Topic: Fact based on topic relevant information should not be silenced in META - page 2. (Read 739 times)

Are you saying you were told directly from theymos as part of your mandate that

1. expressing like for lemons is enough to get red trust?
2. fact based relevant on topic information should be censored in meta on ad hominem based reasoning?

and

You can present a sensible and logical case for factual, relevant and on topic information being deleted from a thread in meta. That you fully agree with. Leaving out the invalid ah hominem based reasoning that you presented previously.


If you can not provide the latter why would you be in favour of it?

This is a sensible debate that is beneficial to the entire forum. We need to reach the optimal solution for the greater good of the entire board.

I would rather see a rule implemented that says no swearing and overly aggressive language rather than a ban on presentation of relevant facts.

Or post only opinions and claims that you can back with evidence or credible case or face a short ban.

If this is how this has been enforced up until now then perhaps it should be analysed and reviewed.

Seems ludicrous that anyone would  seek to prevent fact based on topic and relevant information being presented in a sub board where the entire forums evironment is seemingly shaped.

If it does not allow factual, on topic and relevant discussion here then that has implications for everyone.

Why not just have self moderated threads here then? makes no sense. Looks super shady

You are saying that you personally banned users for presenting what you knew to be factual, relevant information?  you actually punished people and allowed/enabled incorrect and misleading information to proliferate unchallenged?  

Alright, well that was just my input as someone who was a global moderator here for ~6 years, banned and warned countless people for the same thing, and was part of the collective conversation that established what moderator discretion is for these types of cases, and how and when we should typically enforce the rules.

No, but you are probably right here.

This is word salad that does not provide anything new to what has been stated already and is merely another long winded ad hominem attack.

The post needs to be judged on its own merits. This has nothing to do with the poster.

If you allow only factual, relevant and ontopic posts then this kind of ad hominem defense is broken.

Moderating factual relevant and on topic posts does indeed look very shady. Hence why it can not be allowed to happen ever.

The fact that a huge proportion of posts are baseless incorrect and misleading opinions are the real danger. Your notion of preventing facts being censored so that those incorrect and misleading statements and ideas can prevail is utterly ludicrous in a sub board like meta.

It is quite simple that if you rely on FACTUAL RELEVANT AND OBSERVABLY CORRECT information only and this information on its own merits makes people feel unwanted then of course they must feel that reveals something about them that is to be considered undesirable once such relevant facts are analysed.

Your entire reasoning seems bogus and quite nonsensical like with the lemons thing. You need to have your opinions critically analysed like any other person. This is nothing personal against you  but I feel your opinion on this  is wrong and totally illogical if you are interested in the truth or optimal solutions/outcomes being presented.

You of course can have your opinion but that does not make it logical nor beneficial to the forum on the whole.

Sorry I do not share your view and you have not presented any kind of sensible case as a rebuttal.

Simply saying you think it should be a certain way without presenting a case for why is again unsubstantiated and actually misleading.

I say again provide me with a sensible case as to why any facts based on topic and relevant information should be censored from any threads in meta.

 

Its the forum's version of a restraining order. If people feel threatened/harassed by a member, they can make a local rule stating that they don't want them in any of their threads. Censorship means that you have no voice and no outlet. Its not censorship to tell people to get out of your house (your thread). You are free to make another topic elsewhere. No one here has the right to make other members feel not welcome here. Obviously, this is a shared space, so ignoring people is a tool for casually running into a member you have a problem with around, but ignoring is not the solution for when someone follows you around, thats where local rules come in.

This isn't something that gets a debate. The forum in general does not care if it hurts your feelings to not be able to break its rules. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, or if you think its fair, the rules are the rules. Meta isn't special, its a section about the forum itself, not about your relationships with others. The reason moderation rules are a little more lax in Meta is because its supposed to be a place where users can criticize the forum itself, and obviously, having a heavy handed moderation policy in place in a section meant for criticism looks shady. That does not give you any special permissions in the Meta sections. If your facts are unwanted by the OP of a thread, as dictated in the local rules, then your facts are not welcome.

You can make any argument if you'd like, but as I said, it really doesn't matter. I don't care to force you to believe me, but with this you should have complete knowledge of the rule, why it exists, and why it applies to you. Whether you agree or not. I'll point to this thread when you are banned and trying to say it was unjust, and how blindsided you were by the unfair moderator action.

Impossible to guarantee this and there is no sensible reason to censor it in the first place for locating the  truth or reaching the optimal solution. 

The downside is that a totally misleading case can be presented as fact and truth if only only people the thread starter decides can contribute.

Can you tell me one reason for someone even wanting relevant facts to be censored in their threads?
Ad hominem attacks are not valid reasons to leave the board open to such misuse.

Sure i get your point, but people who are interested in facts/truth/etc would at one point visit your thread and read your arguments.

I dont think its such a big problem.

If people dont want to debate with you its totaly fine - you can just open a new thread and discuss the topic there.


If the other thread is wrong and based on incorrect information, people will disregard it and switch to your thread.

You can not tie those threads together forever can you?  All relevant factual information needs to be presented on the same thread for optimal outcome.

How would that prevent one sided incorrect and misleading agendas being pushed in meta?

That actually only serves to facilitate the spreading of false information and misleading incorrect ideas.

Both sides of statement, accusation or idea must be fully analysed for optimal outcomes to be achieved.

Any other censorship than to remove incorrect, unsubstantiated and off topic information is not optimal in meta.

Why would anyone wish for sub optimal outcomes to occur.

Makes zero sense hence why censorship of on topic relevant facts/information can not take place in meta.

The only reason one would want fact based, relevant information being presented is if they know their ideas and statements will not hold up under fact based scrutiny and therefore wish to mislead persons reading the thread. There can be no other reason for trying to stop facts based relevant information being presented.

You can just make a new thread, quote the specific post in the OP and discuss it there.

You just arent allowed in a specific thread, not in a whole sub.

I would rather see a detailed and sensible debate that analyses the advantages and disadvantages of such local rules here in meta.

I can see no reason for such a censorship of relevant facts and enabling of incorrect, untrue and misleading information to be pushed on to people as accepted truth.

This is the thread to investigate such claims. You are free to present your case as to why such local rules would be an advantage here on meta.

Sounds just like another step to setting and agenda here and enforcing it here in meta regardless of whether analysis of proven facts and other credible information would provide a refutation of the OP's possibly incorrect and misleading groundless opinons/statements.

I disagree with you and would see an explanation given if you are correct.

If it was as simple as stopping people presenting relevant facts presenting them here in meta there would just be self moderation.

I give pretty decent advice on the forum rules. If you choose not to take it under advisement, thats on you.

That entire reply is simply based upon an ad hominem attack.

Stop with the threats of being banned for presenting factual, on topic and relevant information. If that ever happened that would just be another indication the board has gone to the dogs. Unless it was a selfmoderated topic or for a very good reason like sales board.

Reason for a post should always be disregarded. The content of a post should be analysed on its own merits.

There is a reason there are no self moderated threads in meta else why not have them here.

I was told specifically by persons here several times before that nobody has a right to preclude any other person to be part of my threads so long as they were on topic and credible.

Demonstrate now why this would have advantage over what I have said regardless of what either believes that unofficial broad rules states and its actual meaning.

@hhampuz

You need evidence... provide it.

I am presenting factual and on topic comments.

Again present your case or stop voicing groundless statements.

I don't really care if you agree or not, just know that it is against forum rules, and you can be banned for ignoring local rules. Moderator discretion on the matter would be like, not allowing local rules in a scam accusation thread, or not agreeing to enforce local rules if they are too complicated, too much of a hassle, or intentionally baiting people to break them.

People have the right to be left alone if they feel someone is stalking them across boards. If they say that they don't want someone posting in their threads, you can't post in the threads.

Do what you will with the explanation I've given you.



It does not. Be it the most insightful post of all time, or garbage, if an OP doesn't want someone posting in their thread, it is their right to not allow them to. Your remedy is to make a new thread so you can discuss what you'd like discussed.

FACTS = RULES

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657
#26

Cryptohunter really needs to stop breaking forum rules

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

if you don't agree then continue posting in the other thread. Prove us all wrong

Don't agree.

This stops one sided and incorrect theories and assumptions being presented as accepted facts to other readers that could not discern they were perhaps groundless nonsense by themselves.

The mods will use sensible discretion to enforce them.

Present a case of having such a thing in meta bearing in mind persons post only on topic, factual , and relevant information.

Are you saying you want to provide an environment where what I have described above can take place?

Mods discretion which I think should be analysed and explained if required. The deliberate moderation and censorship of relevant on topic information should be in extreme cases only. I see no possible use of such in meta but perhaps on a sales board where you can not have self moderation for scam reasons but want to prevent lower ranks bidding on your items.

Local rules are not up to the poster to enforce only a mod at their sensible and explainable discretion.

Local rules are really a request to mods NOT rules that are enforced just because they have been written.

If someone is complaining about fact based, on topic and relevant posts being made in their threads then you really need to worry about their reasons for that.

I don't think you can say what a moderator will do.

I would hope they could answer why important, relevant and fact based information had been deleted - that would be highly net negative.

Does not matter. As I said, local rules are there for a reason. If someone owns a thread and they don't want to hear from you, they have the right to not allow you to post in that thread. Create your own thread if thats an issue.





^ Not true. Individuals can set local rules in any board (again within reason as I pointed out before) If you set a local rule, regardless of whether your thread is self moderated, it is to be followed, otherwise moderators will take action.

That is not what meta is for.

If you just want to voice an opinion that you are scared that will not hold up under a fact based analysis and debate then don't post it in meta full stop.

May as well say - I think this opinion is incorrect because I fear facts based rebuttal and refutation being presented

LOCAL RULES - nobody with a different opinion to myself regardless of whether your opinion can be substantiated with factual observable evidence and mine I just made up because it suits my agenda.

Why would anyone wish to preclude fact based relevant information being presented?