I guess I am the only one that can clearly see that "Malice" and/or "value of coins" have NO BEARING on the banning.
Any give away, no matter what it is for, that solicits addresses, user names and or responses for for any coins will be cause for banning and thread removal.
This is a well known rule over a year old that was stickied by Theymos at the top of the forum.
~BCX~
No...you are not the only one who sees that.
The banning occurred because the testnet thread produced a number of posts that were insubstantial...people were posting addresses for testcoins.
This is certainly an issue that I think needs moderating. I don't think any one here is going to argue that. It was a thread that provided a number of 'insubstantial posts'.
What we can perhaps consider is that Mr Spread was more concerned with development than he was with the inadvertent creation of insubstantial posts. The thread wasn't meant to create a hardship for BTCTalk...it was meant to facilitate its function as a communicative platform. This is a forum intended for development as much as it is for simple discussion...if I am not wrong.
I worked as Staff for a discussion forum that had over three million unique visitors a month at its peak. I understand the issue. There was a breach of standards. But as Staff, context was everything...
At this point, if Mr Spread does not appeal his postban then I see no reason to reverse it (using the context of a moderation team). But I also think it should be noted that the context of the punishment is not in the spirit of the rule creation.
Show Posts
Thanks buddy 
