I would find it very unlikely anything that has happened on the forum has caused anything close to what can be reasonably argued to be "torture", although I would be willing to change my mind if I see verified evidence of such.

Also, if someone has harmed you in a way that is not against the rules, there may be a case for an additional rule and/or policy. If you think an additional rule or policy is needed, you can, and should make the argument for as much.


According to theymos' account, you were temp banned several times because of this, however the bans escalated because of ban evasion, that is, you were allegedly using alt accounts to post from when one (or more) of your other accounts were temp banned for the above.   

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

I got a PM from mprep saying that a post of mine was deleted because it was a reply to someone who  was evading their ban, who upon investigation is Anunymint.

I haven't read the bickering between mprep and Anunymint, and I have no financial reason to care about my post count. I found the small number of posts I interacted with/read to be insightful and interesting, which unfortunately is a rarity around here.

Having rules about what you can and cannot do is not unusual in society. This is exactly the role of governments, and without these rules, people would be harming people and extorting people without regard for others.

If you don't agree with a particular rule, or a group of rules, you should make an argument to have the rules changed, not ignore the rules. The exception to this would be if the rules/laws were reprehensibly immoral (such as killing people for arbitrary reasons), which is not the case with forum rules.

I think Anunymint should agree to not excessively create successive posts in threads, and to not otherwise break forum rules. Upon Anunymint agreeing to this, theymos should unban his accounts. I cannot make the argument that someone who is likely to continue breaking and ignoring the rules should be able to participate in the forum.   

Grue and salty were fired from being global mods because they were doing little to no mod work over an extended period of time. In other words, nearly zero productivity has been lost as a result of their removals.

Additional global mods are not needed as a result of Grue and salty being removed as mods.

Money raised from these fines could be donated to charity or otherwise put back into the economy.

The goal would not be to raise money, it would be to deter unwanted behavior.

Your reply was in no way on topic of that thread. It was also not responding to what was said about you.

Oh, I had no idea they were one and the same.

In that case,

This is outside of current forum policy, however I believe paying this kind of bounty would be a good way to ensure rules are not broken in the future by this person. This statement is based in part by the fact that users who are perma banned may simply ignore ban evasion rules and create a new account that may or may not get detected, and may or may not be detectable by the admins.

If someone is caught engaging in copy/paste spam, and has 10 accounts, 9 of which did not do this, all 10 would need to pay the bounty to get unbanned, or some of them could pay to unlock only those accounts.

I would argue that a $100 fine would be a bigger deterrent than being banished, especially considering that the later is more difficult to enforce.  

None of the above is an endorsement of any of what the OP does.

I don't see a Farsi thread in the other languages board on the first two pages which goes back to February.

I don't think there is demand for this.

They were there as part of a months long human trafficking investigation. Regardless, being critical of the president is not a safe harbor to break the law

Sadly this is just one more way ICOs have perverted incentives related to the forum. I don’t see tagging him really doing anything. Technically speaking he could claim that any posts he made were the result of him actually wanting to post there.

TF knows enough to not ask for money via his TF account. I don’t think anyone would give him money anyway, at least not anything substantial.

The above won’t stop him from collecting money from others unfortunately. See the hashie scam that he has been accused of being behind. I doubt he is the only one who can pull off these kinds of scams. It just highlights the importance of performing due diligence prior to trusting your money with others.

IDK why, but that looks a lot like a hat that would belong to you.

Are you trying to throw your hat into the ring?

Undercover police offers witnessed her feeling up customers and when the cops approached her she felt them up too.

If you have people paying to be touched in a sexual way which is ultimately what you are doing when a performer is touching a patron at a strip club, you have what is very close to prostitution if not outright prostitution, depending on the circumstances and the legislature probably didn’t want a loophole for prostitution. With prostitution, there is the risk of human trafficking being involved and/or other forms of coercion, hence the police investigation.

I am not familiar with OH laws, however I would say it is a safe bet the provision was put in that law to avoid it conflicting with another law.

The law was also apparently back by Christian conservatives, who presumably to prevent non-married people from touching eachother in these clubs.
yup. 

The US is a county of laws, and as long as a law is in effect, and does not conflict with a law passed by a higher authority (eg., a local ordinance conflicting with a state law), you must follow the law or be at risk of facing the consequences prescribed in the law.

The law was passed by elected officials who were duly elected, so it is arguably fair to say the law is part of the will of the people.

In general, I do not like government regulations, however simply ignoring a regulation is not the answer, the solution to regulations is to persuade the government to change/remove said regulations either via elections or via petitioning the government to do so. If you fall under the jurisdiction of a regulator, and ignore their regulations, you will almost certainly face consequences.

I would also point out that the police being at the club was apparently part of a long term sex trafficking investigation.


Yes, it seems as if a single word in the statute allowed Stormy to get out of the charges. My reading of the law is that if she had fondled the patrons on the 2nd night she was scheduled at the club, she would have been found guilty. Although considering the law does not specify the "employee" needs to perform at the same establishment "repeatedly" it is arguable she would be found guilty if it was determined she had performed in multiple clubs in OH under the court's jurisdiction, which I believe to be the case. Perhaps the DA didn't want to have to deal with the BS from her lawyer who likes to try cases on friendly cable TV stations.

Initial reports were that stormy had allowed a patron to touch her.

A spouse is a person's family member. Having your spouse touch you is not weird to everyone... 

That percentage is unlikely to be only nuked accounts however nuked accounts likely make up a decent chunk of “brand new” accounts.

I suspect that a very large percentage of those accounts are inaccessible to their owner for one reason or another. If someone is proxy banned they may create a new account on a different IP instead of paying the fee, someone might have forgotten their password and just created a new account.

Right. Being a political actor does not and should not give you safe harbor to break the law.

It also seems both her and her lawyer appear to be leveraging their anti-trump stance and what is likely a bogus story for their own personal financial gain.

I would be willing to bet this is some kind of bot using not very good AI. Both posts very broadly match the topic of the thread but are outright incoherent.

For example having a toothache does make people not happy and does cause pain. Using basic logic would imply that therefore not having a toothache (the opposite of having a toothache) would cause someone to be happy (the opposite of being not happy).

If you think an actual person wrote this then you believe that someone who is illiterate was able to sign up for bitcointalk and figure out how to join a bounty campaign. I don’t think any translation service would screw things up this badly.