Topic: [POLL] Surely it's high-time for UID "Bitcoin SV" to be nuked? (Read 998 times)

Here's the thing: he has 50 accounts and so far at least a dozen of them have been banned. So, that should be instant grounds for banning, though I admit the proof isn't as spelled out as it could be.

Regardless, he's been temp banned, likely for abuse of the trust system. Hopefully its for a long time. I know he can just keep coming back under different accounts (and he has been), but banning his main accounts has to at least slow him down a bit.

I voted warn then ban, because you might as well warn first knowing it will likely be ignored and then user can be banned with good reasoning.
Most people voted nuke I see, which I find a bit aggressive and unnecessary, but not against this if clearly a near majority would want this option.

It's kind of funny, we all have our "lets nuke this user" person on the board.


All of those are just background noise to me, spewing their crap, posting their junk and just being trolls.
Game-protect now that is my user that I want gone. Yes, just another irrelevant troll, but I could really get behind a perma-ban on them.


-Dave

If only they were nuked...

This must be our lucky day - cryptohunter is leaving, korner is leaving, CSW has finally proven to be the real Satoshi (one or all of those may not be true).

are you that retarded that you believe the forum needs the tainted funds from you cuntnozzles?

No need to nuke him, as long as he keeps his nonsense in the altcoin section.

Your post does not help move the discussion along.

I am not here to forking entertain you..

I am serious, let’s turn him into the Bukkake king

I would be disappointed if alts took to voting.  So far, there appears to be a degree of maturity in this discussion, let's keep it that way.

Agree, the conversation regarding "free speech" belongs in a different thread. That is not the point of this poll as far as I can tell. With regards to the user in question, I would vote for ban, not nuke. No need to remove all evidence they ever existed. But I believe a ban is indeed warranted for multiple reasons. Ban evasion/Trust and Flag Abuse/Trolling.

Sadly, newbies can't vote. Probably to prevent poll gaming by signing up multiple alts. I'll have a word with the puppet master.

@o_e_l_e_o and @eddie13

I for one definitely do not want to go down the path of the Facebooks/Twitters/Instagrams and their like in stamping out any and all voices at the whim of one complaint.  I'm asking the members here to consider the actions of this one UID and give an indication by poll of what they would like to be done with that one UID.

---

My thanks to @LoyceV for the clarification of the numbers of UID's that have been confirmed as banned (5.15%) or nuked (2.26%).

My data is far from complete, I don't have any data on bans for most of the time this forum existed.
Out of 2,745,342 users, 61,917 have been Nuked (2,26%), and 141,411 have been Autobanned (5,15%). The real numbers are probably much higher.

I don't think newbies can vote in polls.. I gave him a merit though so he can soon or whatever..

I don't think we want to be like facebook banning any speech "they" don't agree with..

I would say we shouldn't necessarily follow the laws of any government, but the forum has to abide by the laws of the USA, to the minimum of keeping illegal content off the site (according to the US laws) or it would be shut down I imagine, the way the forum is currently hosted/owned or whatever..

The US law says that this site CAN delete anything it wants, but only says that it HAS to delete content that is illegal to host..

I would prefer the site to be under the law of an elwar seastead owned by the forum instead of any existing government, but I would still advocate for deleting some possible distasteful content..

I do take your points, but half of what makes this forum so good is precisely because it isn't Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or whatever. These sites all rapidly become echo chambers. People are friends with or follow others who share their views. Posts and comments which appeal to the majority are liked/shared/retweeted/upvoted, and anything slightly controversial or against the grain disappears in to the void.

Further, trust and scams have never been moderated, and there are far worse abusers on both counts than Bitcoin SV who have not been banned.

Option two - Ban, but not nuke.

(None of the options have changed and (AFAIK) there are no restrictions on anyone voting - I will leave this vote open indefinitely)

I  tried voted ban not for a nuke. I can see no voting to select. If not scamming immense extreme profanity. Posts can remain, members can see a ban was ideal or ban was unwarranted. Temp ban and to fix his flag, when he return back. Same flags next chance, return not further to the forum. Scam post from others members must be nuke so other member not get the trap.

I think a few people are missing a step in their logic of what a person is entitled to do in this forum.  When you initially signed up you clicked on the "register" link. In registering, you agreed to be bound by the terms of the group - bitcointalk.org  It's no different to any other "free" service such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc where there are expectations of a person's behaviour - in essence people say and do almost anything on these groups. However, the community says "enough is enough" and reports users behaviour and the moderators step in.

People are banned or their accounts are wiped on Facebook / Twitter etc - you may not hear about it, but it does happen.  As LoyceV confirmed, some four percent of the bitcointalk.org registrations have been nuked.  It's the same thing, it goes on in the background - you just don't hear about it happening.

---

I can see that instead of discussing whether or not Bitcoin SV should be nuked, or not some people would prefer to turn this into a discussion about "rights".  Well, we are members of a free online community, our "rights" are what the "owners" of the forum decide it is.  "We" can only be as vocal (through appropriate channels such as this thread/poll) as Bitcoin SV in saying that we don't want them behaving in this anti-social mannor.

---

Imagine if someone walked up to your front door and used spray paint to graffiti their advertisement - that in essence is what is happening here.  It's unwarranted vandalism by Bitcoin SV on the trust / feedback walls (and Flag desecration) of users by the user Bitcoin SV.

I think a general perspective of freedom of speech is what we are trying to protect here. For me it has just one meaning, that someone's right to express his opinions should not be hampered even if they are biased. I don't see it dedicated to any nation on the forum, as it's more international.

Anyways, you can't ban opinions and specific types of thinking from the forum, they would just come back or evolve somewhere else.