Bitcoin Forum

We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user Rarity (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=43081) being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum.  Theymos may feel he is totally innocent in his role as a partner and officer with GLBSE but on a forum which depends on free speech for its value it is quite disturbing that this is the method used when the head administrator is questioned.   The conflict of interests between Theymos' role with GLBSE and his role as overseer of the moderators on this forum who are judging scam accusations against his company has come to a point where it cannot be ignored when critics are being silenced.  Theymos should step down as administrator on Bitcointalk at least until this matter is resolved.  Even if totally innocent, the appearance of impropriety in this case is stark.

I think it was more then that have you seen the Spam he/she post with utter nonsense? As we all know free speech is limited to the venue which the speech is being held.

The COI that mods on this forum have has already been previously demonstrated. I maintain that any mod who has a conflict of interest must not get involved in any censorship, banning, or relocation of threads pertaining to the issue; rather, they should Report the post or user just like the rest of us should.

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

I don't believe that theymos should step down at this time. However, more open and democratic process on BitcoinTalk is past due. If this censorship continues, perhaps VIP members should vote to resolve these issues.

good luck

they don't have to, so they won't

The foundation thing is perfect example of how the venue sets the rules, maybe we need a bitcoin forum foundation JK. V.I.P voting sounds like its the right idea.

I have not seen Rarity ever post spam or nonsense.  I think you are letting your personal views cloud the issue here.  Long time users, even if you disagree with them, should not be banned for expressing their views. 

If Bitcointalk wants to be a venue that allows all kinds of free speech aside from criticism of staff involved with businesses that are going under, they should say so. 

I know for a fact that Rarity wasn't banned for the theymos thread. Not going to tell you why Rarity was banned because I'm not sure I can disclose it, or else I would tell you.

Try harder, Rarity.
Yes, I'm saying you're a Rarity sockpuppet. You're lucky this isn't your beloved SA forums or else you'd need to pay again to come back.

I am simply a concerned Bitcointalk user.  I would post with my real name, but I would risk facing the same moderator retribution Rarity faced.


So what was she banned for?  If you actually know something, share it with us.

come on guys, this is one of the free'est forums on the web

I was under the impression he was banned for the thread about dank he posted in Scam Accusations.

Rarity and Dank have been going at it for ages.  If Rarity was officially banned for that it just seems like an excuse.  Besides, if anyone was trolling there it was the guy who intentionally played a poor version of Mary Had A Little Lamb just to get a rise out of her.

dank's as big of a troll as anyone else in his own threads. It's ridiculous that his Dank Bank thread is even in Long Term Offers given that it's basically a personal blog about his opinions on all things metaphysical and somewhere to post links to his latest examples of musical genius.  He's not stupid.  If he didn't post flame bait his Dank Bank thread would get no attention at all and quickly fall off the front page.  Then again, the Long Term Offers forum has no credibility left whatsoever so it might be the most appropriate place for dank's thread after all.  

I don't know anything about Rarity or what he/she did to get banned. But I think if the admins think he/she should get banned they should explain why. Banning someone without explanation only leads to speculations.

where you been hanging out?

long term lending thread  ;D Joking

Oh ye of little faith... Dancing Dan had all of 4 hours since registration to get ten posts in, learn everything there is to learn about bitcoin, figure out who the good guys and the bad guys (and gals?) are, and then be able to figure out a good level of moral outrage at the banning of somebody who was already banned when they got here, so all of it would be in the past, and still make this the first big issue they posted on.

You don't think that was genuine outrage from a genuine n00b?

Wonder if we might want to think about instituting that rule that you must be a member for X number of days before you can create a new thread?

That will just make socks harder to find.

Good riddance, Rarity was a nuisance

Rarity was one of my favorite posters.  :(

I guess you prefer the god fearing weirdos ... :D

So you are a new user, but you have actually watched Pony and Dank going at it for ages? But I digress, you don't get banned for calling out the mods, I've seen people do so on various occasions, and I've seen them get pretty vile while at it. If Theymos or any of the other mods just took their liberties at banning, this forum would be a lot emptier place, as there's a new thread about one of them being a bad mod, or being incompetent, or just an asshole every day. They don't seem to care that much.

My point is, if you get banned from here, there's probably a real reason, as I haven't ever managed to get banned, and I tend to have that tendency.

Attention is great :)

I have had words with a mod, but it was in private the way it should be.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:


As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

First of all I will not share why Rarity was banned. Reasons for a ban are between the forum administrators and the person that was banned and no one else. In most forums you would be banned just for questioning why someone was banned.

I will just say one more time that the theymos thread had nothing to do with it.

Now Rarity: Go spread your FUD somewhere else.

Good point, I been mixing it up with one of the mods pretty good;  I have had threads deleted, but surprisingly the banhammer has not come down.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.


You are not a credible source of information to defend accusations of conflict of interest against yourself.  Rarity's posting style has not changed at all over the long time she has been here.  All of a sudden when her  criticism landed on you, however,  it became "trolling" and banworthy.  It doesn't pass the smell test.

Post some examples of "trolling" from Rarity, because it always seemed to me that people just got upset that she posted counterpoints to a lot of the dogma taken for granted around here and people weren't able to put up with it. 

Please respond here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118265.0). As moderator of Bitcoin Discussion, you are to share in the blame.

Rarity was spamming all over the place, damaging bitcoin as well as select users.

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.










   

And Atlas doesn't?

Yes he does. You're barking up the wrong tree there, I'm the one who requested his last ban, which theymos lifted a few weeks ago at his own discretion. My opinion on that isn't really a secret, don't want to derail the thread though. 

Can't really blame theymos for giving him another chance I guess, at least he seems to be trying and accepting advice.

In what thread are you asserting all this has occurred?  Post examples.  Where did Rarity derail a thread to talk about philosophy or ideology?  It seems like you are just spinning and speaking in generalities because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar banning Rarity for questioning a moderator here.  The face is Rarity was never banned until this moment, so show us the posts that caused it.  

I don't see any recent post where your quote about regulation comes from.  She never posted the words you attribute to her. Do you think lying about what has happened is helping your case?

So you've only looked at Rarity's recent posts, have no idea what I'm talking about, but feel knowledgeable enough about the situation to make this thread then call me a liar? Seems likely. If you were being a bit more reasonable I'd help you out, but since you're being a dick and obviously don't really want an explanation I'll ignore you instead, I have better things to do. Good luck with your whole thing here though.

I am afraid to speak openly here in fear of being banned so I do not speak here as much as I used to.  I am waiting for the new alternative and I will have plenty of juicy things to share there when I discover this new oasis.

I have followed Rarity's posts closely since she has been here but since the banning was recent and the timing and cause is under question it seems necessary to examine recent posts.   If she was banned eight months ago, I would focus there.  I am calling you a liar because the words you put in quote marks have never been posted by Rarity.  Google backs that up.

It's much easier to personally insult me than to show us the non-existent posts you cited, I know, but it's not making the banning of Rarity look any less corrupt and shady.

You're kidding, right? ???

I'm one of those dudes who often post off-topic(or snarky) replies just for the fun of it(and have been banned for it) and I'm a Moderator, FFS. ::)
Or you're telling me you can't manage a 7 days ban without complainting about it, if it comes to that?
You can still read, after all.

In the second and third posts of the thread The psychology of a con man - Zhou, which was initiated to discuss the psychology of a con man based on the famous user Zhou Thong, the user Rarity decided it was better to discuss the detrimental aspects of psychology and how regulated markets are the solution for economical issues:

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion > The psychology of a con man - Zhou (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0)




How do you know that? Are you Rarity? How do you know that Rarity questioned a moderator when no evidence or no user even indicated that this happened?


Redundant statement.


Here:


Also here:


...and here, as well:


So, if you follow Rarity's posts, I am sure you agree that whatever Badbear suggested with his answer, is based on verifiable and factual evidence.

If that is not enough, I must add that once I got caught by Rarity's rants and a forum moderator thought I was being off-topic. So the moderator moved a few posts to the off-topic section, which proves that Rarity was indeed disturbing the forum discussions by producing misplaced statements and deceitful claims:

Bitcoin Forum > Other > Off-topic > Private war between Rarity, augustocroppo and mlawrence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97365.0)

Can you feel the burn?

I can only admire you for all the work you've done just to fight a troll  :o

Cumprimentos e muito respeito ;)

Let me see if I get this right.  When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July?  You know it's mid-october, right?  We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here.   It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they?  Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis.

As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that!

If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail. 

If you want to ban Rarity for "derailing" threads with discussion about spiritual matters, you should probably take into consideration that the threads in which he's done that are threads into which the OP himself has already injected metaphysical discussion and spoken ad nauseum about his spiritual beliefs.  In fact it's literally impossible in those threads to get a sensible answer from the OP about his "business proposals".  Every question about how he's going to implement those proposals is met with metaphysical bullshit.  The OP himself frequently and intentionally detracts from "the real issues that are important and should be discussed", in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that he has no business model whatsoever for his ventures and that he does no actual work towards making them happen.

You can hardly blame people for discussing spiritual matters in a "business" thread when the OP's whole business model is literally "karma will make it happen" and the OP can't produce a shred of evidence that his "business proposals" are anything other than wishful thinking at best or outright deception at worst.

Doesn't say Mod under your name... have you been banned and don't know it?

And seriously... they are not clamping down on free speech, and I am the poster child for pushing the limits of what can be written, and who can be questioned in a post. To date I have not been even given a single 7 day warning period to cool off. I did get one very polite request to tone down the rhetoric in a single thread, I believe the author being destroyed was perhaps a little slow, and as the request was polite I agreed to it. Rarity is gone not for speech but for suitable reasons. Rarity will be back in due course. Dancing cough cough Dan. And if indeed DD is Rarity come back to agitate for her pardon, that is in and of itself a violation of the TOS, and a bannable offense.

Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.


No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.


Wrong.

The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.


What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.

I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.


No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.


Let's verify your arguments. You started claiming that Rarity was banned by Theymos because of his/her responses in the Nefario thread:


Then a moderator and the administrator answered that the decision to ban was not based on anything you claimed:



Frustrated with the answer, you demanded impartiality from the administrator and evidence that Rarity was posting "counterpoints" which "people weren't able to put up with it":


An answer was provided:


So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:


So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence. An answer was provided and the false claim was corrected. Then you required impartial evidence to prove Rarity's actions. Again, an answer was provided by a moderator. Unable to handle the overwhelming evidence starting to accumulate against your false claim, you decided to ask for more evidence. Then I provided enough evidence which supports every statement made by the administrator and the moderators.

The only epic fail here is you...

Voce e bem-vindo, psy.

Ironicamente, eu apenas lembrei dos poucos incidentes que tive com Rarity e percebi que eles sao provas suficiente para justificar o motivo do banimento.

Of course it's the best you can do.  Nothing has happened recently to justify a banning.


Or, I can see that she has continued to post uninterrupted by looking at the post history?  You are embarrassing yourself.


The discussion in question assumed his guilt:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0

"The psychology of a con-man" presumes he is a con-man.  If someone were to post a thread titled:  "augustocroppo: the psychology of a child rapist murderer" I think we can all agree it would be okay to point out the false premise without getting banned.


Psychology was a subject of the post, and I am not aware of any moderator action against Rarity in that instance.  It appears you are the one in disagreement with the moderators on that.


No, if you follow the thread you will see that a moderator did in fact take action against mlawrence for the death threats he posted.  Again, you are the one out of touch with the moderators.


As the problem here is moderator bias of course moderators can be expected to deny it.  A moderator presented a false quote and has been unable to point to any specific thread as evidence.  There is simply no Casus belli present for the recent banning which is why every moderator has refused to point to the phantom posts that caused it.  It was about Theymos, unless a moderator can point to any evidence otherwise and so far they have not.


Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning.  All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July.  

Meh.  It's a web site.  The owners have full dictatorial rights over whatever is posted here and don't have to answer to anyone for it.

I didn't know Rarity was banned, but was glad to read it.

Every time I saw a Rarity post I knew it would be incendiary and would contribute no value to the discussion.

Good move banning him (her?).  It'll be less for me to wade through.

they need to ban me too since i post "off topic".  or maybe its b/c i criticized hazek.  can't have that.

Something happened or the ban would not happen. Rarity actions provoked the ban. Moreover, the decision to ban an user is not based only on recent events.


Since you referred to me as "we", I only explained that I do not know for a fact that Rarity was banned. I do not follow his/her annoying posts.


The "discussion" is not a person to assume guilty or innocence. The users participating in the discussion had different assumptions and no conclusion was made.


No, "we" cannot. I am not you and I do not agree with your assertion. It is quite misleading. If there was no reason or evidence to initiate the discussion, I would agree on a false premise. But this was not the case.


No, "psychology" was not the subject, neither was regulated markets. The psychology of a con man was the subject. Just because the thread tittle have the psychology word, it does not mean the subject was about psychology. Moreover, lack of moderation is not absence of evidence.


Irrelevant. The subject in discussion is Rarity unnecessary posts. Only because mlawrence was moderated, it does not mean Rarity did not made misleading statements.


There is not any problem here. Bias is not an issue and the moderators have already admitted they are biased. No false quotes were produced by any moderator. Just because the reasons for the banning were not disclosed, this does not count as evidence for your claims.


Your claim still remains false and with no evidence to support it.

Really? The moderators are now twisting words and the reality to their benefit?

You admit that it is "not entirely true.". However, what you have described achieves the same effect of what dree12 has stated.

Bitcointalk isn't a democracy unlike Bitcoin, but the moderation needs to be done in a fair and objective way, with conflicts of interests sorted out and not participating. Moderators needs to do what is best for Bitcointalk and Bitcoin, not for their personal interests.

I am not saying that this isn't happening or that all moderators are guilty of this, but some like pointed out in this thread definitely needs to reconsider. For example, if theymos were more aggressive and as you can see GLBSE failed, this can significantly impact the bitcoin economy - "Official bitcoin forum moderator promotes illegal scams, censors doubters" could be a headline for an article, and that will give new bitcoin users a bad first impression.

There is no official Bitcoin forum.

Moderators do not need to do what is "best for Bitcoin".  This is not an official forum for the promotion of Bitcoin and nor does it pretend to be.  While there may be many discussions here which portray Bitcoin in a bad light, the answer is not to demand that the nature of this forum be changed so that Bitcoin is portrayed in a falsely positive light - it's to create on online presence with a different purpose.

Good riddance. He/she/it was so annoying that I feel like any other member using Frienship is Magic pony avatars should be banned as well.

I don't know Rarity, but reading his recent posts, I have to agree this banning is sketchy. I like this forum and don't want to get banned, but I don't see how it's wrong to discuss whether or not the owners of GLBSE are responsible for what is owed. I am not going to wade into that argument, I didn't lose much from GLBSE, but it seems extremely strange to ban someone who is raising these questions, and then blame it on months old posts in some thread no one cared about at the time. Not to mention... was he banned for suggesting that regulation can be a positive thing? Or for getting off topic in a thread where the OP was discussing philosophy? I didn't know that those were offenses.

If the consensus of the board moderators is that GLBSE owners other than nefario hold no responsibility, and that continuing to discuss this issue is not allowed, why not just say that? They control this board and have the power to decide what is allowed here, we all (almost all) understand and accept that. Banning someone and then being clearly dishonest as to the reason, making a huge reach to claim it was for months old posts, really hurts the credibility and appearance of openness of this board, which sucks because this is the best BTC resource by far. Again this is your board and you can do as you wish, but it makes you look silly to suggest that this user would have been banned for these old "regulation" posts if he had not posted about GLBSE this week. Just man up and say no talking about mods owing money.

Please don't ban me, just giving my 0.02 BTC.

WTF?

I have never notice this Rarity before this thread, but the search funtion works and they didn't delete all his posts...





Mods or not, the people posting BS excuses and clear untruths instead of being open or just saying you don't know, are really looking bad here.

This is my last post on the subject, I have no direct interest in this situation and am just posting my opinions as an outside observer. I hope you guys clean this shit up, this board is too important to lose credibility over this.

Let me counter all of your retarded conspiracy theories with a post of mine from the moderator forum way back from July, where I am suggesting the ban of Rarity.

And that is the exact reason why Rarity was banned. That was made clear through an overall view of Rarity's posts, and especially recent ones. Three out of the 10 reported posts against Rarity were moderated. Rarity had also been previously brought up for being banned, as well as warned. Not to mention, Rarity had an orange ignore button (this isn't directly used against people, but it can be used as contributory evidence).

I surprised nobody posted this, given that I explicitly said that people could say that I was the one who requested the ban, but here is the particular request I made:

(it was subsequently seconded)

Normally, if that's all a person did trolling wise, that'd be alright. However, this has been a pattern for Rarity and this forum has really just seen enough. Making that thread that I mentioned really was what broke the camel's back for me. Prior to that, Rarity was only being destructive to meaningful conversation in a few threads, but making that thread broke the containment.

Again, there was no problem with any single post (except for a few here and there that were dealt with), rather it was the overall picture that resulted in the ban.

I read it as you giving permission to Theymos to disclose it to Rarity, not to someone else to disclose it to other forum users.

I suppose. I never figured a thread would pop up.  :-\

It would be way cooler if the forum was decentralized and everyone could be a part of moderating the forum.
Things like reputation systems on all accounts (where other users can leave feedback behind about a user) would improve the forum I find.

You sound like you're volunteering.   8)

Of course they do, like with the scammer tag the law has nothing to do with this, it's a matter of honor to maintain a forum with free speech when you claim to be doing so.


Of course you disagree, and you should not be criticized for defending yourself or a fellow poster from false accusations as you are doing with Rarity.  


The name Zhou Tong was in the title, you don't get to pretend it was not about him.  You are being dishonest and absurd, the discussion assumed his guilt and was examining his psychology.  Read the thread.


The unnecessary posts in question were pointing out the need for moderation of death threats.  You can't find any real examples because they don't exist.


A request for evidence is not a claim.


Another false accusation.  Rarity appears to have been talking about regulation of people using Bitcoin and repeatedly pointed out she would not regulate the currency itself in any way.  That all the criticisms of Rarity seem to be based on lies is not making a good case the ban was not crooked.


Let me get this straight, the only evidence you have of this accusation is something I have to pay $10 to see?  And you are calling me retarded for not believing your hidden evidence?  Why do you have no facts you can actually share with us?


This is a clear admission Rarity was banned for criticizing Theymos.  Rarity made that post in response to Theymos admitting he did not reveal everything in his sale post, and claiming that he would have done so later in the sale.  Why the hell should an unbiased observer take Theymos at his word on that?  The only evidence of Rarity "not seeing reason" is not believing Theymos?  Who wanted GLBSE to remain an illegal market?  Who is now doing nothing but sniping from the sidelines while Nefario sends out refunds?

And why is Rarity making a mockery of the scammer tag system by complaining that a written contract on these forums was broken?  It seems more a mockery that Dank was allowed to get away with it and continues to solicit donations towards his music as if he were capable of playing any.

And if "mocking the scammer tag system" is worthy of banning, do you intend to ban dank for turning the thread about his deceptive breach of contract into a discussion of how illegal drugs cure cancer which is caused by a weak soul?

Of course not, you are just making a weak excuse for being caught red handed trying to shut down a critic of the administrator. 


And yet when asked to share any evidence of trolling, all you can do is point to some offsite forum behind a paywall?


Moderators, was it a 7 day ban?  I haven't seen Rarity logged in or posting since.

Most of the recent SA goons, probably due to a lack of actual technical skills and intelligence, are spending more effort trolling lately than actually finding and exposing scammers, so they have to focus instead on criticizing theymos. The better SA goons that actually do their own research and discovery have just accepted Bitcoin for what it is and moved on, or like me, are sometimes finding active scammers. The only ones still left focusing on trolling are actively trolling in bands (https://i.imgur.com/g3DvU.png). Make no mistake, the OP is just another goon trying to rile up a posse for a witchunt.

I love SA, been a member there for over a decade, but the Bitcoin thread there is full of a bunch of teenagers or unemployed twenty-somethings with zero economic experience and vendettas against "lolbertarians". They are so full of themselves they think the teenagers and unemployed twenty-somethings on *this* forum (read: Atlas) represent the entirety of Bitcoin when they say things like "It crashed because people ran out of money to support the price, but SomethingAwful got blamed." (https://i.imgur.com/6HpTl.png)

In actuality, very few people purchased at $20 or above, but if you were to take a few of these interpretations from Something Awful members, all of us were buying at that point over a year ago. I really wish they'd just tone down the rhetoric, but when they can spend all day posting nonsense and trying to make villains out of forum regulars and think they are making headway, why wouldn't they? Banning Rarity is a "meh". I wouldn't mind seeing a few more banned just to watch them get pissy about it and cry about evil theymos censorship in the SA thread. It's fun to watch their reactions. If they are enjoying reading this forum and loling, we might as well get a kick out of reading theirs!

EDIT: Worth noting, I found out about Bitcoin independent of SA, first in late 2009 and again when it was actually worth something in 2010. I consider myself a "goon" about as much as I consider myself a "BitcoinTalker", but I suppose since I *do* have an account I can pretend to hate Atlas or Dank or whoever it is the SA thread is currently targeting if it helps me fit the present profile :P. I just can't dedicate tens of posts a day to ridiculing people since I actually have a day job and just post here at night and over lunch.

You have zero evidence Rarity is a troll, only speculation.  Rarity appears to me to be a fan of Bitcoin and a long time member here who never trolled.   This "Something Awful" site is behind a paywall, the only way you could possibly see what is happening there is if you yourself are a member.

Members of that forum are trolling with Rarity as their target, and you have just revealed yourself to be one of them.

Wow, that makes a lot more sense now.  The moderators of the forum could obviously see something over there too, which proves they are members as well.  Why are the moderators joining up with this other forum to troll members like Rarity?

No shit, Sherlock... ::)
If it wasn't for you telling us Raize is a goon we would never suspect...

Umm The "scammer tag" was a mockery the moment that intersango/bitcoinica/zhoutong did not get a scammer tag.  Rarity's thread looked like a legitimate request over an unfulfilled obligation.

As for the "Rarity = goon" conspiracy, from what I read, even the goons don't think Rarity's a goon.

My point was in regards to the moderators "evidence" against Rarity.  They should not be using secret evidence from their paysite to be moderating this free forum.

It is troubling that so many members of that forum such as Raize, including moderators here, are vocal opponents of Rarity.  I am glad you are starting to see things my way.  Trolls from that place should not be allowed to besmirch the good name of Rarity or act as moderators here.

I don't think it's a laughing matter that moderators of this forum are members of this "Something Awful" group that are plotting to troll users here from behind their paywall as Raize has described.  Rarity does not deserve to be trolled by them or banned for criticizing them. 

See:

If there is a pattern of trolling you should have no problem pointing to examples of clearly trolling behavior.  Instead, you have dodged doing so for over a week and have instead pointed to posts hidden behind  a paywall on another forum apparently dedicated to trolling this site.  Why, exactly, are you a member of such a group?

It sounds more and more that the definition of "trolling" on this forums is simply "stuff Theymos doesn't like"

There is no literal trolling on this forum with exceptions of Rarity or others. These people are obviously looking for just a reaction.

On the other hand, skepticism and disagreement are labeled as trolling here, wrongly so.

Yet another baseless accusation leveled at Rarity.  Let me guess, you have posted with the troll planners on this "Something Awful" too?

Rarity was the definition of a reasonable skeptic on these forums.  Her skepticism of libertarian arguments and her pro-government and regulation views were labeled as trolling specifically because they were a minority viewpoint strongly argued.  Some of those with less faith in their views could not handle the challenge of not not existing in an echo chamber and chose the easy way out of attacking the messenger rather than defending their views.

Okay, Rarity.

Okay, dank.

Goodnight, John Boy.

Seriously, was it a 7 day ban or permanent? I've read this whole thread and didn't see the answer.

I'm going to bed now, but if I don't read an answer in the morning, I'm going to post pics of naked bears.

Nite, all.

~Bruno K~

Goodnight, Mary Ellen.  I would like to know that too.  I assumed it was a permaban from the start and have been sticking with that since no moderator has contradicted it. 

False. I only presented evidence to substantiate the moderators decision to ban Rarity.


Irrelevant.


The posts are the evidence which you required and now you are ignoring.


False.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim?q=claim



You did a claim with no requests for any evidence. Further, when evidence was provided, you ignored.

^ Rarity should have been banned for saying death threats should be moderated and for discussing Zhou Tong and Psychology in a thread about Zhou Tong and psychology.  And Dancing Dan should be banned for assuming what they already admitted in this thread, that they acted in response to what Rarity said to Theymos.

We get it, let's go back to the real issue here since Dan is no longer with us.

Dancing Dan has raised some serious questions.  Instead of answering them, the moderators pointed to a site hidden behind a paywall and banned him for it.  I can't think of any better confirmation that he was right about this all along.

Wait... Dancing Dan was banned as well?

GOOD RIDDANCE, Dan!

 :D

I think it's kind of ironic some of the obvious excuses trotted out to ban Rarity have tripped all over themselves and become nonsense.

For instance, it has been suggested that Rarity should be banned because his request to have the written agreement he made with dank honored was considered a "mockery" and that he should be banned because he is a "Something Awful" troll.

I am an SA member, joined to get to the bottom of this, and the truth is that Dank is the actual SA troll in this situation.  He has even admitted it, though there is no such evidence for Rarity aside from speculation.

https://i.imgur.com/fFopJ.jpg

So what actually occurred was SA troll dank obviously never intended to fulfill his agreement and even admitted sabotaging it in the scammer thread.  Why blame an innocent member like Rarity for getting trolled by SA into making the scammer thread?

If any of these excuses aimed at Rarity were true and just reasons to ban, he would still be here and the real SA troll who mocks our proud scammer tag tradition would be gone.

Are you trying to get the gibbis thread closed?

I think the entire forum should be banned then we can all move to a different forum.   :)

Who are you?

Rarity#7 ?

Yup: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117590.msg1303049#msg1303049

Great. Now we have two Atlases. Though, Rarity is a bit better than Atlas because her posts seem at least a bit more on topic. But that's like comparing epsilon with zero; they are both completely useless.