an admission of guilt. Frankly he probably didn't realize it was a sincere question he was being asked. I know I read it and I don't feel any sincerity it felt like a troll to me. Why would you subtract value from steemit by trolling rather than proposing acceptable solutions for remediation?
He likely viewed it as a trolling remark and ignored it. If it's a sincere question, consider rephrasing it so that it doesn't sound like you're having a bad day and taking it out on someone else.
So what can @serioustruth do to redeem himself and be removed from the black list?
Your question was directed to bacchist. My response was only to you saying the sin was not responding. Since you're not being specific about which comment felt like trolling: My comments on their posts before this one were clear, and not trolling. It was clear plagiarism in their EQ/IQ post, and it was clear that they were lying in their second, which I sufficiently proved there.
This single event proved this account owner's character to me. Their continued dishonest appeals only solidify it for me.