Bitcoin Forum

I am making this thread because I was banned for no reason other than pointing out this post in a thread this user created.


I would like to point out I make this post against the wishes of the magazine.

This was a serious comment, meant to solicit assault and digital attack on Matthew and the magazine. This is conspiracy to commit assault and is illegal in every country I have ever heard of. Especially in Brisbane, Australia, where the user Vual is from. Now the site is guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal since they didnt even bother to ban the user who made the threats.

Now ban me because I have earned it. I did not earn the last one.

I remember when I got banned for what I thought was for no reason, but looking back afterward, the ban probably was correct. Three days was a long time so I created another user name dubbed 'Nikki the Bitch' and with her help my ban was kindly extended from three days to ten.

I'm apt to agree with you, though, that your ban may have been uncalled for. Perhaps it was a mistake, and if that's the case, you'll get a PM from the one who handed out your ban.

~Bruno~

What makes you think that was what got you banned?

It's hard to know the sensibilities of moderators, or anyone else for that matter. I think they're a bunch of *********  :D

He was never messaged by a moderator as to why he was banned or revived any form of warning

Like I told deslok, I had nothing to do with this. Theymos made the call on this one.

This kind of thing is obviously off-topic in an auction thread:

I usually give warnings in the form of short bans...

I cut vual some slack on that post because he had a right to be angry about the trolling and off-topic posts in his topic.

Matthew was much further off topic and was given a shorter ban, and vual wasn't doing himself any favors when children need a time out they ALL need a equal time out.

Matthew specifically asked me to remove his statements because he decided to retract them. If it wasn't for that, I would have asked for a much longer ban, likely between a week and permanently.

He barely saved himself.

Let me do some moderating from the sidelines.  I read the threads while they were running hot, before they were adjusted.  There was blame on both sides, but there was an valid point Mathew made in that the "premium" domain names were not especially well used/valuable as they were being promoted.  The thread degenerated, but mostly was either on topic or slinging insults.

By the time vual was wanting to pay people for physical violence, it was too far gone.  Vual has also approached me for funds (I declined, I consider him too great a risk based on his behaviour).

When I joined this forum, it was (and still is) a punishing place for the ignorant or stupid.  Many posts were nasty and unfriendly.  It is a bit better now, but still easy to have someone randomly have a swipe at you for no good reason.  Someone new should have at least taken the time to learn about what they were getting into.

And he wasn't punished for that. What he was punished for was the trollish comments he made in that post, such as asking if Vual was 12. If he had left things at that, the thread would have turned out much better.
We don't want it to be that way, and we're doing what we can to fix that.

Agreed


Appreciated - it is better than it was.

Ban said it was for posting off topic in domain auction thread.


This statement was after he made the comment about the site and Matthew. I didn't even step in until after the comment about hacking the site and threatening violence. The moderators were being lazy allowing that comment and a user who clearly didn't belong out of the newbie section onto the main board. Why don't you look at the order of the posts before you make assumptions.

For the record though, that was on topic about the auction. User was acting like a scammer but the post was about the auction. The offer still stands too. He can pay me 1000BTC and I will consider taking one.

"Compleat", "premiem", and a whole host of other atrocious spelling mistakes. The guy claimed to not know what a Satoshi was, yet he was trying to get Bitcoins from people. The domain names certainly were not premium by any means and the user lied blatantly about their reputation. This was disputed correctly by Matthew immediately. Clearly you must know this person to have so blindly defended them.


Quite frankly I am surprised at how far this thread went and am still bitter about this. I do not let go of these things very easily.

And I apologize to you as this is clearly not directed at you.

as I noted on the posts, they both needed to grow up, but bittenbob is spot on on this one. Vaul was let out of the playpen a bit prematurely, probably said he wanted to sell. I think the mods made the right call on this, even if it was a little late. Experience from my dark orbit days (an MMORPG)...Mods cannot be everywhere at once. I am all for a non hostile forum, lets just keep it clean on both sides, eh?

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

I'm sorry, bittenbob.  :-[

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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