Bitcoin Forum

This thread refers to a post of mine that was deleted at the request of another user. Original meta topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1484321.0

The thread in question was not spam promoting a coin. It contained relevant, documented information warning readers about aggressive self-moderation of a set of threads by a particular coin community (deleting all questioning or critical post leaving only their own promotion), and, also, provided a link to an unmoderated discussion thread as an alternative. The thread was locked because otherwise it would be another redundant unmoderated discussion thread for the same coin.

It was bumped no more than once per day in accordance with the forum rules:


Previous bumps were deleted in accordance with the forum rules:


How did this topic violate forum rules leading to its deletion?

I can only guess here but I would think it got deleted because you are guilty of doing exactly that with Monero (bold part)?

Excuse me if I'm wrong. I've been wrong a lof of times in the past

That's off topic but in any case there are no Monero threads with aggressive self-moderation that deletes opposing points of view. Every Monero self-moderated topic is moderated for only to keep it on-topic which is also a forum rule (meaning forum mods would delete off-topic posts anyway, but it would take longer because the forum mods have the thankless task of handling the entire site). For example on the speculation thread you can find literally thousands of negative opinions about Monero. There may well be more negative posts than positive. The Monero mining topic may well have never deleted a post (I'm not sure but I'm not involved in moderating it -- I just don't ever remember it happening, certainly not often). Simply put, your comment is a lie.

Anyway, back to the topic here....

Anything he did or didn't do in the past shouldn't change how his threads are moderated now.

Almost certainly the deleted thread was considered just an artificial way of promoting the other one ("and, also, provided a link to an unmoderated discussion thread") and therefore useless and spammy.

Note that I was not able to see the thread in question before it was deleted.

Based upon the description of the thread in the other meta topic, it appears that your thread could have been deleted for being a duplicate post. If it was just a link to another thread, this could be seen as a duplicate thread and thus against the forum rules.

Yet another example of the lack of freedom of speech and the over-moderation of certain forum users...

Actually I have found that the forum administrators and moderators are extremely tolerant and absolutely in favor of freedom of speech all the way. What you have to fear more than that recently is that certain interest groups (ie. certain coin supporters) are tainting entire accounts by flagging them with red trust if they disagree with your views/opinions. I could post a couple of accounts as an example if anyone is interested in this.

Well oh well... Speculation about the decision is useless anyway, only grue - as he apparently was the moderator in charge who made the decision - can tell us why the thread was deleted. Goes without mentioning that his decision was not made randomly as your post almost seems to suggest. There is always a good reason if a post is deleted.

I guess perhaps I could have re-worded my post to include something about certain forum users seem to be bullied by moderators more than others..

Unfortunately these forums seem to be brimming with occurrences where those in positions of power abuse them for their own personal gain.

It was not though. I realize we are hampered here by not being able to see the post but it consisted of a paragraph or two warning users about the use of aggressive self-moderated threads as a deceptive promotional tool by a particular coin community and one link to another thread. The bulk of the post was not duplication it was writing on a specific point, and given the topic being multiple, all self-moderated threads about a coin, I would think one post to with one link to one unmoderated thread would in fact be less duplicative.

But if the problem was the link I would be okay with reposting without the link and just suggesting that users view the unmoderated thread (which they can find on their own) to see the only unfiltered discussion on the topic here.

EDIT: Here is the post retrieved from google web cache:

Your post contradicts your own statement.If there were no freedom of speech on this forum,you wouldn't be allowed to criticise forum directly and Its staff obliquely

If anything this is a test of freedom of speech. And not a direct contradiction of my post.

Certain moderators are more likely to look for a reason to over moderate certain users would have been a better way to type it though.

Hmm. It doesn't look like a duplicate post as the info in that post is not present in the linked thread; it is an entirely different subject. In this case, I'm not sure why this was removed and why it was considered to be spam. You will have to ask grue about it.

from what I understand you bumped the thread then locked it everyday, not allowing for any real discussion

@Smooth


Dude give it up already.

Equamobi was spot on above.

You were using the lock, post, lock, bump, delete for no other purpose than to spam a thread you linked to in another sub-form.

You were trying to promote spam another thread that didn't belong in the main forum.

You got caught, deal with it.


~BCX~


https://i.imgflip.com/14s7bz.jpg



added: By reposting the deleted spam thread from web-cache you are effectively again spamming the thread again that was deleted by the Global Moderator Grue.

Are you trying to get banned?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qhax7FywZMI/UfQCUwUU-CI/AAAAAAAAAwI/K7BG_kkdQ8g/s1600/big+lebowski.jpg

The only opinions that count here are forum mods and admins. Which are you?


That's right. If it had been open for discussion, it would have been a duplicate unmoderated discussion thread, which it was not. It was a warning about specific and well-documented deceptive threads.

Would it have been better if I made the thread self-moderated and then deleted all the replies that didn't agree with mine? Why would multiple posts all in agreement with the original be better than a single warning post?

I trashed that topic because in my view, the only purpose that the deleted topic serves is to get additional exposure to your unmoderated topic (since all you do is bump and lock the topic ). You could have easily put the complaint about the self-moderated topic in the OP of the unmoderated topic. I don't like setting the precedent of allowing this because then every unmoderated topic would also be allowed an additional topic to advertise it.

Would it be allowed if the post did not include a link to the unmoderated thread?

It seems clear to me the link at the end was not a critical part of the content of the post (i.e. I disagree that was the "only purpose' that the post served, and knightdk apparently agreed with me above), but apparently you disagree, which is fine as it is subjective.

yes, although the best way is to put your warning about the self-moderated topic in the OP of the unmoderated topic. That way people who want to participate in unmoderated discussions can easily do so, and it doesn't look like you're trying to double your exposure by having second topic to advertise for the first one.

The topics are different.

One is a general discussion thread about the coin. For example, recently it included discussion of new features, scalability, etc. It was moved to the Announcements section, which is a bit odd since it was not the thread used to announce the coin, but all of those threads were closed because the developer of the coin wanted to corral all discussion off onto his own forum where he could fully control what was and was not discussed (since he ripped off the Bitcoin code, removing the attributions in violation of its MIT license and lied about it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.0), he has some serious skeletons to hide).

That thread was created as a replacement to have a place to discuss the coin within the Alt forum here, and with that focus on general discussion, being in the Announcements section makes a certain amount of sense. While there may be criticism there, the topic of the thread is not criticism, it is general discussion of the coin.

The second is specifically a warning to call out specific deceptive practices that some members of that coin community engage in on a regular and well-documented basis.

To me those seem quite different topics. Do you disagree?

Apparently he did.

The thread was trashed.

You got caught spamming, quit acting like you didn't.

You should lock this thread or continue to be humiliated.


~BCX~

I agree that putting the warning in the general unmoderated discussion topic might steer it toward discussing the warning or about the self-moderation, rather than about the coin in general. However, I also don't like a situation where unmoderated discussion topics come with a censorship warning topic that links to it (this is pretty much guaranteed because there isn't really a need for a unmoderated topic unless there's censorship going on). So you'd end up with 3 topics on one subject: the original self moderated one, the unmoderated one, and the censorship warning one that links to the unmoderated one), which ends up cluttering up the forum.

This is why I prefer having the warning embedded within the unmoderated topic. As for the any possible confusion about what the topic should be about, you can indicate in the topic body, after the warning that the topic should be general discussion, rather than about the self-moderation or the warning itself.

Agreed, this is unfair usage of bumping.

I recognize that the difficulty in finding non-self-moderated topics is a flaw of the self-moderation feature, but this isn't a good solution. Maybe the most popular non-self-moderated alternatives to selfmod topics should be listed in the selfmod warning or something.

Thank you for the explanations. I will consider the best way to present the information consistent with forum policies.