Topic: Mods now deleting posts regarding them supporting scammers? how far can it go? (Read 688 times)

1. demonstrate it is a lie,
a/ find the useful advise
b/prove it was/could be more useful that the alternative actions that I subsequently decided to take

2/You presume that I will continue posting without now creating clarity on what is precisely allowed and not allowed. You are wrong. I will attempt to thrash out the precise details of how a thread should be allowed to flow. Any posts that I locate by "other reporters" will now be reported that do not fit within those confines. Everyone must be treated equally is that not the case here?

I decided to disregard your advice since I decided it was not useful, and was more of a false allegation.

I am open to advice on matters that persons demonstrate they have a greater understanding than myself. I often consult REAL developers on technical matters since those are areas where I appreciate one can not just use reasoning and intuition to find the optimal solution without the correct training and I simply don't have the time for this kind of thing as it takes many years and demands a certain attention span that I don't seem to have for things that are not immediately rewarding. Although I do like listening to people talk about all kinds of things that I have no real training in. I won't go into them here since it could bring my own thread off topic. Who knows if you can get reported for that or not. I will later create a thread that brings clarity to what is off topic, relevant and how the natural flow of a thread needs to be confined. I find this part interesting.

I asked your advice on stats and rewarded you with  merits for the results that you provided me. However that was useful, your prior post was not in its current form. Perhaps if you provide the useful advice then we could debate it on another thread if you really want.

I will end this thread now because it has served no real purpose for me. I am still very confused as to why it was deleted. I feel a sensible thread (non personal) should be created to see if I can understand what and what is not allowed to be posted in a thread. If comparisons to very similar situations to see if precedents can assist on deciding on actions to be taken then are not allowed at all or if it was the level of detail of the similar situation that was the problem. I will try to find out.

As I say the new thread will seek to open debate and generate some sensible transparent criteria we can ALL stick to.

I guess this is the lie that you are telling to yourself and others. I never find you open to an advice.
I think days are not far when I am going to see your own ban appeal thread.

Advice: Do no reply this post , take 30 days break from Meta.

I have demonstrated my post was on topic. How could it be off topic. It was relevant to the OP. How can it not be relevant. I can't see any attempt at using the example to prove it was not relevant.

Anyway the thing you are correct about is that unless theymos is willing to engage in debate on this then nothing can be done. However for historical purposes I have created a sensible explanation as to why it is on topic and relates specifically to the OP.

Go to court and tell them precedents are irrelevant and off topic.

You spared 30 seconds to tell me I should have red trust for liking lemons so forgive me for not taking everything you say at face value without a debate first.

I don't disregard what you say. I take the useful parts of the advice.

I was just letting you know why it looks like your posts were being deleted. I mentioned what the definition of off topic replies was, and attempted to clarify with an example that seems to be relevant to you. I'm going to be blunt, I don't have a spare 3 hours per day to discuss every aspect of every  forum rule. I don't mind spending 30 seconds smashing a keyboard to answer a question you ask, but I'm not going to get sucked into a meaningless discussion over why policies that are 100% outside of both of our controls mean what they mean and whether we each agree with them.

Theymos replied in this thread, that means hes aware of every single one of your claims here. If he chose to ignore them rather than ask you for more details, then the one person who could potentially do anything about whatever situation you are perceiving doesn't care.

I'm not responding to anything you post after this, so don't waste your time trying to engage me. You are welcome to disregard everything that I've said. Put me on ignore if you'd like, I'll probably keep responding to your new threads out of habit.

Please don't create straw men.

Tackle this exact example and take it step by step as i have detailed it. Then make your case on this example.

My post voices an opinion as others did on that post but they have not substantiated their opinion with a comparison, or any other precedents.

That is the only difference. Saying you can not mention any other characters outside of those mentioned in the op when discussing actions to be taken against one of those characters is the same a a judge saying we can not use precedents to discuss fair and consistant actions to be taken. It is ludicrous and would rule out any meaningful discussion except groundless speculations and groundless opinions. Well we could all just give opinions on what we all think should happen to host fat in isolation to others but that seems grossly unfair and foolish.

BTW did you notice I answered your other points in the trolling thread, because I feel I have made a very compelling rebuttal of most of your points. You are free to engage again if you choose.

Not caring if someone agrees is kind of foolish unless you are closed minded and wish not to learn via sensible debate to take on other peoples view points that demonstrate your original views were sub optimal.

why mention the report number? it is pointless and obviously tainted when we know full well that most of meta board is looking to shut me up. Also I am calling into question the mods impartiality due to them supporting these persons with observable dirty pasts being on DT, meriting their attacks on myself and calling my posts stupid and refusing to bring any examples and all spamming the same sigs. I feel there is collusion. So quoting 60 reported 60 good means zero until we have a transparent examination of these posts in their FULL CONTEXT.  You will likely find those reporting are those that want the information contained within the posts hidden from view and deleted.

Ha i mean i see where this is going we just take the number of reports BY UNTRUSTWORTHY scum and their pals TO those that support UNTRUSTWORTHY scum and just use that metric as a reliable and meaningful number that means we can ban people.

Like merit fans. I say your posts are crap and mostly just parroting junk that dont deserve merit at all and break them apart and demonstrate why. They say how is that possible I mean we have more merit that you?? LOL it is a stupid reply obviously.

Surely you are not so silly to take everything at face value. I mean the hostfat thread is about this very subject in the first place.

People frightened of transparent and open debate often have things to hide. Or else why not transparent debate.

Im sorry but open and transparent debate is what forums are for. If you can demonstrate now clearly where I am just unreasonable and clearly lose a debate but repeating observably incorrect information over and over ...then I will take you more seriously. I await your presentation of this observable event.

61 reports is quite a number. It seems like the concept of off topic isn't clicking, or you disagree with the concept. If the Original Post of the topic is not what you are discussing, it isn't allowed. Moderators will give reasonable consideration to posts on very strongly related topics, but regardless of how important or true a post you make is, if it isn't on topic, its getting deleted.

A common example often seen is someone who has been scammed. They will follow the scammer around, posting that they are a scammer after every post the scammer makes. While it might be true, if your post is, "Jerknum1 scammed me for 0.1 BTC!" in a thread about mining hardware, your post is still going to be deleted. I suppose I can give an example of moderator consideration with this scenario if I say that a moderator may not delete that, "Jerknum1 scammed me for 0.1 BTC!" if they are posting in a marketplace thread, and its a warning a potential trader of the open scam accusation.

Main point to take away is that regardless of how true, important, or correct, you are. The post will still be deleted if that is not what the topic is about. Posting about scammers in a thread about lemons will be deleted. Posting about citrus/lemonade in a thread about lemons might be deleted.

Side note, people aren't avoiding having a debate with you because they are afraid you'll epicly prove them wrong. They just don't want to waste their time when a simple, oh hey this is the problem, will do. If you don't agree with anything in my post, I honestly don't care, I'm just letting you know in case you actually had some misunderstanding of why your posts were being deleted.

sssshhhh please I will open this debate with you later.

What you have just said is quite stupid in light of your own post that speculates on the action that should be taken with no supporting argument or precedent.

I am simply making a better post than your own in terms of not just spouting opinions with no grounding.

Mine makes several useful comparisons and precedents that can assist the optimal solution. I.E is hostfat conducting himself in any way that would other wise result in other mods being banned in the past.


Your post is basically garbage and groundless opinion like your prior post. It does not even consider the full implications of what the op is asserting. LOL  I mean it is almost a strawman you create there. He is not saying he just wants him banned for that which you state, he is saying that host fat is overtly trying to silence him and threaten him with a ban. We know that is the action of people that often want to silence others.

Save your ass kissing for later on. I will let you kiss mine after I rip your argument to shreds. For now I prefer to let theymos answer since his opinion counts even if he will not justify or explain it. But I am hoping for the best and still remaining nice even though he takes away my rightful merits and supports my abusers and threatens to ban me.

For some reason though i feel there is still hope to bring theymos back to the light. It reminds me of that scene in lord of the rings when gandalf frees theoden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI

None of what you wrote in that post has anything to do with the OP of the thread you posted in.

Who reported a post doesn’t matter because it was a mod that reviewed the post and confirmed it was against the rules. You should expect a post that breaks the rules to eventually get reported.

I don’t report many posts anymore because it has turned into a contest for some people and I don’t like that, but that post is probably something I would report as being off topic.

Please make a sensible detailed examination - look I will make it step by step. Just stop me at the step you feel is incorrect.

Let's walk through this and have a sensible debate. I mean perhaps I am wrong. Step by step. Let's see.


THE THREAD IN QUESTION.

Let's take it step by step.


People are discussing their opinions of whether hostfat should be banned or not. Not just the OP many others are voicing their opinions on "action" or banning of hostfat...but not substantiating their opinions to any degree that I can see.

hostfat - is a mod = yes or no?  - then other mods and their SIMILAR actions are of course on topic as a precedent and for obvious comparison. If we are considering if he should be banned or not?

Prior instances of mods supporting observable scammers/liars and other observably untrustworthy persons and examining if they get banned or not is of course totally relevant and sets a precedent and back ground? This is what the thread is about.? how could it possibly be irrelevant or off topic.

What is the point of just saying yes ban or not ban him with nothing to compare to or no precedent ? it makes no sense to keep it entirely ON ONLY the individual person and the individual sponsor?? how is that even sensible?? suggesting you are not allowed to bring in similar instances to make a reasonable case for actions is nonsense. Judges use precedents to decide on actions, lawyers told please don't mention or bring up precedents or you will be in contempt of court or struck off would be ludicrous.

How can you speculate or decide on the fate of a mod for certain actions without considering SIMILAR situations in the past/present? I mean it would be pointless to speculate with no background or precedent right??

The rest of the post is called bringing a supporting case to substantiate the view that you are presenting? all of which is true. Or do you find some of it incorrect?? because if you do not list it in that post then people will start asking for details of what you mean or to clarify and it start to lose focus.

How would another post saying " i don't think hostfat will be banned for that" be helpful in the slightest without bringing a supporting case and precedent??

The supporting case I present for HOSTFAT  not likely to get banned in my opinion for this true and I can bring evidence to support each of the claims.

Saying this kind of reply is license to ban is ludicrous. This post if voted on outside of the weird world of meta would be found to be on topic. There is no need for others to derail by taking it on to discussing DT. .

I do not believe 60 of those 60 were good. I don't think even 20 of those could be demonstrated in the full context of the thread to be good reports. I often start posting ON topic and relevant posts and suddenly get attacked by this same scum and start answering their accusations. THEY ARE causing it. Ban them .

Have people ever been banned before for presenting " largely on topic " observable events and historical back ground?

What about suchmoon saying they were taking me off ignore to deliberately get my posts deleted??

What about my fake red trust?

ALSO

1. what happened to addressing the rest of my post?

2. why threaten people with the silencing hammer when you have not even conclusively won the debate at all?
that is heavy handed cowardly tactics.

4. 60 good (who says they are good wheres the debate) I am calling out mods as supporting these scumbags who are reporting me ....of course they may well mark them as good.  

 . Let us examine every single one and let me demonstrate in the context of the personal attacks on myself that would have taken place in each of these instances that I was simply defending myself and presenting observable events and facts. Why are they all not getting banned for posting offtopic junk and nonsense in my threads over and over and totally flouting my local rules. DOUBLE STANDARDS. Yes that's right I don't bother snitching and crying to the mods or you because I am no snitcher. Even if I report posts for breaking my local rules they get ignored. I mean just go to my threads saying no making it personal. BOOM straight away all DT launching personal attacks straight away.

5. do you refuse a public debate with me on all the OTHER issues I raised in the above post. YES OR NO.
I am more eager to debate the trust system and those persons observably dominating it far more than my posts being deleted.

I mean I am accepting that I could be wrong about this and I just need to adjust my point of view on how forums work and debates are allowed to unfold. However so far I do not see at all how that post is off topic or irrelevant else of course I would not have even brought a thread about it? I am not complaining just so that it can be demonstrated I was wrong and it should have been deleted.



I am grateful for this board and to you really in the big picture, and it is not without regret I find myself having to react like this towards you personally. However you are  the warden of this board entrusted by satoshi and you should consider the wider implications of the systems of control you are creating here and the people that are slipping into sub admin controlling positions.. People being treated fairly and equally is something that must be fought for even if it means some people must eventually sacrifice their own accounts for this cause.

From now on I will detail in my posts how each part is relevant and on topic and post only observable events. If that gets my posts deleted I will be requesting open debate on each and every one.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you since I guess there is no way to actually win some personal battle here with you. I mean down here you are the train man. However I just want to help you see that I am honestly here to help the board more than you realise.

I ask again how did I end up the bad guy here?













.

One of the deleted posts:


Nothing in that huge rant has really anything to do with the case involving HostFat and therocktrading. You mentioned HostFat, but you didn't actually address anything related to the topic; you just tried yet another filibuster on your DT talking points.

We see you doing this over and over again. There are 61 good reports against you in the last 60 days. You're going to get banned if you keep this up.

LETS DEBATE THIS LIKE ADULTS THEYMOS.

I am heading for 30yrs old in a few years, and I wish to just have a sensible and reasonable discussion. I am not against you or this board. I am grateful for this place. I am a big fan of this board of course. Free speech is what has made it great and we should not sell this out to get a handle on some account farmers and bots.


1. the thread is about hostfat ( a mod)  that is apparently trying to silence a critic of his sponsor and should apparently be banned on this basis.

2. Lauda shows up and says that hostfat is a terrible mod and its a shady sponsor.

now when a discussion starts to form you need to analyse the information each person presents ( if it is relevant) and analyse it. To make the best informed decision you want the discussion to have ALL possible related information right?? Lauda presents zero supporting evidence for his claims.

3. I present some on topic and relevant information that could  help people reach the optimal solution here

a/ we must consider lauda can be observed telling lies for financial gain so his opinion without evidence must be viewed in full knowledge of that..

b/ the other observable dirty looking events in laudas history that demonstrate that obviously any REAL mod or admin would likely not be that favourable to lauda.

c/  this  supporting of observable shady deeds and those committing them is unlikely to result in a ban as the OP is requesting because we can observe other mods openly support those who commit shady deeds and they are not banned.


4/ I notice later the OP for some reason just takes on laudas comment at face value. Likely because it bolsters his own. Rightly or wrongly is as yet unknown.


The ranting?? I guess you mean observable events that demonstrate you are allowing a liar, scam promoter (yes we can debate darkcoin being a scam if you like, it is clear to most including the dev who offered a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation due to my highlighting this fact that there was obviously wrongdoing at the start. ).

I mean you are clear that scamming is lying for financial or unfair gain right? also a trust abuser and probable extortionist to red trust people who mention these observable events after he attacks them?

I can not at all see where it is

1. off topic
2. derailing
3. irrelevant.

I just need to understand how those things are off topic , irrelevant and derailing. Perhaps I just don't get this board but I see other discussions where people look way off topic and just bring in tons of personal attacks THAT ARE GROUNDLESS and therefore totally derailing. I mean if they are not true how can they be relevant?

Why are you not taking action against people that are abusing these systems you have left wide open to gross abuse and that irrefutably is leading to free speech being left vulnerable ? why are you leaving this to me?

Can you not see they don't care about anything you tell them? they continue to use red trust as a weapon to silence people.

Have you even looked into my abuse? do you realise that it is quite possible to argue that I stopped bitcoin getting knocked into 2nd place for the first time in history? and caused people who think they can get away with lying for financial gain and unfair advantage (scammers) to offer a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation airdrop. Do you not realise I fight for the people getting bullied around here?

Let's discuss things here. I can help you and this board but you are not going in the correct direction. I do not believe you want to suffocate free speech but you are allowing others to do so. Can you not see how merit and trust can be used to stifle free speech yes or no?

Are you going to let this place become an echo chamber milked to death by these revolting scum bags?

How come I am the bad guy on this board all of a sudden. I first bumped into lauda when he was telling bare faced lies for financial gain. Nothing has change with this dirt bag and yet you support his actions of red trusting me after this piece of scum OUT OF NOWHERE appeared on my threads derailing and making false accusations I am a liar??
So I if he continues to keep repeating these lies without presenting evidence I will encourage others to look into his past??

I am the bad guy? wtf is this place.

Then his "pals" who come in on his extortion crap and can see operating as a gang start red trusting me more when I complain about it. They admit they will red trust be for " presenting facts"

This is unbelievable and certainly unfair.

All I want is for all persons to be treated fairly and equally. Sorry if that makes me the bad guy here.

I will not tolerate a scamming tag put on my account. I am the fairest person I have met and also I have never scammed anyone in my life. Actually I don't see anything I have done at all wrong since being here all of these years.

These people are scammers and scumbags and are daring to put this crap on my account because I told the truth about them after they attacked me.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM I have had enough of this bullshit already. These are not excellent members these are scum bags. There is nothing that can prevent people from seeing this by simply reading their histories here.

OP - a big of unsolicited advice to you:
Instead of attacking the person who took action against you, it would be better to attack the action taken against you.
Instead of challenging the mod, you should dispute the fact your post was deleted.

I have no idea what your deal is, or if it was right to delete your post or not. I have no interest in investigating if your post was deleted wrongly, and will not take a position for or against deleting your post.

From what I can see, you are involved in creating a lot of drama, and should cut back some.

Stompix loading popcorn bag after popcorn bag in the microwave....

Brilliant..

Get the hint CH

I did. Feel free to rant all you want in your own topics, but quit derailing unrelated topics.

So the girl who does not give a fuck is here again to comment. I see.

SO YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE ANY INCORRECT INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PRESENTED.

thanks for confirming that most of your pals are liars and making false allegations. Helpful as ever.

Same gang all merit cycling, voting each other on DT, all protecting each other in threads. haha


and then they said there is no collusion ....................hahahahah

The correctness or incorrectness of the information doesn't even come into it (we've got a flat Earth thread, FFS); you're just not allowed to proliferate it "all over the board". Create a single thread for each topic you wish to discuss, and don't post outside of those threads where your information is not relevant.

hehe the gang....

Well provide evidence you clowns then I can take you seriously. Else you will just provide my daily entertainment like usual.

I see here already we have many of the proven untrustworthy scum bags on this thread.

Bring some examples of the incorrect information that I am proliferating all over the board.

I challenge you to Bring it here now?

What you mean is please cryptohunter stop presenting observable events that demonstrate we are untrustworthy scum. Isn't it ?

LOL a LAUDA here now begging .... please ban him he keeps presenting observable events that clearly show I am scum. I mean surely he should be banned and I should be DT and merit source haha

Keep dreaming saps. Cryptohunter or his loyal friends are never going to be gone. EVER.


More like it seems the threshold for banning liars, scammers, extortionists, trust abusers, escrow abusers of senior scumbags seems unobtainable.  I've experience your lies and scamming since you joined you dirt bag. Get back  from whence you came

Exactly. The amount of off-topic posting required to get you banned seems to be very high for high ranked members.

Maybe you should keep all your complaints about how the forum is run in one thread?
I think it’d even be worth allowing you your own sub section to vent about everything - It’d benefit both yourself & the rest of the community.

I think everybody is sick of you starting multiple threads, regularly, about pretty much the same stuff over & over again.

Seriously, I’m not even trolling. A cryptohunter forum ideas & proposals subsection would be a good idea because people who just want to come into Meta & avoid you wouldn’t have to see it.

Anybody agree with me?