Well staff agreed you were abusing the trust system and excluded you as a result. I would say that is pretty solid substantiation.
I don't know about that particular staff and vod's story and i don't care, but the quoted statement of yours is wrong, just because a staff thinks something it does not mean it is the ultimate unquestionable proof of anything, some staff here are excluded terribly from DT and their judgment sucks.
Also reading your signature and how you describe staff and then using the same group of people as a reference of honesty and accuracy is funny, which one is correct ? Your signature or the quoted part?
I know it is hard for you to do so, but i hope you would remain calm and don't bring up that attitude on me , just answer the question
Yeah why would you care to inform yourself about a subject when you can be totally ignorant and have a strong opinion about it anyway, Mr. I just had my 1 year anniversary here? I never said anything about "ultimate unquestionable proof of anything". At the time BadBear was basically Theymos's right hand man and was pretty much the main moderator. That is not the case any longer, but you were not around for any of this anyway so what the fuck do you know? If you really care about my signature you can read more
here, but clearly you are just here to brown nose and play little games. If you don't like my attitude maybe you should check your own.
This Mr. Has more merit than couple hundreds of legendary members combined, a DT member and most importantly has no enemies on forum and has been always helpful and constructive aside from sometime enjoying the drama on Meta as everyone here does
But all of the above is irrevlent to the subject in hand, one does not need a master degree in Bitcointalk to know bullshit when they see it.
Simple logic states that at least one of the statements you stated are wrong, you reffered to staff action as a "very solid substantiation" , but in your signature you reffer to their action as the total opposite, now there are only three possibilities.
1- your claim about the staff action removing Vod as " substantiation" is wrong
2-your claim about the staff in your signature is wrong
3-both claims are wrong.
You can't be "selective" in describing someone's action, they are either accurate or not.
So pick one of the above / answer the question, or go for a more convenient option which is "attacking" me.
Ooo, merit. Very impressive. The above is VERY relevant, because you just showed up within the last year, and as a result you were not around to witness previous happenings, therefore your conclusions are based on limited information. You even explicitly said "I don't know about that particular staff and vod's story and i don't care", so you are not only poorly informed, you are willfully ignorant based on your own statements.
The premise you are presenting is a logical fallacy called a
false choice.
1. Badbear was staff. Badbear removed Vod from his trust list. Vod was removed from his trust list as a direct result of his abusive behavior. A staff member agreed his behavior was abusive.
2. This is not an all or nothing premise. The staff can exercise selective enforcement and also make credible choices simultaneously, they are not exclusive concepts. Furthermore there is more than one member of the staff.
3. See 1 & 2.
