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. 

Okay, dank.

I think I saw a flyer for it the other day when I was visiting friends in Tampa.

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.

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?

E-mail sent, Mr. Von Pahnzi. 

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. 

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.

It's not inexplicable.  Rarity was under attack by the moderators for criticizing Theymos so of course they aren't going to hold anyone responsible for blatantly scamming her.  dank just got lucky here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118154.0

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?

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.

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.  

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. 

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.

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?

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. 

Relevant:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118154.0

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.

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.