Topic: Censorship - JollyGood & BetKing.io Scam - page 2. (Read 635 times)

And maybe so should also you do OP.
Move on and find happier things to spend your time on and everyone is a winner, but most important, you are! 

Whatever suits you, good luck.

I think its OK to ask via PM, so long as you're nice or at least reasonable in your message. They might not respond but that's up to them. Personally speaking, I will pre-emptively exclude accounts solely based on the reason that I believe they are a secret alt account, or else because I believe they simply don't belong on DT. That's just me though. Others may have different rationales.

You know why buddy. It's because he did not like my opinion and I feel like he did the same thing with everyone for a similar reason. Agree with him? You will be included. If he does not like your opinion, he will exclude you. I don't think we should care about his inclusion or exclusion as he clearly does not understand the purpose of it. Or even if he understands, he is using it for his own purpose (to defend).

I did not even check if he distrusted me. I just checked now and I realized I was distrusted by another member for some reason. What should I do if I don't know the reason? Should I ask via PM? what if they report my PM?

I agree with holydarkness, self-moderated threads are not censorship. Think of self-moderated threads like little pockets of private property within the public space of an online forum. In these threads, people can set their own rules, including heavy moderation, and decide what's acceptable and what's not, as long as it doesn't violate the global forum rules. So if someone doesn't want your comment in their self-moderated thread, that's their right. You are welcome to create your own topic and discuss further, as you just did. There is no censorship.

I wouldn't call that censorship, per se, as censorship is defined as, "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security" [I stole this from google by typing "censorship", no source given by the search engine. So... sorry, no citation], or simplified, "blocks something from being read, heard, or seen", and though the content of the threads being referrenced here are deleted and "prevented" from being read or seen, it is not blocked or suppressed, there are ways to "recover" those posts.

It's self-moderation, not a censor, which, ironically for your case [not a sarcasm here, just stating a fact], is a way the forum offered for people to express their freedom of speech instead of limiting it, and the forum even offers a way to let the content that's being removed to still be available for public. There's a warning as well as a way to "counter" the removal literally above every of the pages of such thread,

"This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic."

Above all, the fact that you can create a thread about this, is the epitome that the forum did not censor opinion. We won't be able to read your opinion and this entire thread if they do.

And to set the record straight, I am not saying those things above because I am siding with JG, or with you. I believe there are times I disagree with JG as well as with you, though some might be voiced and some were kept to myself. There is a reason why I am not jumping to every threads made by you and JG [I still grab popcorn and sips coffee over it, though], and it's because I couldn't care less, it's mostly about conflict with two people who have more time to spend on the internet. Most of those topics can be avoided if either of you be more like bill. And the reason why I jumped into a thread that any of you raised is most likely because I feel the need to set some things straight, like this one; a censorship.

He does not.

A quote from that thread to prove the point:


He removes members from his trust list not because of their feedback but because he did not like their opinions. When asked about it by LoyceV, he provided some bullshit explanation and later changed his mind, claiming he had "given it more thought." 


This is what his trust list looks like now:

---

@BenCodie, I do not mind that you added me to your distrust list; it is your right to do so, but could you please explain why? You are the only member of the forum who has done this, and I am open to reviewing my trust feedback if there is an issue.

Also, why you distrust BoXXoB's judgement? His last use of trust feedback was over three years ago, and I do not see any apparent issues there. Similarly, Shishir99 hasn't even used his trust feedback, so I am curious about your reasons for distrusting them.

As disturbing as the rules that govern self moderated thread could be, it is what it is and you can’t make someone reopen a thread or allow your participation on that thread because you feel you have something to say.
You talking about censorship in that regard. It could be an obvious accusation as the owner of the thread might rule otherwise and that doesn’t make either of the claims true. It’s simply the self moderation pkayingbits role.

The best that could be done in the event that you feel a thread wasn’t completely exhaust is what your doing already in creating another thread to stretch the matter. Still, you can’t drag anyone into having the discussion more than they are willing to.

Prove your points and build a satisfaction about it is the most I would say. Until the rules to self moderation is edited in the regards your talking about, when it’s done with the thread creator, then it’s really done with that thread.

Just a friendly question: What makes you better than JollyGood?

I have noticed several unnecessary dramas that you could have avoided. I have locked the thread about you once lovesmayfimilis asked me to lock it. I said to myself that there was no point engaging in such dramas and let it go. A few days ago I noticed you left me a neutral tag referring to that thread. I didn't even notice when you removed it. Did you notice the backfire you got for being in those dramas?

http://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-09_Sat_05.07h/404695.html

You're not being censored as you just proved by opening this thread. JG has the right to create self-moderated threads and lock them whenever he wants. You have the right to open a "Reeeee" thread in response, which is exactly what this thread is.


You pretty clearly do not, because if you did, this wouldn't even be a question:


The answer is no so long as the thread in question has nothing to do with trading on the forum.


There's a pretty big difference which you are ignoring: BetKing is trying to promote a casino and Jolly Good isn't promoting anything. If a service provider locks a thread in the face of criticism, then that may or may not inspire mistrust. But even that is context-dependent: a completely above-board business might just be locking a thread because they are tired of dealing with trolls.

(edit: looks like the BetKing thread was actually locked by moderators, anyway)

The point is there are a lot of nuances in determining the appropriateness of trust feedback and making sweeping generalizations usually isn't a good idea.

At least you removed your negative rating on JG, that's a good start.

I'll repeat what I said before. My advice: stay away from the forum drama.

The topic was locked after I reported it. The gambling board allows only 1 topic per site, this scammer has about 8 topics already.

That's exactly what the Chymist meant, you don't need to say it loud LOL


I don't understand why did not he done it any yet?
Do you think it's a double standard from JollyGood? Feel free to leave your opinion about it 😂

You are asking theymos to give him some especial privilege.
Please don't even think about it, if such privilege is given to him, he will become more careless and start to feel that he is The One Above All [reminds me CH LOL].

Following your imagination, I think he will then tag theymos's feedback page with something like, "BEWARE: This user cannot be trusted. Theymos collected bitcoin to launch the forum software, and after even a decade, there are no new forum software. It raises many questions and all are unanswered. I will revise this feedback if he give some explanations and launch the software."

It can be disappointing and that's why sometimes I don't take part in conversations in a self moderated topics if I don't think that the OP is reliable enough.

Closed topics can be felt as provoking, but if it is an important topic you can always start a new thread for it by yourself. Once I did so, because I was sure that the topic is important enough, my new topic has over 10 pages already.

So as long as we have an opportunity to overcome both this actions, I don't think we should give it a lot of importance. If we talk in general.

I am happy to depart from this matter if you confirm what I am understanding from your posts:
You believe that locking threads and self-moderated threads can not be used to censor?

Yes or no?

Well, since you are saying that something that is evidently true is false, we will not discuss about this any further. In order to debate at least we must agree on the premises, on the basic principles on which the debate is based, otherwise it is more like bickering. Good luck and have a nice day.

Jollygood doesn't have to post. The point is that others are no longer allowed to post.

If you read the posts leading up to the thread lock, users were addressing flaws in JG. He locked the thread because the thread had the potential of circling to hurt his own reputation.

JollyGood has so much energy to fight others and put them on the defense, but we should sympathize when he wants to stop a conversation when he is the defensive side?

Sorry TSC. That doesn't sit well with me. Not after all the bullshit caused by this user over the last 2+ weeks.


Not in the slightest bit true, as proven by the two examples provided.

Also not true that only theymos has censorship power.
- Anyone with the power to lock a thread can censor further discussion. Just like JollyGood has done.
- Self-moderated topic creators can censor past discussion. Just like BetKing.io when he deleted my post, causing me to have to re-post.

There is no censorship in this forum and we, the users, have no power to censor any debate. The only one who could establish censorship would be theymos, and his political ideology is the opposite.


+1

BenCodie, you know I respect your outspokenness and your willingness to be a bastard when need be, but I think you might be chasing your tail on this particular issue.  I will admit I didn't go back and read everything in those threads, but what it looks like is that you want to continue an argument that JollyGood no longer wants to.

That same thing happened to me with TECSHARE a while back.  We had some stupid beef and he just wanted to keep trying to win whatever point that he was making, and it just exhausted me to the point where I said fuck it.  But he kept PMing me and even left a neutral feedback with a veiled threat in it.  So I guess what I'm saying is to not be a bulldog all of the time, especially when the member you're barking at has said sayonara. 

Locking a thread isn't censoring; it's just giving a signal that the OP no longer wants to keep the debate going.  Know what I mean?

That's an interesting opinion to which I won't respond to. You are technically right, that doesn't mean you are entirely right as this process can definitely ripple effect into other issues quickly.

Censorship is not something to be as lightly as you are taking it. If one can, more can, and then it's a very large problem. Accountability is important if we are allowing people to end discussions whenever they want, especially in sensitive topics regarding reputation.


It doesn't matter, you can continue the debate here as you are doing.

You remind me of a thread recently opened by my recently reconciled friend. You're not going to get far with this no matter how many walls of text you write. Well, maybe you'll get JG to come around and respond with even longer walls of text.
[/quote]

I'm pretty much done posting information. Responding requires as many words as it takes. Or, I won't. If JollyGood can stop discussions when he feels like it, I'll reply when I feel like it. I've stated the problem, I would mostly like to leave it to the community from this point onward, if anyone has anything to say about it. If not, great! We can leave it at this (I doubt that this will be the case, as, once again, censorship is a serious issue).

He can do with his threads whatever he wants, just as you have opened one now to talk about the subject.


It doesn't matter, you can continue the debate here as you are doing.

You remind me of a thread recently opened by my recently reconciled friend. You're not going to get far with this no matter how many walls of text you write. Well, maybe you'll get JG to come around and respond with even longer walls of text.

I know what the trust system is all about however there is obviously a blurred line that needs clarification on almost a case-by-case basis...especially when it comes to censorship, afaik.


This was the final response by JollyGood:


It includes accusations toward myself in the first part of the post, then BitcoinGirl.Club later in the post...It also describes the 4 responses linked above as "trolling" when no one, aside from PytagoraZ (who deleted their post) was trolling, afaik.

There are unaddressed issues in this thread, there is no closure except the one of that JollyGood provided, with several members muted. Is this really an okay forum practice? Create issues, then mute discussion about them when things start going in a direction that you do not like?

BitcoinGirl.Club, examplens and Sexylizzy2813 all responded before JG's posts above, and may have wanted to respond to his latest one due to the content of what he had said. I personally, also wanted to respond to that post due to the misinformation within it. Instead, the thread is locked, and myself, the 3 users above, and anyone else who wanted to comment; now can not. Censorship of a few means:


The way you are looking at it sounds to me like you are saying "more people need to be censored before it is a problem"...Sorry if I am wrong. If understand correctly however, I don't think this is the right way to go about addressing/dealing with censorship within a community forum that is inherently supposed to be anti-censorship (it's one of the moral pillars of Bitcoin after all, no?)

Heavy questions come with all of this:
1. Is creating issues between the community, then censoring conversation and discussion; really the kind of quality that the deciding portion of the bitcointalk really community want to see in a DT1 member?
2. What gives JollyGood the right to create issues with topics, give his final (misinformative) say, and censor anyone from discussing in that topic by locking it? Is this acceptable behavior for a community member (let alone a "trusted" one)?

I'll leave everyone with those questions in regard to JollyGood.


Here is another example of ongoing censorship alongside JG:
Refunds for the BetKing.io ICO Scam - Which I am addressing because it is an incident of censorship that is much more relevant to the trust system, considering it is relating to a scam.


I could have replied to this quite easily, except, I was muted by BetKing.io who decided to lock the thread after my response (after trying to mute me by initially deleting my post, causing me to re-post).

Is it a separate incident requiring a separate thread?
No, because it is the same problem - the OP is trying to censor further conversation to prevent further damage to their reputation.