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

Based on below, this thread is now locked:



Jg didn't give anyone any time to respond. There's a difference between how I am ending discussion and how he did.

How about this: When 72 hours goes by without discussion, I'll lock the thread.
[/quote]

It has been over 72 hours since the last post.

Well, I am supposed not to post here again. But since you asked me, look at the bold part below. The question was Are you becoming his friends?. So, I responded: Agree or disagree with someone does not make friends or enemies. Do you see anything wrong here?
Please don't take this thing offensively. I am trying to avoid any drama for now. You asked, I answered!
Thanks!

Where did I say it does? I did not say such thing anywhere, I am confident.

Okay, You ask, I agree. I don't want to be in this loop either so we can move on as you suggest.


I understood that part. But when you asked if I was becoming his friend or not? It annoyed me the most. Agree or disagree with someone does not make friends or enemies. At least that's what I believe. He agreed with some of my points and I also agree with some of his points. It does not really mean I become his friend. I don't want an answer or explanation as we agreed to ignore it and move on. This is going to be my last post here.

Thanks!

There are no point to keep arguing and repeat the same. I question, you explain; you question, I reply. It's an endless loop. So, I ignore all above and we move on.

The "you" is a plural which is addressing you [Shishir99] and JollyGood but I was giving importance to JollyGood when I wrote "[at-least...]".

I was referring to this reply from you.

BoXXoB - I don't trust his trust feedback or his trust list (present or future) as he has been involved in a scam that stole millions from the forum.
Shishir99 - I don't trust his future use of the system, when/if he were to gain any sort of power or influence.

I don't need a crystal ball, I just need to read their posts. I am allowed to have a judgement on the future if there is reason to. Both of these users have earned their place in my distrust list.

You can inquisite all you like about my decision about you - the fact is, I do not want to share it as if I do, it will require a ver y well elaborated thread that I am not bothered making.

You have added me to your distrust list as I added you to mine. If that's enough reason to add someone to your distrust list, then don't ask about my decisions in the same regard.

I am not bothered to respond to the rest for now, I see and feel no need.

Neither Shishir99 nor BoXXoB have created custom trust lists, so you cannot really use that as an argument. And, unless you have a crystal ball somewhere, there is no way to predict who they will trust or distrust in the future.


So, if I understand correctly, you did not actually ask him to unlock the thread, did you? In that case, there is no evidence of censorship on his part, and this topic was completely unnecessary.


As others have already pointed out, everyone has the freedom to open or lock their threads whenever they feel like it. If you want to add your comment, you can always shoot a PM to the OP and request an unlock or just start a fresh topic. That is how forums work and it has nothing to do with censorship.


You've got it all wrong. I never suggested that everyone should explain their trust lists to the public. My point was simply to understand why you added me on your distrust, so I can address any inaccurate or inappropriate trust actions if they exist, like any other DT member should. However, it appears you are not interested in that, which confirms my suspicion that you might not be using the trust system correctly.

---

Totally agree. There are some members who could really benefit from using the Ignore feature more often. But judging by the way things are going, it seems like the Reputation board is going to continue resembling a bunch of kids squabbling on the playground.

I don't know about the others, but I really didn't get the impression that he (or Jollygood) were trying to imporess me or anyone else. The way I see it, he simply created a new topic in order not to further pollute merit application thread.

Btw, all this drama in the last few weeks across multiple threads is just ridiculous.

Sure, based on the DT system you might have fine ratings, since negatives are only for trading-matters. However, I do not trust all 3 of you to have good trust lists now or in the long term.


Jg didn't give anyone any time to respond. There's a difference between how I am ending discussion and how he did.

How about this: When 72 hours goes by without discussion, I'll lock the thread.

As for the rest I did not bother to reply to, I'm with Shishir99 if he's leaving. I'm done communicating with JollyGood and Shishir99, I'm not about to start communicating with you Stalker22. If changing trust settings without public explanation is abuse of the trust list then so be it as well. I doubt it though, or else the reputation board would be much fuller of threads.

If someone I trust recommends that I respond to something, I will.

I am done with you. You had to answer my questions which you clearly avoided and wrote a wall of text that are unnecessary. I have zero interest in continuing the drama.

---

Look BitcoinGirl. I have seen you in various threads and you always seem reasonable. Please try to be neutral and you will get me.


Is it forbidden to talk about other people's business? Do you always talk about your own thing only? Don't you interrupt whenever you see something is not right in your opinion? The thread wasn't created without making a reply in cryptofrka's thread. At first, I responded to him in Cryptofrka's thread and then Cryptofrka asked me and others not to write off-topic things. So, to be ON topic, I need a thread. Right? Please point me where do you see the wrong action.

Please try to understand. It was Cryptofrka's merit application thread where BenCodie wrote his post and then I and other members also responded. BenCodie replied back with some bad attitude and I wanted to write him back. Meanwhile, Cryptofrka asked not to post off-topic there. So what is wrong here?

I did not ask Rikafip to respond there.
Let's say I was defending some other forum members in a random thread and I never had interaction with them personally. If they respond, is it my problem? Do I have any influence to make them write their thoughts?

To be honest BitcoinGirl, I am annoyed now. Where do you see I am interacting with him? If he is trying, that's from himself. He just shared his belief about my actions and that's it. You are supporting BenCodie without even considering the point I wrote. Can I say you are trying to be friends with BenCodie? Just agree and disagree makes friends and enemies here? I must be tooooo new here.

It is still an improper use of your trust list, much like this case involving LoyceV. Surprising that, despite your time spent on the forum, you still do not know the difference between Trust Feedback and your Trust List.

Take another look at what theymos wrote at the top of the Trust settings page:


I will ask once more: have you noticed  any "inaccurate or inappropriate trust actions" from me? If that is the case, I am more than willing to go through my trust feedback, address any concerns you raise, and provide explanations or corrections where needed.


nutildah, along with other DTs, excluded you because of your Trust system abuse, and since you continue to do so, I am going to exclude you as well, at least for the time being. This will reduce your chances of getting anywhere near the DT.



So, you want to do the same thing you are accusing JG of doing? You will lock the thread when it didn't go the way you hoped.

Just to be clear, I am not particularly interested in the whole BenCodie vs. JG drama, but did you ask him to unlock the thread so you could share your final thoughts? It is a bit absurd to talk about censorship without at least giving it a shot.

That is ironic considering that you both have created a thread directly about me with basically no constructive content:
Super High IQ BenCodie vs Low IQ forum posters about gambling.
Obsessive Conduct by "BenCodie" Over A Neutral Tag

Claims of narcissism, obsessiveness, that I'm against every gambler on the forum - all of which are in-factual/untrue:
- Obsessiveness - only because JollyGood says/thinks so (does not make it true)
- Narcissistic - not true. when not defending myself, I'm rarely absorbing in myself.
- Against all gamblers in the forum - I'm against casino-user exploitation, and low iq shills only. I don't blame gamblers for having their version of fun, or degenerates for being degenerates.

One hand, there are you two.

One the other hand, myself. I created a genuine discussion thread with diverse opinion and poll results, aimed at neither of you but inspired by both of you:
If someone is a proven liar, do they deserve to be given negative trust?

I knew before I made the thread that it would become a unique discussion. How? Because if you are actually trusted by so many active people here JollyGood, then the discussion is sure to be unique...especially from those who trust your judgement.

Surely enough, I was right. That discussion has got to be one of the most interesting threads I've read here. One where I am just interested in watching everyone's new opinion and not commenting much. My view was much more toward black and white until that thread. Some of the responses have great perspective, some of them are flat-out outrageous. It actually points out a potential problem in the forum. However, who are we to know how many unproven lies go undetected? Though, who am I to actually judge or try change this place? Hence not responding there much. Letting nature have its course.

This though:


Is actually narcissistic. Making something that is not about attacking you, made about attacking you. Now that, is ironic.

My point was you were offending him with that topic where you had no business at all. Whatever emotion he had, that were towards other members. Right to act does not mean you start offending random person.

It was not supposed to be your problem but Cryptofrka's. If that thread was created by Cryptofrka then it was understandable.

Because he reacted to your topic and expressed his thoughts.

You are a mental patient in DT network. No wonder why all these drama around because of you. One notable thing is you are a coward who run away from accountability when questions are against you. Truth is you have no balls to have a decent conversation. You are a pussy.

Now it seems you are interacting [at-least JollyGood is trying]. Are you becoming his friends? LOL

Edit
My dear, I, you and other who are reading knows very well that you are a liar. The whole post you wrong was about me and you say you have no interest. You have no balls.

It is exactly that. If you agree with his point of view you are a saint but if you dare to go against this view he will troll you. If you really upset him too much he will create a thread, list all the names that have trusted you and ask them to distrust you. This is the level of low mentality people you are dealing with and I have to say you have shown patience in the manner you have expressed yourself.

The hypocrisy of this deranged individual BitcoinGirl.Club is still at all-time gutter low. He trolls and colludes in order to attack when he wants (making new friends along the way) yet he has the tenacity to say you were colluding with me and others. He makes it up as he goes along.

Let us get one thing straight, you did nothing wrong by standing up for yourself and that is what they cannot accept. You have every right to be here in the forum in the manner you want to express yourself, none of these trolls are either superior or senior to anybody in any capacity regardless of which member registered first.

These are diversion tactics used by trolls to justify their actions. They are effectively saying they attacked you because they did not like what you wrote when you did not attack anybody. You are dealing with narcissists with egos the size of the planet Jupiter who cannot accept they are trolls and that makes your patience even more remarkable.

I have BenCodie and BitcoinGirl.Club on my ignore list because that is where they deserve to be. I occasionally take a look at their posts when they are quoted by other members, other than that I have zero interest in them or the nonsense they spout. You do not have to justify yourself to these trolls. Forget about them when they make false accusations about you.

Shishir99 the "low IQ" comment was blown way out of proportion - I called a few people who were lacking logic and clearly being proponents for the gambling section low IQ after some obviously unsound remarks.

At least they were unsound to me, and my response (other than very light insults to emphasize my thoughts on their opinion) turned into a week long thread where I had to battle members like you, JollyGood, and countless others, until I was aided by some rational members who weighed in enough to least enough to stop the nonsens and restore to that shit show of a thread of yours.

Please don't act like you are innocent in all of this because when we go back to the root of all of this drama in the reputation board, it started in your thread. Yes, you can say that "I started it because of my insults" - but that is not the root of what involved tens of members, your thread was. I never called anyone disgusting words, all of my words related to post content. They could not possibly have hurt even thin-skinned peoples feelings, and yet, you felt that you needed to make a thread about it.

There is also no irony here. The things you are comparing to say "irony" are weighted entirely differently. You are basically comparing a fire cracker (my comments to few people) to a bomb (your thread involving tens and tens of members)

I don't trust your judgement and after these posts, I don't see any reason why that should change. You clearly swap between being "genuinely curious" to adding very opinionated comments which completely violate someone who is genuinely curious, and I believe if the majority of the community sided with your thread, you'd be feeling high and mighty over what you would probably consider an accomplishment.

Disagree? Question then. Why didn't you PM me your questions instead of making a thread? I did not receive a single PM from you. This is proof of what you were aiming to achieve...and failed to achieve, may I rub in.

The fact is that if your thread went that way you wanted it to go, I would be dead in the water! Thankfully, there are still reasonable people on this forum who read my responses to your thread in full and saw where I was coming from.

Despite me having plenty of ammunition to reason my distrust for you, I will hold it all back and let all of this go. I am done with the drama once this thread is locked...until you, jollygood, or the like of you both find a new gun to aimlessly fire at myself or others for bogus and meaningless reasons - or because I have once again very lightly insulted some degenerate gamblers, scammers or people in some way related to either of these.

So do I or is there a double standard for some specific people?

I have cleared my position a couple of times and here I am doing it again. The topic was created because Cryptofrka asked not to write these things in his Merit source application thread for obvious reasons.


Please do not tie me with JollyGood. I never had interaction with him. What he was doing is exclusively related to his personal beliefs. I have seen some controversies regarding his feedback and way of judgment. I also believe he has some things to improve. Impress Rikafip? Why pick him only? I was talking about his recent behavior. He had a very bad attitude in the Whirlwind ANN thread and there were more forum users. Then he started to continue these things in other threads as well. People might exchange some words in the hit of the moment. But, when they continue doing it with a cool head, I doubt about their personality.

He has all his rights to act how he likes. I don't think you needed a topic for that. The users you wanted to protect have years of reputation on the forum. They know very well how to deal with any situation.

In that drama it seemed you and JollyGood was trying to be the baby babysitter for members like Rikafip and some others. People does not like at, it sense like you were trying to impress them.

Thanks for the reply. As I said in that thread, crptofrka asked not to continue in his thread but I wanted to ask you some questions regarding that matter. So, the option was to create a thread so I did. I also said that my intention was to have a healthy discussion about that matter. The point I have raised wasn't useless. At least in my point of view.

Your behavior has become too rude in the last couple of weeks. You may disagree with me because that questions your reputation. If that thread puts you in a stressful situation, I am sorry about it. But when someone does something wrong and you ask them about it, do you have to think if that question would put them in a stressful situation or not? How many of us care? Do you think before you insult other forum members? Your rude behavior and insults may put them in a stressful situation too. Do you really care about your actions?

When you question others' reputation and insults them = you consider it as criticism.
When others question your point of view = they put you in a stressful situation.

Irony!

That's not why either of you are in my distrust list.

Shishir99, you are in my distrust list because I don't trust your judgement, after the way you conducted yourself when you created that pointless thread which took 3 days of being on the defence until lovemyfamilis suggested you close the thread. You put me INA stressful situation, condoned other members to twist truths, therefore, I don't trust you.

As for Stalker22, I have similar reasons, not entirely the same...though to put it shortly, based on posts in that same thread and rationale shown in other topics, I don't trust their judgement either.

Obviously, you are going to disagree with me because its your judgements that I do not trust. Just like I disagree with nutildah distrusting mine. That's the way it goes though.

---

Holydarkness hit the nail on the head, as did many other users.

I suppose the forum or its members weren't censored, participate in the original topics were however. BetKing being due to moderators, that's fair enough (and coincidental timing)....JollyGood on the other hand, sure, he has the right to lock his thread however locking it at a time where focus was drawing over to him, that's a censoring action. Yes, we can all make new threads to continue the discussion, though we all know that no one wants to make new threads just to respond (and if we did every time, the forum would be flooded).

I think there has been sufficient discussion. I'll lock this thread in 72 hours (feel free to leave final comments in the meantime - that way, no one feels censored )

Ok. Thank you for the response. Even if I don't know the reason, I can assume why I was distrusted by that member. There is a good quote in my local area. A girl can understand if she sees a boy looking at her. Most of the girls understand if a boy wants to impress her. They just pretend like they don't understand anything. Even if I say I don't know the reason, I can assume where it started. But I am surprised because I always try to hear others' opinions and respect most of them if not all. I did not wait for others' responses once she asked me to lock that thread, and I did. I guess that was the reason. If it's true, it's frustrating for me. Sometimes, I cannot express my thoughts due to the language barrier.

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.

If you ask this question, it is because you still have not learned, or have not wanted to learn, what the trust system is all about. Unless you are referring to a neutral tag where almost everything fits, but seeing where the story comes from I don't think it goes that way.

And by the way the premise is false, JG is not censoring the community because he couldn't even if he wanted to. The proof is that you yourself are talking about it.

Updates based on replies:
- BetKing was locked by moderators
- When a topic creator locks a thread and you are urged to respond, make a new one to avoid censorship.

Thread will be locked after 72 hours of no discussion

---