Topic: Natural permitted flow of a thread - 1. The false allegation. (Read 562 times)

@SS  you are blue...

It is, anyone could leave anyone negative feedback for liking lemons if they really felt like it.

Yes, but you claimed it was a legitimate use of the trust system and it is not. Red trust is for proven scammers and those STRONGLY intending to scam. If people can give red trust because you said you like lemons or for telling the truth about others wrongdoing the score becomes meaningless. So I disagree.

I don't want to debate you because I don't care about your opinion

this is not a sensible attitude to take though because you could well be denying yourself the opportunity to adopt a more optimal approach or outlook.

False allegations don't matter all that much, this is the internet, just ignore the people you don't like, and that is really the extent of your recourse unless its a major issue that requires moderator intervention (death threats, doxing, etc). If someone calls you a flea infested coke head, you don't challenge them to a battle of wits, you say, yeah whatever.

Some false allegations do matter especially if you do not want to appear with a scam tag on or have your argument or points dismissed on FALSE grounds. I agree with you on flea infested coke head, but then replying something similar to them with accompanying evidence to support your claim seems fair play. If you post is then deleted then their posts should be too.

If someone claims you scammed them, you provide evidence that you didn't, if they want to refute your proof, thats on them, if not, leave it as is

If only this was so easy. Often it is only possible if they supply the details of the scam. With open ended accusations where they do NOT even give their example you can only request that they supply the evidence or example on which they are basing this claim. Often they will NOT and they just keep repeating it as if it were true.

The ONLY option open to you in this instance is to provide your own evidence of their untrustworthy deeds based upon observable events that can discredit their false claims.

You are very caught up on observable facts and all, but what happens if someone disagrees with you? Then its no longer a fact, its an opinion. I've been stating the lemon thing as absolute fact, but you seem to disagree with me. There are very few facts on this forum, moderator discretion is what allows them to classify trolling versus people having a difference of opinion.

This part to me is clearly wrong.  I class an observable event (the term I mostly use) as something I can observe. When I say it is an observable event or even a fact that the pharmacist was caught red handed using a sock puppet account himself or that notildah is an account seller or tman said he will, can and just has given me red trust for presenting facts then these are clearly observable events and to me meet the threshold of being a fact i.e. " something that is true or something that has occurred"

You saying liking lemons makes me untrustworthy and deserving of red trust is just your opinion it does not mean it is an observable fact.

So I do not agree.

TLDR; In my opinion, you need to relax. Stop caring so much what others think. Who cares if there are some people you think are jerks, ignore them. If you can't look past what other people are doing, you are going to be incredibly unhappy here, and I imagine everywhere else. Stop worrying about potential loopholes that have existed for years, but nothing has come of them.

this is potentially true and I do not care what THEY think, i do care that they have via these broken systems given themselves the power to scam tag my account for telling the truth about them after they lied about me. I find it unfair and I also see this kind of thing leading to the crushing of free speech here on this entire board.

I had 5 minutes of freetime with nothing better to do, so I wrote out more than a few words. If you want to work on saving your own time, I'd recommend not responding to me, I might read your response, I probably wont respond. By the way, believe it or not, I'm not a jerk (as far as I know) I'm not a short tempered crotchety miserable existence thats just here to tell you what to do. I'm just a fella who advocates for being aloof when it comes to forum drama, and saving everyone's sanity one blunt paragraph at a time.

I like your replies, You are generally polite and also it is enjoyable for me to see if I can gain new insights that would benefit me and as ever I am open minded and ready to adopt a more optimal view on anything. You are one of the far better posters here and do have a reasonable degree of critical analysis which I enjoy. Just because I am not unwilling to adopt to much of what you say does not mean I do not want to continue to debate with you. I have lots of free time and it is often hard to discuss anything other than cars or females with most people so the forum although hostile is actually great fun for me.  I never feel upset although I do get hostile to those than unfairly seek to give me a scam tag or give others a scam tag when they are observably the ones more deserving of them in many cases. I do not like to see observable double standards permitted, condoned , sanctioned and even supported by people that are meant to be impartial.

Anyway as always yours was the best post on my thread (except my own imho) so it is always good see you reply. There are very few people on the entire board that can have a reasonable debate and stay civil. Perhaps a handful that I have encountered.

@actmyname

Can we stop with the local thread rule bullshit on Meta?

Yes I would prefer meta was not allowed to have local rules, I have already had an entire thread that states local rules can create an echo chamber

If you look back at my local rules in time you will notice they only stated previously

Any person can contribute so long as they don't just voice groundless attacks, all opinions should be accompanied by some form of argument, case or observable events/ examples.

But still they just came and with false accusations and would not present any evidence when I called them to present it.

What is 'making it personal'? Can you rigorously define that?

What I mean is.. and I think i detailed it more previously in hypothetical scenario based threads..

No mentioning peoples user names here or presenting examples of instances here on this board. It is meant as a hypothetical example so it does not crash down into a full scale war and insults. If we can keep it hypothetical at times then it is possible to keep it from becoming too personal.

Even then the first comment from them was that I was butthurt and trolling and more personal remarks in the very first post so I then just had to use the local rules to prevent them from posting at all ,,,, however suchmoon just posted anyway after recognising he should not by talking about it in the thread from which I am excluded in rep  and contains posters I said should not post here.

This proves they report me for posting in their local rules based threads but just feel it fine to do it in mine.

I am quite happy for local rules to be abolished in meta they are not appropriate here really.

If false accusations regarding a persons observable actions on this board can not be backed up with observable events/examples they should be punished seriously. You should be able to present a case/examples for your accusations that holds up to scrutiny or forced to retract or be punished.

There should not be loop holes where false accusers and those that are observably untrustworthy get rewarded and the wrongly accused are punished. Let's close that down and set some precedents to discourage this behaviour.

If your post, in response to a false allegation, is: "Your claims are unsubstantiated. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion." then I do not see why it would be off-topic at all. Do you have an example of one such response that was deleted?

Well perhaps someone can find how to get the posts back because they were in my mail box but they seem gone now? i was only reading them the other day and had previously created an entire thread on that delete.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50064384

that was his message bringing me on topic under a false accusation and no evidence

I posted something like this with some hostility I am

a/ present evidence and examples of these walls of nonsense and slime that should be burned or remove this accusation.

b/ i presented evidence that he himself is proven to have sneakily created a sock puppet account to racist troll shit post all over the board for extra btc dust and then I posted the evidence of this taking place.

this to me is a fair response to him making me on topic for posting noxious slim walls of nonsense and bring me into and OP regarding shitposting and banning people. In light they already tried to ban me 2x and also have red trusted me for telling the truth about them before.

I think a few more back and forths and my posts got vaporised and they still just get to discuss me in terms of the OP without any evidence and their posts are fine.

This is just one example. Mainly I guess the posts do go off topic slightly after I am falsely accused or they will provide no evidence when I ask for it but continue to state it as if it is true.

This is just 1 kind of example of why my posts are deleted and yes the mods may be acting within their mandate but it is a loophole to allow untrustworthy people to falsely accuse trustworthy persons falsely and then get them punished or banned for simply demanding evidence or presenting observable events to discredit the false accusers if they keep on doing it.

Actually I just found another strange glitch when looking through my deleted posts. I have exactly the same posts delete 3 times at different time stamps. So this is also a problem when stacking up numbers of deleted posts.

Anyway I am going through every single deleted post. So far I find none that are false accusations or not accompanied by observable events and many seem to maybe even have been deleted for quoting someone elses post that was deleted? does that count as a delete against me? Actually ignore that it is going off topic here i guess.

If a "local rule" is added after the thread is created, it is not in effect.
If a "local rule" states that user A cannot post in the thread, then user A should not post in the thread. Regardless of how unfair the rule is, it is at the moderator's discretion for enforcement and if I were A then I would stay on the side of caution. Create a new thread in response.

Agreed, quite a few of my deletes are because I did not realise local rules were real I thought they just made that up. Also when they showed me the actual rule I could not believe it was valid in meta board where the truth is paramount.

However if you create a counter thread too often, you will just then called a spammer and they will insist that is reason for a ban. False accusations with regard a persons observable actions on this board should be supported with evidence or observable events at point of accusation.

@direwolf
your first local rule is quite indicative; you don't really want to debate you only want a platform to rant

nice to start with a false allegation

I've said it to you before; you take things way too seriously here

off topic but I will class it as natural flow.

Well when you get a scam tag for simply asking people to look into the post history of someone that falsely accuses you of lying 3 x and will not present any evidence then I will tell you you are over reacting when you mention it and get pissed off. Then if you complain about it and 2 of their observable colluding pals in other schemes come and red tag you then I will tell you stop worrying about it. Then when they admit they gave you red trust for presenting facts and you say they need to remove it another friend of theirs says that is blackmail and you need more red. Then we will all say in public let's all now try and report his posts and get him banned for that. Then mods come and give 10 merits to posts saying your posts are all stupid shit, and receive 20 merits from those that red trust you for simply saying we want you to leave the board.

Then I will just say you are taking it all too seriously and there is no problems here it is just you, and its' all your own fault and you cause all of your own issues.

@cryptohunter, your first local rule is quite indicative; you don't really want to debate you only want a platform to rant.  Read SaltySpitoon's last post.  If you have to take a step back and pretend it was in response to some other than you.  There's a lot of good advice there.  I've said it to you before; you take things way too seriously here.  It's just an online forum for the discussion of something that's bound to attract all types of personalities, some you'll appreciate and some you'll detest. 

Such is life (no pun intended.)

Can we stop with the local thread rule bullshit on Meta?

What is 'making it personal'? Can you rigorously define that?

---

If your post, in response to a false allegation, is: "Your claims are unsubstantiated. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion." then I do not see why it would be off-topic at all. Do you have an example of one such response that was deleted?

If a "local rule" is added after the thread is created, it is not in effect.
If a "local rule" states that user A cannot post in the thread, then user A should not post in the thread. Regardless of how unfair the rule is, it is at the moderator's discretion for enforcement and if I were A then I would stay on the side of caution. Create a new thread in response.

It is, anyone could leave anyone negative feedback for liking lemons if they really felt like it.

Again, to be blunt for the sake of not mincing words, not as any sort of personal attack, but I don't want to debate you because I don't care about your opinion. You ask a question, I try to reply, if we don't see eye to eye, its no big deal. I answer quite a few threads that appear in meta, I probably said it before, its out of habit.

False allegations don't matter all that much, this is the internet, just ignore the people you don't like, and that is really the extent of your recourse unless its a major issue that requires moderator intervention (death threats, doxing, etc). If someone calls you a flea infested coke head, you don't challenge them to a battle of wits, you say, yeah whatever. If someone claims you scammed them, you provide evidence that you didn't, if they want to refute your proof, thats on them, if not, leave it as is. If you worry about little potential problems, or besting your enemies in a war of words, you are just going to waste your own time.

Whatever perceived moderator bias that is against you I can assure isn't real. The moderation staff have to deal with actual nuisances. At worst, I'd just say you come off as the kid who asks why to every single response someone could possibly give you, a little frustrating, but not worth holding a grudge against. You aren't even in the top 10th percentile of people they'd be annoyed at. Keep in mind, the Bitcoin crowd tend to be pretty anti authority of any sort. Give someone the ability to keep a user from posting about the lizardmen that are currently fighting the federal reserve for ownership of the moon, and you'll get a full PM inbox of threats and insulting posts from someone who legitimately needs a psychological evaluation.  

You are very caught up on observable facts and all, but what happens if someone disagrees with you? Then its no longer a fact, its an opinion. I've been stating the lemon thing as absolute fact, but you seem to disagree with me. There are very few facts on this forum, moderator discretion is what allows them to classify trolling versus people having a difference of opinion.  


TLDR; In my opinion, you need to relax. Stop caring so much what others think. Who cares if there are some people you think are jerks, ignore them. If you can't look past what other people are doing, you are going to be incredibly unhappy here, and I imagine everywhere else. Stop worrying about potential loopholes that have existed for years, but nothing has come of them.

I had 5 minutes of freetime with nothing better to do, so I wrote out more than a few words. If you want to work on saving your own time, I'd recommend not responding to me, I might read your response, I probably wont respond. By the way, believe it or not, I'm not a jerk (as far as I know) I'm not a short tempered crotchety miserable existence thats just here to tell you what to do. I'm just a fella who advocates for being aloof when it comes to forum drama, and saving everyone's sanity one blunt paragraph at a time.

But not to appear an asshole you also said that it is legit to red trust me because I said I liked lemons.  So you must forgive me for not always accepting what you say straight away.

Now again you have not addressed my point. Let us accept IF the mod only views the reported post and only checks the OP then he could be forgiven for mistakenly just taking the reporters word on the posts being BAD. I mean this is actually feasible and within perhaps his mandate.

HOWEVER as I just said this is NOT the point of this thread. It is highlighting that in its current form this mandate allows the proliferation of false information and the creation of echo chambers that promulgate FALSE information and SUB OPTIMAL  outcomes and solutions. It also PUNISHES people who tell the TRUTH and REWARDS  those that LIE.

Please review the entire post again and address the central point of the thread in the full context. It is not essentially the mod whom is always acting outside his mandate (although it is clear many mods are biased against me) it is the fact this is an exploitable loophole.

I have contacted mods before and talked about these kinds of issues and was told just ignore them if they are bothering me. They will not get involved. Fair enough that is i guess what they are supposed to say because they are "supposed" to be impartial and not  get involved with board politics.

This does not solve the problem especially if you are one person and they are 20 or more.

False allegations (regarding actions on this board) without supplying observable events and evidence should be taken seriously and those that can not supply observable events to back up their false claims need to delete those false allegations and they themselves banned if they keep doing it. This is TROLLING " spreading false information continuously" per the rules. Regardless of whether you say trolling is actually impossible to define. That is fine, I agree with some of your points in the last thread that you didn't continue the debate with me on.

I have never seen you come to one of my threads and agree with me at all even once. You usually turn up present a conflicting opinion then say you are too busy to debate it, I must either accept it or just ignore it. This is not sensible behaviour. You either would like to discuss and debate it or else you just want to contradict everything I say and then just avoid debating it with me.

I mean your opinion is interesting but like the last debate you just vanish.

Rather than start a new debate why not finish the last one?
Now though you are here so let's just finish this one.

I said it. Consider how many posts have been deleted, versus how many people have claimed their post did not deserve to be deleted. Then, read through their claims and see how many weren't answered with the reason why the post was deleted with proper justification.

People keep sticking to this theory that the system is broken because moderators are allowed to enforce the rules however they see fit, yet the past ten years shows little complaint about them. Considering that in a board full of crypto anarchists, if there was the slightest hint of a problem, you would think the entire forum would be set ablaze.

It may seem strange to you, but after deleting 10,000 posts, impartial judgement regarding post deletion become second nature. Things aren't quite as without strict criteria as you might believe.

This is quite a strange post. No good post has ever been deleted? ever says who?

Good and bad are meaningless or low value terms without a very strict set of criteria that all mods stick to equally.

I can present posts that I have no idea why they were deleted. It is completely weird. However, this is not really the point of this thread. Some of those posts are  helpful replies to those not even in meta?

You are missing the point of my post completely. Please read it again and it is kind of off topic really. The full context should be considered and so should the natural flow.

Let me give you an hypothetical example. Say I want you banned and I know when a threshold of 80 deleted posts is crossed in say 3 months you will be eligible for a ban. Since nothing else has worked to shut you up about something I want hidden about my past or the past of my friends. I have even said in public i will take you off ignore to deliberately get your posts deleted. and discussing in public with my colluders ...our only hope now it just to all keep reporting all of SS posts and ..... obviously to get SS banned.


SO...

1/A thread is started called what shall we do with trolling shitposting spammers.

2/The op discusses a different example a different person (not you) and presents their (apparent evidence)

3/I turn up and say yeah SS is also a spammer pushing all his lies and bullshit blathering nonsense everywhere, he should be banned. His posts are bumbling piles of crap and trolling madness.

4/ You read this (not that you even knew you would be mentioned) post and reply.....oh really ..please present evidence of this now or retract it you liar. That is a false accusation.

5/ I do not respond but now the OP comes and starts saying yeah its is true SS is another spammer his nonsense and false information and strange conspiracy theories are fucked up and he should be banned. Hopefully he will soon.

6/ You then demand again that me and the OP present evidence of all of these lies, nonsense and you go further to say... well you guys are saying this only because ...then you present observable events demonstrating a compelling reason why we are saying these things about you.... it is because we are committing far worse deeds and have been caught red handed but nothing has been done about it ,but you keep mentioning it and we want you to shut up.

7/ the argument continues for a while and we will not present any evidence but just keep discussing you as if our false and unsubstantiated statements about you are  true, then you keep asking for presentation of evidence and presenting yourself the observable events that demonstrate we are guilty of far worse and that is our motive for telling lies about you.

8/ The OP orders you to leave the thread and you see now that all 5 or 6 of your posts are deleted and you have those alerts in your mail box.

9/ You check the thread and we are still their discussing your apparent lies, and trolling and how you should be banned as if it is totally accepted fact that you do not dispute. Their posts are still there.

----------------------------
So you just think damn it what can be done now? if i can not even ask for evidence or present evidence to destroy their credibility ??.... well make your own thread is about all you can do? then they complain you are making too many threads about the same thing.

You forget about this after a time... but several occasions like this happens and your mail box is full of deletes?? later this total is used as a metric for a possible ban??

Hence the need to discuss what can be done about this here, You are rewarding liars and punishing those that tell the truth.
It must be noted actually.. I am not saying all of my deletes are due to this but a huge amount are.

The other posts in this series will cover other scenarios that are also open to exploitation.

If people report 1000 good posts you make, not a single one will be removed.

So here we observe suchmoon breaking my local rules. Whilst he admits to taking me off ignore to get my posts deleted and later saying their only hope now is to keep reporting my posts until...... well i guess they try to get me banned for having too many posts deleted.

What he describes as ranting seems like a normal post requesting information on what to do if factual presentation of observable events or asking they present evidence to substantiate false claims they are making against you are to be deleted and later used towards a grand total that exceeds the threshold to ban someone.

He seems to be suggesting that it is wrong to ask for evidence of their false claims and when they refuse respond with legitimate claims based on observable events that they are only making these false claims due to me highlighting their REAL and observable dirty deeds.

No that is not fair at all.

Please do not post in this thread again suchmoon. Thanks. 

That's not what the OP is ranting about. It's about someone saying something like "insert_username_here is a troll" in some random thread and then insert_username_here showing up with a 5000-word essay to respond to this "accusation".

Moderators don't touch anything regarding scam accusations except in the most extreme of cases. If you know someone who had a post deleted in a scam accusation thread, it means that they were criminally off topic. Borderline calls might be made occasionally elsewhere, especially in boards with stricter standards, but scam accusations, even stupid ones, are held with special care.

Hierarchy of Sacred Posts:

Satoshi's
Admin's
Scam Accusations
other Moderators
Meta
Typical threads
Strict board standards

Hey Joe, just some friendly advice ...lose the quotated caps thing and all the !!!!!
Who knows, you may earn merit #2.

I don't know "WHERE" it fits in the "RULES" of this "THREAD", but overall it's wrong to do "PERSONAL" attack anyone. It's my suggestion, and my "RIGHT" to view. You have given yours, did I attacked it? If you dislike my "SUGGESTION" please, IGNORE!

I don't "WISH" to break rules of this thread, but just a quick thing. "MAYA Preferred" is "ALREADY" sky rocketing, to say the least.


You "DESERVE" to be appreciated, but I know these people won't do it as they are "JEALOUS" of someone as capable as you!!

lafu

1. you are breaking my local rules by making it personal

2.  you illustrate the need for this thread and the other 2 separate topics. Your post could certainly be ruled as off topic even if it did not break my local rules which of course it does.




@Joseph R Cord. - thanks for the kind words of appreciation.

And i "suggest"  an Admin should " Sticky "  your " Plagiarized Whitepaper " on the Altcoin Board in Red for a warning to all other coming Coin Devs and Whitepaper writer for have an Example how you not should doing !

I really "SUGGEST" Admin to make this thread "STICKY" it's so useful!!! A fascinating thread to read. If there was "OPTION" of voting for the "THREAD" of the "YEAR" I would have given it to THIS "HANDSDOWN".

Ha, well me and bones may have differing opinions on that so I don't like to speak for everyone. Besides, I bestowed the title of vixen upon you and it would appear heavy handed of me to take that away.

Can do. But before I go, does your referring to me as "he" mean I can stop being a vixen now?

1. this is a thread to determine what is seen as natural permitted flow. Therefore the clue was No specific examples and not making it personal.

2. lol sorry but your post history demonstrates that I am a considerable target of your "interest" here on bct.

3. It is not important for me that you understand. I don't feel you are at your best in these hypothetical debates. Although I did enjoy your analogy thread contributions. So I must not be entirely ungrateful.

Now back on topic foxpup does not understand so that is fine he can go to threads he does understand and contribute there.

Is that meant to be a clue? Your complaint is about something personal? Does that mean your off-topic rants are getting deleted again?

Now who's making it personal? I participate in multiple areas of this forum and its associated dramas; you're just a small part of it. But if helps your ego, go on thinking you're a bigger part of my forum life than you really are.

If it's not a riddle, that I'm afraid I just don't get what you're complaining about. Can you give me another clue?