Let me see if I get this right. When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July? You know it's mid-october, right?
Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.
We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here.
No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.
It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they?
Wrong.
The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.
Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis.
What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.
I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.
As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that!
No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.
If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail.
Let's verify your arguments. You started claiming that Rarity was banned by Theymos because of his/her responses in the Nefario thread:
We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user
Rarity being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum.
Then a moderator and the administrator answered that the decision to ban was not based on anything you claimed:
I will just say one more time that the theymos thread had nothing to do with it.
He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.
Frustrated with the answer, you demanded impartiality from the administrator and evidence that Rarity was posting "counterpoints" which "people weren't able to put up with it":
You are not a credible source of information to defend accusations of conflict of interest against yourself. Rarity's posting style has not changed at all over the long time she has been here. All of a sudden when her criticism landed on you, however, it became "trolling" and banworthy. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Post some examples of "trolling" from Rarity, because it always seemed to me that people just got upset that she posted counterpoints to a lot of the dogma taken for granted around here and people weren't able to put up with it.
An answer was provided:
Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.
So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:
I have followed Rarity's posts closely since she has been here but since the banning was recent and the timing and cause is under question it seems necessary to examine recent posts. If she was banned eight months ago, I would focus there. I am calling you a liar because the words you put in quote marks have never been posted by Rarity. Google backs that up.
It's much easier to personally insult me than to show us the non-existent posts you cited, I know, but it's not making the banning of Rarity look any less corrupt and shady.
So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence. An answer was provided and the false claim was corrected. Then you required impartial evidence to prove Rarity's actions. Again, an answer was provided by a moderator. Unable to handle the overwhelming evidence starting to accumulate against your false claim, you decided to ask for more evidence. Then I provided enough evidence which supports every statement made by the administrator and the moderators.
The only epic fail here is you...
