Topic: The moderators/admins of this site are a bunch of criminal aiding morons (Read 3133 times)

Do you read posts before you delete them? It was in the post you deleted. The link to the original thread that is.

You seem to be very confused about the philosophy of moderation here. Anyway...

The usage of that word is subjective and a very minor thing that no one should care much about. When I read the OP, I don't expect the replies to be filled with comments about this one word. I'd expect the topic to contain this kind of stuff:

- Bids.
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the item (not "Isn't it sad when you have to tell your potential customers that the domain they supposedly would want to buy is expensive? ")
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the reputation of the seller (not "Lawl. You must be new here.")

Other things are probably off-topic.


Sure, bittenbob can disagree. But on bitcointalk.org he will be wrong. His posts there are blatantly off-topic according to all moderation precedence on this forum.

There are a few on-topic sentences from Matthew's posts that were deleted along with the larger posts. If you were arguing that I should not have deleted these, then you'd have some chance of convincing me (the topic is now locked, though, so I wouldn't really care). But bittenbob's posts absolutely should have been deleted; they were 100% useless. There's almost no chance that I will change my mind about that.

I don't care about Vual's opinion in this matter. His posts were as off-topic as Matthew's, and it is against forum policy to try to buy violence. But Matthew ruined vual's topic first, so I empathized with vual and I decided not to ban him. Those incorrect posts of Vual's that I saw were still deleted. Whether he was banned is not really important.


I don't read reports regularly.

This. Next time I'll be a sprite instead of a troll.

And nobody was banned for that. Believe it or not, it's possible to argue the quality of a product without trolling at the same time.

For the record Matthew I did say you deserved to get banned. You definitely earned yours.

Oh my god what a clusterfuck of good-cop bad-cop.

I deserved to get banned for the lazy way I trolled vual. I could have been much more subtle but I got lazy. Stop arguing for me. Sometimes I do actually need a time-out.

Vual also deserved to be trolled for that ridiculous thread, and he's already admitted to having made a big mistake posting it. Since everyone is here, able to post, and no one involved is still acting the same, why is this thread even here much less continuing on this far?

Theymos isn't going to apologize for doing his job, members aren't going to be happy about getting banned, newbies are going to make mistakes, old trolls are going to keep them in check. The circle of forum life.

Why?  Because of the fact that premium being "subjective" gives immediate validity to any comment made by Matthew or Bittenbob regarding the quality of the domains (not an age comment), and said comments are in direct reference to the topic of the thread.

If you're going to give Vual the benefit of the doubt that his opinion is subjective and that he has a "right" (again, opinion) to be angry, then you need to give Bittenbob the benefit of the doubt that it was merely your own personal opinion that he was being disruptive and perhaps he felt he wasn't.

Umm sorry to jump back in but it was a direct quote with the link in the thread. Its not like it was made up or something. The link was preserved for you to go over and look at it when you deleted it and banned me. Also with it being reported 3 times you had to have known about it.

There is no legal issue that wasn't handled. I deleted Vual's original attempt to buy violence (in his auction thread) immediately. I didn't know about the one mentioned in the OP until this thread. I deleted it shortly after my first reply in this topic.


Why?

Theymos, after reading a little bit more about what you said, I have another outside comment.

Your comment that "premium" is subjective (while true) mitigates virtually all of your other arguments justifying the ban.

To say BittenBob was being "Disruptive,"  that "no one would possibly accept your offer,"  and that his claims to be on-topic are "clearly false" (I actually think it was 'clearly true' that he was on topic) -- these are all opinionated.

It seems to me that the ultimate reason that these bans occurred is that you (Theymos) simply didn't like them.  You formed your own opinions about the comments (as did anyone else reading the thread), but as the site Admin, you exercised your authority to act based upon those opinions.

In contrast, Vual's comments definitely qualify as a legal matter and should have been the primary issue.

Edit:  Aren't you also currently doing the same thing you accused Bittenbob of doing -- opposing the "spirit" of the topic?

10-4 Bob. Im sorry it had to be that way.

Well I needed to respond to some people who were asking about the magazine during the ban. In particular on my thread about buying ad space for the first issue so the ban was not without consequence. If it were not for other members of the magazine stepping up (thank you everyone) then it very well could have been a lot worse. I was banned throughout the deadline but luckily we still had enough response to fill all available advertising slots. I know there is a lot more to life than these forums obviously but I take a lot of offense to being unjustifiably banned while others who threatened the magazine and physical harm on someone are allowed to keep posting.

Like I said I am leaving this as is from this point forward and I stand by all of my posts.

I really don't care about this situation, except for one thing:

Theymos, I sincerely hope that when you said that Vual had a "right" to be angry that you didn't actually make a decision based upon your own ethical code (as opposed to a legal code or and established forum code-of-conduct).  Poor choice of language? 

May seem like small potatoes...but my 2 cents.

Other than that, carry on.

Let us take a step away from our monitors, and go out side for a minute to chill out. There is more to life than these forums. Bob, I hear what you are saying, but did you lose out on any profit or vital info when you were banned these past couple of days?

I'm sorry, bittenbob. 

It is gone now but was there just a few hours ago. Funny how you were so quick to act on banning me but took so long to remove his post.

I will leave it as it is and you are still welcome to apologize. Like I said I didn't expect this thread to gain as much traction as it did.

Reported it 3 times and it was still there last I checked. Two days after my ban even.

He lied not only about the domains being premium ("premiem"). But about them having high standing rankings and reputations. 2 were un-ranked/unheard of and the other was linked to scammers. The fact he wouldn't even prove he owned this on top of that means he was deliberately lying about a product he couldnt prove he owned trying to milk money out of people. He even admitted later they weren't premium ("premium")If that's not scamming I don't know what is. I stand by all my posts.

All of the buying-violence ones that I know about were deleted. If there are more, report them.

First of all, his post was never deleted. It still stands so your point about copying posts that would be deleted is invalid.

I don't think the law cares if someone called someone names before they committed a crime. That is what this was, a crime. You facilitated it and are now defending him for committing it. This makes you an accessory after the fact.

Regardless of what you say the post was on topic. It still stands. I don't care what you think. The user even commented about how he was unwilling to prove he actually owned them which makes it even more suspect.

I think all the other users posts say it all. Choose your own path but don't expect any respect out of me. The other mods on the other hand I will respect because they did not act in such an over-reactive unthinking manner.  You really had a chance here to apologize and man up for banning me needlessly.

Regarding your ban: That doesn't matter. When writing a reply, you must ignore posts that will be deleted. Otherwise you make a bigger mess.

You were banned for 2 days instead of 1 because your last ban was also for off-topic posts.

Regarding vual's lack of a ban: Matthew was being very confrontational before vual posted that. Reason enough to cut vual some slack. It would have only been a 1-day ban anyway, so it's not a big deal.


Clearly false. Your post was opposed to the spirit of the topic, and no one would possibly accept your "offer". You were only being disruptive.


Commenting about little advertising words like this is somewhat off-topic. "Premium" is subjective. You could complain about price in a normal selling thread, but this doesn't make any sense in an auction thread, since the price is not predetermined.

Comments/arguments about trade safety and reputation are OK (when they are substantial).