Pages:
Author

Topic: Censorship on Bitcointalk - page 4. (Read 9294 times)

legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
October 13, 2012, 03:14:18 PM
#32
I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

Quote
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.

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. 

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.
And Atlas doesn't?
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128
October 13, 2012, 03:00:04 PM
#31
I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

Quote
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.

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. 

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.










   

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
October 13, 2012, 02:32:57 PM
#30
Rarity was spamming all over the place, damaging bitcoin as well as select users.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
October 13, 2012, 01:09:39 PM
#29
This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek
Please respond here. As moderator of Bitcoin Discussion, you are to share in the blame.
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
October 13, 2012, 12:27:07 PM
#28
I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

Quote
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.

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. 
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
October 13, 2012, 11:57:19 AM
#27
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.
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 4398
diamond-handed zealot
October 13, 2012, 11:50:54 AM
#26
you don't get banned for calling out the mods, I've seen people do so on various occasions, and I've seen them get pretty vile while at it. If Theymos or any of the other mods just took their liberties at banning, this forum would be a lot emptier place, as there's a new thread about one of them being a bad mod, or being incompetent, or just an asshole every day. They don't seem to care that much.

My point is, if you get banned from here, there's probably a real reason, as I haven't ever managed to get banned, and I tend to have that tendency.

Good point, I been mixing it up with one of the mods pretty good;  I have had threads deleted, but surprisingly the banhammer has not come down.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
October 13, 2012, 11:36:48 AM
#25
First of all I will not share why Rarity was banned. Reasons for a ban are between the forum administrators and the person that was banned and no one else. In most forums you would be banned just for questioning why someone was banned.

I will just say one more time that the theymos thread had nothing to do with it.

Now Rarity: Go spread your FUD somewhere else.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
October 13, 2012, 10:45:46 AM
#24
This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
October 13, 2012, 10:15:58 AM
#23
I have had words with a mod, but it was in private the way it should be.
hero member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 502
October 13, 2012, 09:29:20 AM
#22
Attention is great Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
October 13, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
#21
Rarity and Dank have been going at it for ages.  If Rarity was officially banned for that it just seems like an excuse.  Besides, if anyone was trolling there it was the guy who intentionally played a poor version of Mary Had A Little Lamb just to get a rise out of her.

So you are a new user, but you have actually watched Pony and Dank going at it for ages? But I digress, you don't get banned for calling out the mods, I've seen people do so on various occasions, and I've seen them get pretty vile while at it. If Theymos or any of the other mods just took their liberties at banning, this forum would be a lot emptier place, as there's a new thread about one of them being a bad mod, or being incompetent, or just an asshole every day. They don't seem to care that much.

My point is, if you get banned from here, there's probably a real reason, as I haven't ever managed to get banned, and I tend to have that tendency.
hero member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 502
October 13, 2012, 09:22:21 AM
#20
Rarity was one of my favorite posters.  Sad



I guess you prefer the god fearing weirdos ... Cheesy
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
October 13, 2012, 09:13:59 AM
#19
Rarity was one of my favorite posters.  Sad
hero member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 502
October 13, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
#18
Good riddance, Rarity was a nuisance
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
October 13, 2012, 08:46:35 AM
#17
I know for a fact that Rarity wasn't banned for the theymos thread. Not going to tell you why Rarity was banned because I'm not sure I can disclose it, or else I would tell you.

Try harder, Rarity.
Yes, I'm saying you're a Rarity sockpuppet. You're lucky this isn't your beloved SA forums or else you'd need to pay again to come back.

Oh ye of little faith... Dancing Dan had all of 4 hours since registration to get ten posts in, learn everything there is to learn about bitcoin, figure out who the good guys and the bad guys (and gals?) are, and then be able to figure out a good level of moral outrage at the banning of somebody who was already banned when they got here, so all of it would be in the past, and still make this the first big issue they posted on.

You don't think that was genuine outrage from a genuine n00b?

Wonder if we might want to think about instituting that rule that you must be a member for X number of days before you can create a new thread?
That will just make socks harder to find.
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
October 13, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
#16
I know for a fact that Rarity wasn't banned for the theymos thread. Not going to tell you why Rarity was banned because I'm not sure I can disclose it, or else I would tell you.

Try harder, Rarity.
Yes, I'm saying you're a Rarity sockpuppet. You're lucky this isn't your beloved SA forums or else you'd need to pay again to come back.

Oh ye of little faith... Dancing Dan had all of 4 hours since registration to get ten posts in, learn everything there is to learn about bitcoin, figure out who the good guys and the bad guys (and gals?) are, and then be able to figure out a good level of moral outrage at the banning of somebody who was already banned when they got here, so all of it would be in the past, and still make this the first big issue they posted on.

You don't think that was genuine outrage from a genuine n00b?

Wonder if we might want to think about instituting that rule that you must be a member for X number of days before you can create a new thread?
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
October 12, 2012, 10:15:54 PM
#15
come on guys, this is one of the free'est forums on the web

where you been hanging out?

long term lending thread  Grin Joking
legendary
Activity: 3220
Merit: 4398
diamond-handed zealot
October 12, 2012, 10:12:13 PM
#14
come on guys, this is one of the free'est forums on the web

where you been hanging out?
newbie
Activity: 57
Merit: 0
October 12, 2012, 08:46:24 PM
#13
I don't know anything about Rarity or what he/she did to get banned. But I think if the admins think he/she should get banned they should explain why. Banning someone without explanation only leads to speculations.
Pages:
Jump to: