Topic: Fact based on topic relevant information should not be silenced in META (Read 792 times)

Thanks for your support. I agree with you.

I mean I provide observable fact that these people lie and abuse the trust system and people are too scared to even comment and flat out refuse to even look at the evidence.

Still you will see many will rise up under such corrupt and broken systems of control. In the end you will have the board completely revolt against their double standards, lies and abuse. I am just providing facts and observable events to support free speech and fair treatment of all members. Anyone fighting this is net negative and provably so.

where did tman vanish too? oh yeah I asked him to answer questions that would reveal his real motives for wanting on topic and relevant facts from being presented on his thread............like roaches they vanish when the truth spotlight is focused on them?

@cryptohunter


Its not worth it.
Theymos is acting blind.The people you are fighting took power over the board.
They drove away hundreds of great crypto people with their scrap and trying to increase their power for manipulation each day.
I got myself 2 friends who were legendary on this board but stopped posting because of these crap group.
Theymos shows no sign of action to do anything.
He basicly supports these stupid actions silently.
How many times have i saw how theymos was asked for intervention when these exect same people abused thie forum.
No reaction from him.
Its just not worth your time.The forum is already moving down and as long as theymos gives permission to it there is nothing we can change.
Its funny they show you some kind of forum rules but tag people who are not breaking them.
I also understand your pain as i saw many self moderated threads manipulating to scam people.

And for the known vulture yes this is my second account since i lost access to the email i had my first account registered with.

this proves you are scared of answering my questions.

why are you not answering them?

answer them now and stop diverting

Nothing about you scares me i pitty you, “ I PITTY THE FOOL”

Mr T MAN

Xxxx

Enjoy the incoming ban for breaking rule #26

Answer my questions first.

why are you afraid to answer?

Please explain to us all why you do not need to adhere to forum rules?

I don't accept your rules have any validity in meta. For the reasons above stated. Please try to understand that and stop asking the same question over and over.

Your interpretation of the rules is obviously broken if you think you can leave red trust for facts being presented about liars or relating to scams.


Why are you scared to answer my questions and why are you scared of facts and observable events which are on topic and relevant?

Make sure to answer or else you look to be diverting.

What happened to your statement that you would not engage with me again outside of rep. Can we trust anything you say?

Why are you ignoring the FACT that you broke the rules in my thread? Why oh why

I have finished posting the facts that I wished to post there. That is it.

If i wish to post additional facts and observable events I will do so.  

You can make any rules you like but sensible and reasonable moderation will take place when and if a mod decides to take it.

I can only see very negative implications for removal of facts and observable relevant and on topic posts here in meta hence why no self moderation is allowed.

ARE YOU TMAN AFRAID OF FACTS AND OBSERVABLE EVENTS ? WHY IS THAT?



Which facts and observable events are you scared of?

So you red trust for facts and observable events and now want to stop facts and observable events being posted when on topic and relevant.

Sorry that is not just unfair it is dangerous for the entire board.

Salty spittoon says he has banned people for posting on topic and relevant facts in meta. That sounds like enabling the proliferation of potentially false and misleading information. I would not expect he had thought about that before reaching for the ban hammer.

Imagine those persons posting net positive information and getting banned for the sake of net negative misleading and incorrect posters in a sub board that has implications for every single member.

Seems very strange to me. Hence why it is good to have a thread about it like this.

1. to understand the how the rule is enforced in meta
2. to understand the reasoning behind the enforcement.

sorry you just want to silence facts and observable events when red trusting people for presenting them does not work.

It's true, those are the facts.  Meta isn't exempt from having local rules, and that was confirmed by SaltySpitoon.  Therefore regardless of whether c-scunter thinks that's fair or not, those are the rules--which he keeps breaking.  TMAN, if I were you I would have somehow crowbarred that thread into the Reputation section where you can self-moderate it.  It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to have a discussion about yourself and the Russians there, and you could keep the trolls out.

Your behaviour is ludicrous, you ignoring the rules is ludicrously stupid, me referring to you being banned is fun. As you breaking my local rule is a FACT, breaking rules can lead to a ban - FACT, so if it’s not a perma ban, will you continue to break the rules? I notice you have stopped posting in my thread - are you now worried about the possibility of a ban?

Rule 26 should  have no bearing on meta board where facts and observable events are concerned..  You can not silence facts and observable events that are on  topic and relevant in this section it makes zero sense. It would only benefit trust abusers and other untrustworthy individuals not interested in finding the truth but rather to present their own agendas with no sensible analysis.

Let's see if you can back up the rest of your statement.

Stop begging for me to get banned you pathetic weasel. I know you are terrified of the facts and observable events that I present.

The only people that want to silence on topic and relevant facts are people like you. There are observable events and facts that I can and have presented that you are untrustworthy and a system abuser.

However this thread will not be derailed by this. This is to discuss rule 26 and its bearing on meta board.  I am quite sure that nobody will be prevented from posting on topic and relevant facts to any thread in meta. The very notion is completely ludicrous.

What happened ?? you said you would never engage me in meta again...  can't rely on anything you say can we... .seems untrustworthy to me  lol

Rule #26 - have you read it and understood it yet? your stupid ramblings add 0 value to the forum. I do wonder if itll be a perma ban or just a cool-down

on topic - if its only a 7 day ban, will you come back and continue to act in the same way?

Remind people here run away and hide from facts based observable events debated with someone that will not bow to their agenda and misleading nonsense.

Suchmoon here to post the first off topic post. Local rule 26 lol no offtopic posters like suchmoon allowed please.

Another person with very strange views including

"most" pre merit legends are spammers

It is idiotic and incorrect to believe that some of the  99.87% of the board can make some posts as good or better than some of posts made by the 0.13%  of this board. LOL what an opinion to have.

This type of person trying to enforce his views upon the board is ludicrous.

Anyway lets stay on topic.

At this time presentation of facts and observable events that are on topic are of course allowed here in meta. Preventing that presentation on thread would look shady at best. Ad hominem attacks and suggesting motivational influences do not  have any bearing on pure facts based presentation and observable events there in black and white.

You are actively enabling the proliferation of incorrect and misleading information by censoring facts and observable events that refute them. You may as well say I want people to only hear a motivated and engineered agenda and only accept the input of those that support that agenda. Totally ludicrous on meta.

For the Meta section, it's a valid point.

Let's compare, it's like saying the Parliament (Meta) is the place to talk and debate about our society, everyone can enter and everyone can raise his/her voice.
But once you're in the parliament and you want to give your opinion, people tell you to shut up.

This is not how you create a friendly environment.

Theymos were saying in a pm Bitcointalk doesn't need politicians,  it's true, but that's exactly what is going on

Page two of a grayed out thread so it seems like a good time to remind: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-boycott-of-replies-to-the-recent-extensive-trolling-by-cryptohunter-5088527

 
What is your opinion on the matter? excluding ad hominem based grounding which is invalid to my central point. The posting of facts and observable events are not altered by motivation so it is irrelevant to this discussion. Posts outside facts based and presentation of observable fact are not part of this thread. That would be for another thread.

Please don't misunderstand this as me having a debate with you, because neither of us have any say in the matter one way or the other. I just posted to tell you about the rules and why they apply. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not stating my opinion on the matter, I'm letting you know that you are breaking the rule #26 and why.

I couldn't care less if you disagree, decide to listen to me, or if you object. I posted to let you know and thats all.

I have read everything that you have posted. What would lead you to believe that I have not.

I am open for debate but ad hominem attacks are not sensible rebuttals. All posts should be judged on the merit of the content the poster identity should largely be irrelevant. Using something that is irrelevant to preclude factual relevant information is quite unsound.

Please read my post and answer each point. I will do the same for you. This is how a debate is supposed to proceed.

You aren't going to read anything I say anyway, so I'll just say Yes.

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?

No. People can set local rules (within reason). Some people don't want to have a debate regardless of the topic. If you feel your voice must be heard, create your own thread.



Not true. If I made a thread and said that someone was not allowed to post in it, and he did, he'd get a warning from a moderator first (post deletion), but a ban would follow if it continued. Local rules are relatively absolute. Now, some things are kind of unenforceable, like, if anyone posts in this thread, they owe me money. Or something to that effect, but not allowing individuals to post in a thread is within their right.

read the rules - you do not dictate them...

That would be only invoked for sales based threads. Where you do not want lower ranks to bid. Or similar situations.

There can be no reason for a moderator ever to remove facts based on topic or relevant discussion. It would be entirely ludicrous especially on a board such as meta.

The optimal result/outcome requires all fact based evidence available be presented for further analysis. You can not start prevent that under any circumstances on a board like meta. I actually believe all facts based opinions should be allowed on ALL posts and that any opinions or statements or accusations that can not be backed with evidence or highly corroborative events should be deleted.

READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU TWO

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

As long as a thread isn't self moderated by the original poster,then anyone and everyone is allowed to air their various views and as long as such inputs are on topic and makes absolute sense then it sure wouldn't be removed by a mod(as only self moderated threads can the OP preside over the discussions),and in the meta board selfmod threads aren't allowed
With that being said I do not know how according to you certain users are smouldering and sniffing out inputs from certain users as regards their original posts.
A user could add certain "clauses" to their posts and advice certain users not to comment on their topic,probably as such users find it difficult to stay on topic and not result in troll upon troll,and I've seen you add such clause couple of times,so I don't see any problem with it.

Fact based, on topic input should be silenced in meta.

I notice some persons are trying to set some local rules in threads to prevent fact based debates taking place so that they may attempt to present a one sided argument and allow only those that support their side to contribute.

No observable events nor facts should ever be precluded from a thread if they are on topic and relevant surely? this enables misleading and false information to proliferate and appear to be valid since there are no rebuttals allowed. This in meta is ludicrous.

This is not in anyway the same as someone setting rules for the type of person that can purchase their items on the sales board. It is your item you can decide who you sell it to. On a discussion board people have the right to present facts that are on topic and relevant. The very notion of trying to preclude persons that can offer a facts based rebuttal/refutation is net negative.

This is just another attempt to silence people that want to rebut and make a sensible, logical and fact based refutation of the central points they are trying to enforce as truth when perhaps they are not.

Setting " rules" for who can reply on a thread in meta is totally corrupt.

All persons posting in meta are subject to the same rules.

Sensible, on topic debate.

When something is off topic then there should be a sensible case provided for why it was off topic and a warning given.

For something to be off topic again needs clear criteria provided.

Actually as many of you have noticed I am very much in favour of developing criteria that can be applied fairly to every person on this forum.