Topic: Moderator deletion of serious discussion in the Wall Observer - page 2. (Read 917 times)

Doge sats, obviously.  You are not a very good cat; and your ignorance about Bitcoin is astonishing:

• Newbie protip #0:  fluffypony is (or at some point was?) a self-described Bitcoin maximalist.  He oftentimes comments on Bitcoin, especially on Bitcoin privacy and fungibility issues.  The fluffy tweet that I posted was specifically and only about Bitcoin—which you would know, if you had actually read it.  —By the way, do you know what p2pool and Stratum v2 are?  Do you know anything about Bitcoin?  
• Reading comprehension protip #0:  You should read a post before commenting on it!  That was not “a fluffypony post” (!).  It cited Riccardo Spagni as a source, because he had been cited by the Russian-language article which gave me a heads-up on an existential threat to Bitcoin, its privacy, and its fungibility.  (And that in turn came from the Russian analysis thread, which has much more serious discussion than WO or almost anywhere else in the English-language forum.)
• Reading comprehension protip question #1:  Who taught you to read, so that you could write with neither reading nor thinking?
  
  Quote from: nullius on November 14, 2020, 01:31:18 PM
  Quote from: nullius on November 14, 2020, 09:55:10 AM

  Quote from: The “Report to moderator” page for any Wall Observer post

  Special Wall Observer rules: bitcointalk.org moderators do not moderate the Wall Observer thread for multi-posting (except obvious spam), trolling, or on-topicness. Do not use this form to report those violations; instead, contact the thread owner. Reports of other rule violations are OK here.
• Newbie protip #2:  Lurk more.  (← nullius doesn’t do moar cuter spellings.)  You don’t know what the WO thread is about.

Original topic title: Should Bitcoin Wall Observer thread be deleted? (original OP)
Cf.:

So, instead of building what you want, you want to turn the existing thread into something that it is not, and never has been.  Instead of advocating that others should file bad-faith reports against the rule stated on the reporting page, why don’t you go make a tempest in a teacup.


Your opinions are duly noted, and filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️

---

I was amidst much extending this post, when others popped up.  inb4 CT re SwayStar, etc.  I may edit this space (or post further if the thread gets ahead of me).

---

Quote from: V8s Road Warrior on November 15, 2020, 10:25:09 AM

In defence of the honour of cats, I should mention that .  Despite what I said earlier, I think that Lauda would have made an excellent Wall moderator.  I expect that she probably would have deleted somewhat more posts than infofront has; but not unreasonably so, for she understood the Wall!  I was paying infofront what was perhaps the highest compliment that I could.

Editing in a brief abstract:

The “long Lauda story” was directly topical to WO, insofar as my Wall knowledge did not begin when I started actively to post there in March.  Once upon a time, the kitty-catbat-witch first introduced me to WO as part of some private mentoring on “how to do the forum”:  Trust system, moderation system, significant forum history, forum culture and etiquette, etc., etc.  I may never have even seen WO otherwise:  I am not a speculator, so I do not generally venture into the speculation forums.

I must emphasize that my opinions are my own.  As I have said before, Lauda oftentimes cordially disagreed with me; I am hereby speaking not for her, but only for myself!  However, it bears noting that when I make grand pronouncements as if by long experience, it has some greater basis than may be inferred from my activity.  It is indeed on the same basis that I have been not infrequently accused of being an alt for an old account—no; my level of knowledge about the forum rises from (0) having on-and-off lurked, especially in Development & Technical Discussion, for years before I registered; and (1) a bit of subsequent initiation into the dark arts of witchcraft. 😼

On a related note:

Quote from: nullius on November 14, 2020, 07:44:44 PM

... judicious ... seriously ... dispassionately ...

It is a hint that there is a side of me which may not be perceived from a shallow view of my public posts.  I should not need to make that explicit; for anyone with even a modicum of practical wisdom knows that a public persona gives limited information, anyway.

---

Significant edits:  Immediately after posting re V8s, about an hour after the fact with elaboration thereupon, and then much later to add some anchor tags.

Can I just point out that I've never had a post deleted on WO.
For anyone that has read them ... well, I'm sure JJG can attest that this means a lot.

Decent points, 1miau.  Seems reasonable that there should at least be attempts to tie walls of text into bitcoin... and not just by mentioning bitcoin here and there, but substantively.

I have been around the WO thread as much as many other forum members, and surely I have witnessed that there are a lot of off-topic rants that are allowed to stay and even endure for days and weeks on end without much if any attempt to remove them - so I am not really sure exactly how disparities would be resolved regarding why some off-topic rants are allowed to stay, while others, such as nullius-type rants that do NOT even attempt to tie in bitcoin, are not allowed to stand - just like with any moderator decision, there may be something about the pervasiveness of the off-topicness rather than merely that off-topicness happens that cause the moderator to conclude that the off-topicness has crossed over some kind of line that is not exactly clear, since we all know that sporadic and even persistent off-topicness is considerably tolerated in WO...

Per sway? I hope it's not too toxic for ya.

Looks like I was one of those reporting it since hilariousandco said you had a few reports against you. Maybe more people are annoyed but too afraid to speak up because they will get hit by another spam wall.   

I’ve never reported anything on WO before because there was nothing close of being up for reports but when reading WO with great TA, great stats and a positive attitude to reach new ATHs for BTC, in opposite your spam walls (whereof 2/3 aren’t even mentioning Bitcoin in a single word; I could argue about the fluffypony post) are surely annoying in my opinion. I’ve considered it as obvious off-topic spam and undoubtedly, a moderator shared my view and deleted it.
I wasn’t sure if it’ll get deleted, so Kudos to the mod, I’m supporting this move 100%.

We have a similar local topic (German) called “Der aktuelle Kursverlauf” (German WO). Moderation is relatively strict there and I’m always advocating for less moderation there. Even posts which are about Bitcoin but not directly tied to price discussion are frequently deleted there (happened to me once).
So, it means a lot that I’ve reported some of your posts (I’m rarely reporting on “Der aktuelle Kursverlauf”).
And as said before, I’ve never reported anything on WO before.

After all I can’t understand why you are getting so extremely butthurt because someone deleted your spamwalls. ^^


WO is a place where I’m awaiting positivity about Bitcoin, not obvious off-topic spam walls.

Just my 2 sats.   

Report button in WO should be remapped to OP (infofront currently) or removed entirely and that would take care of this issue.

Reports to the moderators are supposed to be confidential.  Much though I myself want to know which ovine retard filled with petty spite decided to try to shut me up with false reports (and I can’t help but think to myself a few guesses), I think that I should better leave that knowledge to the forum staff.  They should take notice of who makes reports in bad faith, and be guided accordingly.

(Edited to add—by way of contrary example:  As hilarious can easily verify, I myself am judicious with my reporting.  In public discussions, I exercise my right to express myself as I please.  Whereas I take mod reports very seriously.  I would never report a post in bad faith—let alone ignore a red-lettered note on the reports page, which warns that a report should not be made!  Reports should be made dispassionately—and never only, or even primarily on the basis of personal dislike for the author of a post.  If I dislike the author of a post that I am reporting, I oft consciously double-check and ask myself what I would do if I didn’t know who wrote it.)

---

I refrained from commenting on this, because I pretty much assumed that an ordinary intelligent moderator handling an “off-topic” report must perforce ascertain what the topic is supposed to be.  Thank you for contributing your explanation.


This may have been a hint—right here, upthread in a thread on which you are commenting:


I assume that you saw that.  Although you claim to have me on ignore, it would show exceedingly poor judgment to comment on a thread without reading OP, and OP’s responses.

---

^^^ Good question.


I will express my due respect for your fairness here, without disclaiming that I am not your fan, either. ;-)

---

Indeed.  If his name checks out, then he should be one of my biggest fans!  

That said, this is a serious thread.  Much though I enjoy interposing a moment of levity, I share your hope for serious answers here.

While that may be the case the one of his  I highlighted is on topic and had really good info in it.

Would love the deleter to explain his or hers reasoning for killing it off.

To be clear I am not a fan of nullius, but a good post is still a good post.

I guess I won't know the why of it.

Looking at the posts quoted earlier in the thread it looks like [WO] is part of the the post title that nullius created. Is that what you're seeing?

What I was getting at is if moderators don't get a warning AND the posts are re-titled (don't have "Wall Observer" in the title anymore) then it might contribute to the issue of them not realizing that special rules apply... OTOH if it was reported as "off-topic" then the moderator should have looked which thread it's in.

Love to know by whom. The WO is supposed to be a place where pretty much anything goes. It’s bad form to be reporting stuff in the WO; I hope it isn’t a regular poster there.

A quick search in the archived posts show that you have no posts in the WO thread; checked both accounts just in case

Well I don't recall ever seeing any before, but in the handled reports section I see they're marked as [WO] which I don't recall seeing before either and that thread isn't showing up in my Show new replies to your posts either even though I'm pretty sure I must have posted it it at some point before. Maybe that thread is ignored to me or something.

hahahahaha


Truly hilariousandco should appreciate your level of "hilariousness", nullius... in terms of a lack of an ability to take responsibility for your own evil-genius aspirations to topple a wordy man from his petard.   

Do mods see a warning when they try to moderate WO, or do they need to remember that thread ID 178336 has special rules?

Thanks for the reply.  Aren’t “off-topic” reports for WO supposed to be marked as bad by the forum moderators?


I ask because I do try in good faith to abide by the forum rules.  (And if I were to object to a rule in principle, then I would take it up in Meta in an appropriate manner, instead of just violating it—either that, or go get my own forum.  This being a private forum, as I remarked in OP hereby.)

---

Although I had occasionally lurked there before, and some others there are quite serious, it was JayJuanGee’s serious discussion that first attracted me actively to post in WO.  He is a legend of the forum’s great Wall—to the extent that some people apparently think that he should be walled up there as JJG’s Dungeon. ;-)

Blame the wordy-man for attracting another wordy-man!  


Thanks.  Quotable. ;-)

---

Although your points in the rest of your post are well taken, I should highlight again the context of what was deleted here:  Three serious posts.  One specifically about a Bitcoin issue.  One about thought control.  And one about censorship on Big Tech social media (and by the way, please also consider the time it took me to craft that post—which I do not want to say).

If I were to knock off-the-cuff some funny remark about someone else’s post of a woman in a bikini, and a moderator were to delete it, then I would disagree with that—but do you suppose that I would even take the time to make a Meta thread such as this one?  (Again, I do not want to say...)


Although I do not want to speculate on that hereby, it is an unavoidable reality that I am widely disliked.


Indeed.  If he were to do that, then I would fire off some scathing remarks about how he ruined WO, and then I would fuck off.  But that is not hereby the issue.

infofront has, in my opinion, kept the Wall Observer what it is.  A huge amount of stuff is thereby posted which I dislike; infofront does not delete it, and he should not.  I will even admit that I like his WO policy better than what Lauda’s probably would have been, had she won his position when she was a candidate; Lauda was an excellent staff member, but I think that she would have been too heavy-handed for the Wall Observer.

---

Arguing against my expectation that I can safely post serious discussion outside of the forum named Serious Discussion—are you serious!?  

I don’t know why anybody takes you so seriously.  You are not an administrator, you are not staff, you are not even very smart—well, are are exceptionally skilled at winning popularity contests.  You may guess how much weight I accord to popular opinion.  Anyway, I do not accept Bitcointalk SV (Suchmoon’s Vision).  I am “excempt” from your “rules”.


To your idiotic calumny, which you state hereby in the third person only because you are too much of a thin-skinned coward to address me straight to my face, I will simply quote myself:


Edit:  For those who have not experienced the Wall Observer, have a taste:

I didn't remove them but there's a few reports against you there for off topic posts.

The line between WO and Serious Discussion has been quite thin for weeks (and probably from the very beginning, but I've not been active long enough to be able to know with certainty). I think nullius' posts are a category of their own and maybe Serious Discussion > Ivory Tower > Nullius' Dungeon might be a solution to avoid having his posts deleted from the WO in the future.

Now seriously, I thought it was virtually impossible to have a post deleted from the WO (except for the obvious trolling or spamming). There's probably thousands of other "serious" posts in the WO, so to avoid any discussion or confusion for nullius or any other member in the future, it might be useful to know what the exact reason for deletion was.

Maybe nullius should stop fucking around with the post titles... seems like a dumb thing to do when you're posting in the one thread that allows bending a few rules. A mod may have made a mistake here but I wouldn't rush to blame them if the post title signals "I'm derailing this thread".

Also there is literally a board named "Serious Discussion". That's where serious discussion can go without being subject to the uncertainty of a special excempt self-mod thread.