Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL)?

poochpocket was rejected twice:



hacker1001101001 was accepted later on:

Please refrain from making shit up. Thanks.


What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?


You should confirm it from the other account, LoyceV makes a good point:


It doesn't change anything for you anyway.

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that...

I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP.

I would like to know just how bad hacker’s spamming was to the forum. How large of a shilling army did he have? How long ago did he stop bump spamming (in relation to when the bump spam protections went into place)?

I don’t think he had/has only two forum accounts but I don’t have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.

I don’t like the use of sock puppets to support and agree with each other and I think it is a bad look when people do this. I say the same thing about sending merit. If anyone has done this before they should stop. This kind of thing gets noticed and it reflects poorly on those who do this.

I think hacker should consent to theymos looking into these questions and reporting what he finds. There is already evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

Continuous dishonest behavior has not stopped and by the looks of it is not stopping. A single account being sold without any victims warrants the account being flagged, ICO bumping on any scale warrants more.

Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though.

He did not really attack suchmoon and suchmooon did not really attack me either (including suchmoon's misunderstanding of my words, and nulliuses misunderstanding of her words), I think you are all losing proper interpretations due to whatever (read it all again objectively, within context). Ignore the word DOX, replace it with "If you do not confess yourself, I will be forced to publish the evidence" - nothing is wrong with this and gives the culprit a chance to admit should he want to  (while avoiding any unnecessary damage by releasing the evidence). The only reason it was said was precisely because the DOX is the evidence (otherwise the evidence - whatever it may have been - would have been released instantly) - something which I do not want to post and can not almost find any scenarios under which I would. I have no other evidence (that is publicly known). Clear now?

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  

[1] FTFY. If you need more assistance in making you a bit honest, please do ask and I will help.

Without OgNasty's opinion we can't really know if what hacker1001101001/poochpocket did was against the rules of the campaign or not. It's not that I'm "keen on exact wording", it's just that poor wording in this case doesn't really make the intent as clear as you claimed.

And even if it is clear... Replace hacker1001101001/poochpocket with another set of alts in this scenario - would you still make the same claim? Remove all the other transgressions hacker1001101001/poochpocket is accused of from consideration - would you still red-trust/flag him for this signature application? If the answer is "no" then it probably doesn't matter much if at all.