Bitcoin Forum

This was in the Hyperstake thread, which is a self moderated forum. It was NOT off topic, and was not considered off topic or detrimental by the leaders of that community, who I am well acquainted with. Allegedly, you only moderate self moderated topics in the event of complaints by the thread's owner (doesn't apply in this case or several others of late) or egregious abuse of forum members. Compleatly non applicable.

Obviously, as a private forum you have the "right" to do as you please, but if you lay down rules and then deliberately violate them, you NEED to be accountable. If moderators are going to do this, then it should not be anonymous.

Let's be serious for a moment. You do NOT EVER moderate known scammers, nor do you seem to give a tinker's damn about content, intellect, or even the ability to construct a sentence. But you will moderate off hand comments like this for no visible reason. And in a self moderated forum where it is not offensive to the community so moderated. It has become a source of running humour and contention among your users.

At the very least, if you are going to remain anonymous, state your reasons for deleting a post. That in itself would likely make you hesitate, as it often seems the only justification for deleting things is "somebody pissed in my wheaties this morning". If you have a real reason for it, then you should have no problem identifying both the reason and yourself (via screen name). If you are just playing god, you should just stop.

Your post was likely deleted because the comment you were responding to was also deleted (likely because it was insubstantial) and your post didn't add anything else to the conversation. I don't see why you're acting so surprised by this.

I wouldn't call it anonymous either. Most people who frequent the ALTCOIN sections knows that mprep is the moderator. Those who don't who the moderator can look at the top of the page and find out. Undoubtedly, mprep deleted your comment.

I guess whenever your post gets deleted because of the comment to which you responded to also got deleted, you personally get a message from the moderators explaining that "the post got deleted because it was a reply to other deleted post", at least this is what I got from grue when my post got deleted in these situations. So I don't think this is the case.

I chose one example of several over the last month. And yes, I do assume it was mprep, I just can't prove it, because NOWHERE in the message does it say who made the decision. I'm not surprised, I'm annoyed. Either the stated rule that self moderated threads are moderated by the owner of the thread is true, or it is not.

Since the mods do not actually give two shits and a fuck about scams, what is the point of deleting comments like that? If Presstab (in this instance) finds my post to be problematic, he would be the one to delete it, not the moderator who Cannot Understand Normal Thinking. In this particular instance, I am completely sure that the OP had nothing to do with it, as he is a personal friend. In others, I suppose it's possible... except that on a self moderated thread if the OP deletes it, it SAYS SO.

The only reason you would need to know who deleted something is to pester them about it, which would be a pointless annoyance that might even prevent moderators from doing a good job. Admins are the only ones who can restore deleted posts and the only ones who can properly deal with inaccurate mod actions: post in Meta and we'll look into it.

Self-moderation is moderation in addition to global moderation. Both of those posts were insubstantial, so deleting them seems correct.


That sort of message isn't always sent.


Even sections with assigned mods can also be moderated by global mods.

Right so a post like that would be deleted, but yet I see people calling each other the most disgusting things imaginable with NO relevance to the topic at hand and those comments are not deleted? (on other topics than the HyperStake topic)

I remember several months back on the HyperStake topic there were a few posts about being superhero's, it went on for a few posts and then back to discussion about Staking and other boring conversation. Was it offensive to people? no, and it contributes to the community and self moderated topic in that it keeps users engaged with the community and fosters new ideas.

How about the GAW service discussion thread? I see lots of minor posts there. How about the tnt exchange (likely scam) thread recently? That was renamed as a giveaway thread and wasn't taken down as fast as some of these comments.

Edit: I do understand this is a private forum but mods should also understand that people do not appreciate having their posts frequently deleted if not meant to be offensive or spam.

Bull. If the moderation were serious, instead of removing a bit of humour here and there, and if said moderation was for any LEGITIMATE purpose, then anonymity is contraindicated for the very reasons I stated. It gives the mods the ability to take out a bad day on people for NO reason. I'm not a young man, and I am not gullible. Make a credible argument. Your mods, with a very few exceptions, do not do a good job. They do things like this, and leave scams and libel so obvious that a dead man could see it to go on. One might get the impression they're in on it. Many have. If self moderated threads are not going to be self moderated, then there really is no point to their existence, is there?

At the very least, it would be prudent for the mods to state WHY a post is deleted rather than doing a hit and run. And if anonymity is de rigeur, then at the very least there should be a reply option. Preferably one that goes directly to you, because I doubt very much you would tolerate their general behaviour if you had to deal with the fallout from it. mprep in particular is a weasel. If you are not fully aware of that, just read any five of his posts. His "arguments" don't even make sense in his head, let alone in any sort of open forum.

Short form. If the mods must hide what they are doing, who they are, and why they are doing it, then they are NOT doing a good job and ARE under suspicion of deliberate malfeasance. I generally find you reasonable, but you are totally incorrect on this one except in the fact that you own the forum.

I think this thread is a good example why mod actions should remain anonymous. Staff would get flooded with PMs asking why this and why that if it told them who did what. I often get posts asking why I moved their thread (from the incorrect sub to the right one) and half of the time it wasn't even me that did it. I think it's a plus that people even get a message informing them that their post is deleted because I've never seen that on any other forum I've been a part of. Normally your posts just disappear and you wouldn't even notice. I know it's frustrating and annoying whenever someone has a post deleted and nobody is going to like it but I think putting a mods name to it would be counter-productive. If people do feel like their post was deleted in error or malice believe me they'll make a thread like this about it and if staff were abusing their power in whatever way then they wouldn't last very long here.

You are correct in that it is better that mods are somewhat anonymous with their post removal in that you can't put blame on a particular person. A reverse of that is that a mod may not like a particular person and heavily moderate them for speaking out against certain policies.

To frame an example, a slew of about 5 posts about superhero's were deleted but the first one deleted was Biomech's and was the last of the few posts. My one posts about Ace and Gary, the ambigiously gay duo was probably the most racey but even took some days to get deleted with the rest. This says to me that the mods can be biased and heavily moderate certain people they do not like, while I agree with the forums rules that +1 posts serve no purpose, I would not agree with being unfairly targeted and having a personal bias.

^^this +100

I was moderator on couple of forums and I really can't recommend to switch from anonymous moderation..

Sorry to go meta on a meta post, but have you tried to start a constructive dialog with mprep? Such as for example a simple private message along these lines:

"Hey mprep, some posts were recently deleted in so and so thread. I understand the posts may have seemed non substantial but actually the particular group of users interested in the thread seems to appreciate post of this kind. If there is no real harm done could you cut us some slack in this thread and let us self moderate it?

Thanks!"

I'm fairly certain such an approach would get you better results. And even if it didn't, you could still come here to open the offensive on "anonymous" moderation by a very well known and small group of forum staff.

This is bullshit because there are clearly THREADS that should be deleted and comments I have made about how the OP is likely a scammer are the part deleted.. Not to mention the thread is an illegal service.. Are we just waiting for more content to send the feds?

Why is it then so many make their accusations ( petty or legitimate ) in Meta and so forth under throw away accounts? If we are demanding Mods be completely transparent, why aren't members held to the same standards? It would actually lend more credibility to those making accusations to post from their main account.

Because many of them are hippocrates and only want transparency when it suits them.

There is, hit the report to admin button on the pm, and make your case there.


Sure it's possible, but that's what we're here for. That's what meta is for. Mods get enough grief as it is, painting a target on their back would exacerbate that to intolerable levels.

You make a good point. However, it doesn't apply to me. I don't use sock puppets, and my real name is known with just a little searching.

My main problem, whether or not it's anonymous, is that the deletions (and other moderation operations that I have observed) seem arbitrary, capricious, and often petty. They serve no purpose in "policing" the forums, but seem almost intentionally to be abrasive.

As I have said, and others have noted, it is COMMON for obvious scams to be left completely alone. Yet make a comment ON TOPIC that is a bit tongue in cheek, or as Crestington noted, a reference to claws and cigars, and it get's "moderated". The particular "incident" that he was referencing was a bit off topic, but not terribly so. Several of us had achieved "hero member" status within a short time of each other. We're all known to each other (some of us IRL), and we had about a five post go at each other about what sort of super hero we were. It was just a bit of fun, nobody with an IQ larger than their shoe size would have been offended, and it ended as quickly as it began. It was FRIENDLY, and it was removed. Yet some jackass spewing vitriol and slander gets to keep it on site forever. The disproportionality of it is amazing.

The message being sent, whether intentional or not, is that being an ass is ok, but having a sense of humour is not. It's also been rather clear in my time here that open scamming is perfectly ok, but legitimate business will be heavily monitored. Is this REALLY the message we wish to send to the world via the largest cryptocurrency forum on the internet? If so, good luck with mainstream adoption.

When I (guardedly) invite people here, I tell them that Bitcointalk is Mos Eisely. A Wretched hive of scum and villainy, but with some of the most brilliant minds and ambitious people you'll ever meet. That's obviously said with some poetic license, but I defy ANY of the mods to deny the truth of it.

Problem with that is, again, anonymity. In the unlikely event of a response, the odds are I'm making my case with the other aggrieved party as judge. If we knew such a button went directly to Theymos, it would be useful.

You being one of the three mods I don't find offensive, this kind of pains me to say it to you. But frankly, there SHOULD be a target on the back of the mods. Or on the front. You take policing actions, it's what you do. If you cannot do so in an open and above board manner, then you WILL receive a great deal of grief. If what the mods did was consistent, constructive, and served to better the community, the problems would be minimal. It is unfortunate that moderation is NOT consistent, NOT constructive, and frequently detrimental not only to this community, but to the digital currency ecosphere as a whole.

If a thing or action cannot withstand scrutiny, it is false.

I think there should be a mod rating system based on feedback from the community. Have to agree the anonymity is less than desirable but so is not being able to get any traction on system changes in these forums that could help improve moderation. Complaints like yours Biomech are often ignored or shouted down without listening to reason you are making the complaint. Inconsistency or worse bias.

 LOL

 You have my word as a gentleman that none of them are Hippocrates!  Did you mean hypocrites?

OFF TOPIC:

Did you take an oath or something? Is it Dr. Dogie now? :D

No, its a joke.


For someone who continually cries about off topic posts, marking your own post off topic doesn't make it any less off topic.

You can choose who the report goes to in the dropdown box. It goes to all admins and global mods by default (global mods were added because of the large amount of phishing pm's that were being sent out a long time ago).



You're making a false assumption that all people are reasonable, honest, and open minded. For the most part they are, but not all. And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

While we clearly disagree on method, I am actually making the assumption that I have bolded. I've been on fora with very heavy moderation and not found it offensive. Because it was open, consistent, and the rules were not ambiguous. This simply is not the case on BCT. I wish it were. Despite my bitching here, this is my favorite forum.

The problem I see here, and many others agree with me, is that there is NO consistency. Even the "official" rules are listed as "the official list of unofficial rules". See what I'm saying? You, Gmaxwell, and SaltySpitoon have always seemed very even handed to me. Mining Buddy and I have never had any direct interaction that I am aware of, so I have no opinion. The aforementioned mprep gets under my skin. but in ALL cases, even the mods I like, the application of "rules" (in quotes because they are NOT well defined) is arbitrary and capricious. I think in some cases malicious as well, but I can't prove it. I can prove, very easily, the arbitrary and capricious nature of it.

I personally would not have an issue with the moderators being VERY strict IF THEY WERE ON THE SAME PAGE AND CONSISTENT. It would change the nature of BCT for the better. It's not moderation I object to.

Yup, I deleted as I was looking over the newest posts in the newest threads on Announcements (Altcoins). I deleted a post that you quoted as well as it broke rule 1:


Your post was barely different aside from a bit of originality and swerving to the off-topic side. I deleted dozens of other posts quite similar to yours that day as well. I spend around 1-2 hour moderating and up to an hour or so just reading through as I have other things to do aside from dedicating my life to reading through every text wall since 2009. There's a reason why the "Report to moderator" link exists - to notify mods of the posts they missed while skimming through hundreds of them. So use it once in a while instead of fruitlessly complaining.

To finish off, this is the kind of crap that makes my blood boil. If not hypocrisy, then at least treading a thin line between it and just rude:

lol, you and Biomech should kiss and makeup, the great mortal enemies of the forums.

I bet if you guys had a few beers together you would be best of friends.

*treading. Treading a thin line. "Threading a thin line" is nonsense, making the writer look retarded.
In short, go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

And drop the 'I'm too busy to read your shit' act. If you're too busy to mod, you're unfit for the job.
You're welcome.

[sarcasm] Thanks random Grammar Nazi alt with a first post here, in this specific thread. I fixed it as I understand how your obsession kicks in when seeing non-stellar grammar. You must feel amazing criticizing a guy to whom English isn't the first language. That definitely supports your argument by 140% and invalidates mine. And yeah, I totally said that I'm too busy to read a 6 word post and that I totally didn't mean to delete it. I definitely didn't try to address his comment about the quality of moderation and I sure as hell didn't suggest him to use the report function for the posts he thought were selectively left out. [/sarcasm]

Now take that fake mustache and coat off; nobody likes a coward hiding behind an alt.

I understand that English is not your first language -- unlikely that a native speaker would fuck it that badly.
Being a non-native speaker myself, I've offered you a friendly suggestion: Hold off on colloquialisms for now, you can always try again once you know what you're doing. Not now tho -- now is not the time.

To address potential cultural differences: In most English-speaking countries, it's customary to thank the person who helps you, as I have done. Too late now, but, nevertheless, you're welcome.

Regarding the essence of this thread? You haven't addressed it. You  offered a handful of excuses: you're busy, you delete a lot of shit (presumably without reading it), English is your second language, etc., etc.

You haven't addressed the fact that no clear rule set for this forum exists, making all moderation subjective, by definition.
You haven't addressed favoritism, nepotism and selective enforcement on this forum, another biggy.
And, of course, the "makes my blood boil" bit made me smile -- if that's how little it takes to enrage you, the job of moderating an internet forum is likely not for you.

Have I missed anything?

Take a REAL hard look in the mirror and ask why it makes your blood boil. You and I have gone rounds several times. I stopped bothering some time ago, because you will neither be persuaded nor bother with anything like logic, reason, or frankly, anything aside from snide remarks and the nuremburg defense. Never forget that the aforementioned "defense" mostly led to hangings. It's not considered valid. "Just following orders" never works as a long term defense.

You are a weasel. And the scams ARE REPORTED DAILY. I've done it, many, MANY others have done it. yet they stay. But a bit of humour in a thread that you have no interest in, well, now, that just has to go, doesn't it?

I'm assuming you're the author of the latest deletion. From here forward, I'm using the "just following orders" defense as well. I reported it. And I will continue to do so. I prefer discourse and debate, but what the hell. I can fight dirty.

I don't hate him, not at all (although he definitely thinks otherwise). It's just the way he assumes that I have complete freedom of how I can moderate and the insults he throws at me is what I dislike.

Thank you for a well reasoned response as your first one came off as quite rude and trollish (from my experience around the forums). Couple that with the unfortunate timing of posts as well as the time of day here and you have my response. Sorry, for that. Thanks for the tip regarding my post though.

OK, let's start from the top: I'm not busy, I just spend less time than a full time worker would and thus miss some posts that aren't reported and thus it gets attributed to favoritism. I do delete a lot of shit but I do read all of it; I just sometimes miss the more elaborate spam posts which is again regarding the selective enforcement argument. Yes, English is my second language, however I perfectly understand the discussion I moderate and such mistakes in writing usually occur when I write posts late at night (like now for no apparent reason).

This is something I've brought up to the administrators and this is why I compiled an unofficial (as the admins feel that a written down official ruleset would be much more open to exploitation) list of rules, which only recently have been sticiked in Meta: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0).

What about it? I became a moderator after reporting over 500 reports with a +90% or so accuracy. I leave any possible bias behind when I moderate and if I missed any post and you think that it was because I am friends with that person, don't just stare at the screen angrily - use the "Report to moderator" link.
Well, it has been for the past few years. What actually makes my blood boil is when someone who seems intelligent and reasoned (and not your regular biased troll complaining usually about nothing) starts insulting me for things that are out of my control. Also, I've been busy with IRL things and only recently came back to moderating again so it takes time to acclimatize to the usual drama that goes around here.


If you think I can just not follow the rules, you don't exactly grasp how forum moderation works. Also, don't over dramatize and compare this to a war crime - it isn't. I don't impede on your freedom of speech - you can always find another forum who will host posts that we don't allow.

That's something you should direct at theymos as he makes the rules. Also, there's way to many cases to examine and with usually shaky evidence and shady witnesses. Thus if you actually want to prove that some thing is a scam, seek it through legal means, tell the victims to sue them and acquire a court order for the thread to be removed as well.

You are barking up the wrong tree. You want change, talk with theymos as he decides forum policy. I'm but the janitor that was shown what to clean. And in all honesty, the post itself didn't add anything to the discussion especially considering the quality of the quoted post.

I like the fact that you are anon by critizing a mod, while you concurrently criticize the forum for allowing mods to be anon when they take action against you.

I think it should be fairly obvious who you are anyway

I feel the same way, the trick is to not care what anyone thinks and carry on. The people who complain the loudest are those that know nothing of what goes on. I'll address the OP first, and then move on to the additional things the thread has brought up.

As far as anonymous moderation. If you want any work done here at all, it is a necessity. For everyone person who wants to know why something was deleted, or just wants an answer from a moderator, there are 20 who just want to yell. I don't have anyone on my ignore list or pm ignore list, but that would surely change without anonymous moderation. As far as oversight, Admins have a log of who moderates what. If someone is out of line, Theymos/Badbear will clean house faster than someone can make a thread in meta. They have the greatest motivation to keep the forum staff honest. Why have a jerk representing their forum?

To the other issues. I'm not sure why whether english is mprep's first language or not is important, if the basis of your argument is a spelling/grammar/phrasing error it must not be that important. I've challenged those that speak the loudest to bring up a clear case of favoritism, nepotism, or selective enforcement. I have yet to have anyone get back to me. I'm not arguing that there isn't room for abuse, but I don't understand why people have an issue with something that hasn't been an issue yet. I extend that invitation out to anyone by the way, show me a single case. I do ask that you research it yourself first, don't just repeat someone else's words.

As far as scams go, you can't blame mprep for not moderating your scam reports. It is forum policy to not moderate scams, there are a lot of reasons behind this. If you want a wall of text I'd be happy to provide it, but this post is getting long as it is.

Alright. I'm pretty much done. This is the fourth or fifth time I've addressed this issue, both with you and the other mods, and, indeed Theymos. I don't like you, I find you smug and insulting. That in itself doesn't make you a bad moderator. The "I'm just following orders" while indeed being QUITE selective about what you "moderate" (remember, nothing REALLY goes away on the web), however, does. It's not so much that you deleted an offhand comment. That, it iself is a minor annoyance. In truth, in my time here I've maybe had a dozen posts deleted, one of which I agreed with. If Gmaxwell hadn't deleted it, I would have. My problem remains with the entire system. Yes, I do have an issue with you. But it's minor by comaprison to the REAL issue, which is that there are NO hard and fast rules, so you never know if something is going to be deleted out of hand. Relevance to the topic is only occasionally a criterion.

Further, on a website who's MAJOR FOCUS is an emerging monetary system, legitimate discussions of business and economics as pertaining to a particular coin are frequently "moderated" (read deleted) for absolutely no defensible reason. I chose the example I did simply because it was the most recent.

Theymos, I know you have followed this thread. You have three choices.

One, you can let things continue as they are, with the concommitant damage to your reputation and website.
Two, you can drop moderation altogether and let the chips fall where they may. With the concommitant damage to your reputation and website.
Three. You can lay down real rules and get your moderators to follow them exactly and precisely, rather than abritrarily and capriciously. This is the optimal solution in my opinion.

This isn't some ultimatum, it's just the only courses of action that I can see as available to you.

Oh, and yes, mprep, I have run BBS's off and on since the late 1970's. I am hyperbolic, and the comparison to a war crime is deliberately over the top, but illustrative. When there ARE NO concrete rules, you most assuredly DO choose what to enforce and what not to.

Check the Meta stickies for the rules which are based either on stickies, admin threads, tips by admins in the staff board or suggestions and clarifications when asked in the staff board. Regarding smug and insulting, I guess I might look to some like that as I try to be no-bullshit upfront. Regarding selectivity, just like SaltySpitoon said, give me a specific case. In other words, put up or shut up. As I mentioned, I delete dozens of responses like yours daily so I can't really understand where you are seeing selectivity aside from the example I've already clarfied and suggested solution to. And regarding what I choose to enforce, there's a reason as to why there's a staff board - for moderators to ask questions on whether they shouod moderate something or not.

This thread is starting to feel like a broken record - same opinions getting repeated over and over. Unless something actually new gets brought up, I'll probably won't bother to respond.

^ "staff" ~ coming from a shill from a banned ( in U.S.A. ) website ?  = satoshi lols ! ! ! :-)

I appreciate that the staff would take the time to respond to complaints and lay down valid points and especially Theymos for even taking the time to respond directly.

I have not had a big problem with the moderation, I think an improvement could be made to the rules in the way deletion of posts are handled and don't consider posts that drift off topic a little once in a while as spam nor if it's an acknowledgement of a solved problem. I agree with Biomech in that the rules should be more clearly defined, there is always room for improvement.

I have also done a lot of moderation on forums, I can tell you that the best approach to moderation is as little as possible and tact goes a long way, often issues can be resolved through conflict resolution way before ever needing to ban or delete peoples posts. Tact is actually really huge when it comes to moderation, often people just want an explanation but if met with rudeness (as I was when I made a similar thread some months ago), it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. If you are polite and not judgmental towards people, openly discuss sensitive topics even if others are being rude to you but are friendly back, well you could even remove more posts if you can explain conclusively that large amounts of spam are expensive to host.

Example in what I mean about using tact.

While I see your point, the problem of rules being arbitrarily applied and ambiguous leads to more problems than it solves. It puts me, as a user, in a bad position because I never know what to expect. And I can be quite provocative when I want to. I try to do so in an honest and intellectual manner, but sometimes I just dash something off. While others have, in this thread, spoken of being selective, I have not other than NOT doing anything against obvious scams. I have instead pointed out that it is not nearly selective enough. Arbitrary enforcement of rules makes for revolutions IRL and bad policy on the 'net. Right now BCT is king in the Crypto world, but that can change, and it will change if/when somebody with a better schema for moderation and sufficient money for advertising comes along. There will indeed always be those who deliberately break the rules, but in this forum, you can not actively determine which rules apply until your post comes up deleted.
I would actually like to see that wall of text, mostly out of curiousity. I cannot think of a single reason NOT to moderate scams. As the husband of a lawyer, I would think that the very opposite would be your policy as failure to do so can be seen as accessory to the crime in most jurisdictions.

As for mprep, I have a serious problem with his attitude. As to whether it is he who has deleted the majority of the deletions I've had (some of which were indeed on topic, relevant, and in no way that I can see in violation), I have no idea. Simply because he and I have clashed in the past, I do think of him first. But with the complete opacity, there is frankly no way to tell. To my knowledge, you and I have never had an issue. You warned me to chill out once, a long while ago. And I was drunk at the time, so you were right :P I rarely drink. Moderation should be moderate.

EDIT: I made a mistake above, in that I did point out that with no hard and fast rules, moderators (I pointed it at mprep as we have had the argument before) are BY NECESSITY self selective in what they moderate by the very fact of their not being hard, clear rules. It reads like a lie. It was in fact an out of coffee error. Sorry :P

That's because I have a script so I can quickly compose canned messages. Don't expect me to always send those though, and certainly don't expect other staff to do the same.

Well damm. This would explain a lot (LOL). Maybe it would be a good idea to give to the other moderators so they can help educate people on how to avoid breaking the rules......or better yet, give to theymos so a anon message can be sent with the same information to allow for anon moderation but with the benefits of educating people as to which rules they are breaking.

I think this may be the most constructive post in this thread!

No. I make posts all the time and only sometimes are they deleted. I can't imargerine the sort of Mincy prancey panty waste and mincing dimwit who would cry o boo hoo about it

Hmm, you mean like write up some detailed messages moderators can use to alert that a person's post has been deleted and why, within a clearly defined set of rules?

You already have the unofficial list, you could just break that up and do a little write up for each and make it sound nice.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

You must be talking about the Portland police. I thought that they did that on their own. I didn't realize that it was you who taught them to do that.  ;D

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innominate_jury) to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

And that's why the juries aren't allowed to break down your door and arrest you.  That's also why juries don't bring cases to trials, and why neither the the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's counsel get to hide behind anonymity.

This is basic stuff, things that every child should know.

I don't think any of the moderators are breaking down your doors.

If you want a decision of a moderator reversed then you will need to ask an admin of your choice (you have two choices) and their identity will be known when they make a decision.

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy) to make my point, or how analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy) works.

If the hooded cop refuses to give you his badge number while disappearing you, feel free to appeal this to him, or to his friend, the other cop.  Because these two anonymous cops are also anonymous judges and jury.  I'm sure justice will be served.

And you're using analogy in a place where it doesn't belong, like the inevitable person who comes in and compares Bitcointalk mods banning account farmers to SWAT teams in America destroying buildings to arrest shoplifters. The link between them is basically non-existent but people still whip it up to the same "power abuse!" train of thought that every other criticism of the mods boils down to - including this thread, as obviously if OP didn't believe some sort of abuse of power had taken place he wouldn't be complaining. But in reality, for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible, and that's that.

If the analogy doesn't work for you it means only that -- it doesn't work for you. Would be odd if you did, you being invested in the status quo. I didn't set out to convince you tho, so not too disheartened.

But let's consider your "for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible" statement.
What, exactly, isn't feasible for such a large forum? The mods revealing their pseudonyms? Or a set of clearly defined, binding rules? To my knowledge, both are not only feasible, but clearly necessary and trivial to implement.

moderators cannot ban (disappear?) you, only global mods and admins can. Even if you are banned then you can create a new account and appeal the decision publicly.

I don't think you are making an appropriate analogy (nor do I understand why people think it is okay to cite Wikipedia as a source on here).

I contest that I am "invested in the status quo". That would most certainly be a valid statement if I was a staff member, but I'm not and therefore I can't really agree with you there.


Yes, the mods revealing their pseudonyms is not feasible. Say a mod deletes just 20 posts in a day. 50% of these people get pissed off (as they do) and PM the moderator demanding an explanation. That mod now has 10 PMs to reply to, which will likely result in long PM chains. It isn't sustainable.

well anon moderation its impossible to negociate the factors of been more nervous pointaly and soo its a radical rupture decision form the one part

You're angling for a staff position tho, didn't you start some thread about mods & your reporting, or am I thinking of someone else?
You've been consistent in backing/white-knighting/toadying in this sub. I like the cut of your jib, my boy!


And this is where my cop analogy is helpful. How is it that cops, whose real life identities are known, manage to do their jobs? I understand that they have to deal with IRL folks with guns and shit, not just basement-dwelling keyboard warriors? Or are murderers and rapists less dangerous/likely to anger than bitcointalk users?

BTW, you forgot to address "set of clearly defined, binding rules." Just a heads-up, no rush.

Actually, generally speaking cops' identities for the most part are anon. If you ask for their name they will likely only give their last name or their first initial and their last name (you would get their badge number as well). Also the addresses where cops live is not anymore public then any other person's address, and I wouldn't doubt that cops take steps to make sure their address is not public.

Not really, my goodReports count is probably much lower than a lot of others. Not saying I wouldn't accept, but I'm probably not at the top of the list if I have to guess. It's much higher than the median probably, but not high enough to get very high on the leaderboard - and I did start a thread asking if there were plans to promote some staff to Global Moderators as I think that's needed to stop the influx of spambots, but obviously a quick review of what I actually just said shows that that can't really angle me for a staff position (I am suggesting existing staff are promoted, not that new staff should be made).


A cop has a job. A forum moderator is a volunteer. In addition, complaints against cops are relatively uncommon compared to what would happen if moderators had to give out their name each time they deleted a post. It's not about danger, more about an efficient use of time.

A set of clearly defined, binding rules is feasible for a forum and does exist. However there has to be some kind of room for interpretation and difference of opinion, else moderation becomes way too difficult and way too stringent for the mods (only delete for spam if below x words, etc...).

Please. A paid volunteer is not a volunteer. Theymos saying that "payments to moderators should be thought of as tipping" is neither here nor there. I can volunteer at BP, as long as they keep tipping me well. If you feel the pay is insubstantial, consider how many here are promoting the likes of Cloudthink ponzi for peanuts.


Complaints against cops aren't more common because there's a clearly defined body of law, and if these cops aren't free to do whatever their fancy tells them. Yeah, that's why.


No. There is no official set of rules, and that's why we're having this discussion. As far as wiggle room goes, how would you feel if (sorry to keep dredging up my useless analogy) IRL cops had the same "room"? I mean, they *know* you're guilty, why not just drop you on the spot and be done with it?

But there is no constant guaranteed stream of revenue that forum moderators get. Please don't pull the job argument.

There is a clearly defined body of law, the rules list. It is true that there is a clause saying moderators can interpret the rules as they like, but that is only to prevent loopholing. Looking into cases of people screaming abuse, there is usually valid interpretation of the rules and the person is just making a fuss or trying to be hyperbolic.

Cops have a duty to the public, they are public sector workers and they have to contend to a different rule-set than forum moderators. Shockingly, the real life police force works very differently to a forum staff team. Please, stop bringing up that analogy, it doesn't work here.

I'm not mistaken, I'm acutely aware a percentage of ad revenue goes to moderators. Sorry for the miscommunication - that's my bad - I'll rephrase: the ad revenue is not guaranteed and fluctuates (and could be 0, that's just unlikely however), therefore there is no constant guaranteed stream of revenue for forum moderators.

In real life, people get away with loopholes quite often. It's unfortunate, but it's how things are run - as that is real life and law is a much larger issue than rules on a forum. On a forum such as Bitcointalk, that isn't the case, and shouldn't be. It's not ideal and it's not totally decentralized, but in all honesty it's the best solution.

Refer to the above.

My position isn't absurd. A quick look at Meta and the amount of banned people who are quickly shown to have been account farmers, etc., shows that it would be infeasible.