@suchmoon read and think before responding.
There are 2 main issue with this debate thus far.
1. You want " trolling " to be defined as suits your needs. Not as it is explained in the rules as I quote below
Here is trolling explained in the rules and a global mod of 6 years explained why bct uses this
However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post).
Obviously False nonsense. To be not only proven false and totally debunked but so clearly and widely known as debunked that everyone would know about it. I am actually being generous saying that even if not widely known and accepted but there is evidence you can provide that conclusively debunks it then to repeat it again as true I would accept that as trolling.
A global mod for 6 years explained why this is this boards regulated definition of trolling.
There was a large debate about it with ch in meta.
Now as to you other specious suggestions and false allegations.
1. Speculation on alts accompanied by the corroborating evidence as in my above example don't make up a part of trolling. They are not at all trolling. They have nothing to do with trolling at all.
2. I would like an example of where I , ch, or Toaa have accused a member of a crime and have not supplied corroborating evidence. Evidence that is compelling. I want to see where any of the evidence was debunked. The evidence was independently verifiable and conclusive in my opinion or at the least was never even in danger of being debunked. That is so far from trolling it is trolling to even suggest it was trolling.
Making it up? You are making this all up. Bring me examples. I have never seriously accused anyone of any crime without compelling strong evidence to corroborate or even evidence that is undeniably conclusive.
Bring the specific example here and present it.
This is the same kind of false accusations lauda was making against CH. Ch challenged the scammer lauda multiple times to present his evidence of his claims and everytime lauda ran away because he could not.
The key points are there. If you can not accept the boards definition of trolling that is your own problem.
To say " inflammatory garbage" is the same as saying inflammatory ( which is irrelevant as explained by myself and the global mod who explained you would need complete personal knowledge of every member to know if something was being said to attack or inflame them personally ) garbage ( proven false ).
You are still running away from bringing specific examples of what you claim has taken place. Look if I have been accusing members of crimes with no compelling evidence at all then bring them here for analysis. Even better if you can bring evidence of me accusing members of crimes that have been conclusively debunked. You will not bring them will you? Because they do not exist.
You are making things up.
Also disregarding trolling and just going to off topic irrelevant you tried that with CH and could not even demonstrate one of his deleted posts here was off topic or irrelvant when you attempted to you simply ran off.
You can be banned for off topic irrelevant too but this also needs to be investigated thoroughly.
@lfcbitcoin how are you still able to even show your face here. Even suchmoon doesn't trust you. Well I'm sure hell say that he has forgiven you now and you are trustworthy again. But that's not how trust works. If suchmoon believes you did try to misrepresent your private conversations to such a degree they were moved to exclude you I don't think that is repairable really. Trust you can't just choose to give out because it suits you.
You are a conclusively proven liar and a coward. If you want evidence for my statements then read here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lfcbitcoin-laudas-feltching-clown-total-shit-poster-and-scumbag-poetry-5136759https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54986956Page 6 of the link contained within that post.
You think you should have any privileges here? You should be allowed self moderated threads when others are not?
Please don't make me laugh.
You are a conclusively proven liar found to be abusing the trust system and a coward taking orders from a proven scammer. You should be banned. Not spamming away for dust.
+++++++++++++ back to not talking to lfcbitcoin the conclusively proven liar and coward ++++++++++++++
Any serious allegation or accusation I have made against a member , the design of the merit and trust systems I stand 100% with that and will do so until they are conclusively debunked or even a strong case that stands against them. People have had a long time to debunk the points ch and Toaa made. No debunking exists.
Off topic and irrelevant and lacking corroborating evidence
The sky is blue and you are morons.
Is entirely separate from trolling. Where you are promugating proven false information as true.
Both are serious but 1 is crystal clear. The trolling. There is no need for opinion.
Off topic and irrelevant is far more complex. ( obviously not that example of sky blue you are morons) but there needs to be a balance between furnishing the reader with the full story and picture so they are given the optimal chance of gaining the optimal or most accurate opinion and overload of irrelevant data.
Actually theymos has said if it is loosely related you have to make sure it ties in and is closely related at points also.
I think only CH and Toaa attempted to define a guide to permitted flow and nobody was interested in creating a definitive guide to permitted flow because the truth is they want to change it when it suits them.
There could be stringent guides and examples for permitted flow. I Dont have issue with that if everyone has to follow it.
With this remove self mod for " hyper trolls "
Meta has no self mod and I like it best that way
If the person is off topic and irrelevant then a mod can remove it
If the person is not off topic and irrelevant the why deprive the reader of that information.
The reader should be given the full pictures much as possible.
Hiding info that is on topic and relevant demonstrates fear of the truth or perhaps wanting the reader to have a distorted opinion based on an overly zoomed in and limited view.
Finding the definitive truth is the most important thing. Failing that possibility then gaining an optimal opinion is the next best thing.
Just being told what the popular view is and given no opportunity to explore all possible data for yourself is totally unacceptable.
