Do whats best for us? We didn't vote them in based off of their opinion of how the forum should be ran, who other than the people are to say what is best for us? Whats best for us is what WE say.
Trolling isn't that bad, I have a shaky memory, but didn't theymos try to sell off what was it $500,000 worth of shares of a scam business right before they were caught..?
Edit:Edit badmaths: $78k back then, 551k today.
There is no voting, this isn't a democracy. Banning someone from a private website isn't censorship, that's ridiculous and shows you don't truly understand what censorship and freedom of speech mean. It's a privately owned forum, and theymos is exercising his right as property owner/administrator to manage as he sees fit. If you disagree, you are free to leave. You are not free to try and take the property owner's rights away on a whim just because you disagree with something he did. Trolling isn't that bad, I have a shaky memory, but didn't theymos try to sell off what was it $500,000 worth of shares of a scam business right before they were caught..?
Edit:Edit badmaths: $78k back then, 551k today.
Actually I'm just going to stop here and quote DeathandTaxes here, he said it perfectly. Edit: Actually you were a part of this conversation about another troll who was banned, I guess you just like infringing on the rights of others whenever you disagree with them. Nice, you should get a job in government work.
Property doesn't only apply to physical property. You have no freedom of speech as it relates to other citizens and their private property. No forum can violate your freedom of speech because ...
Who can't abridge the freedom of speech? That's right Congress can't. Last time I checked the mods on this forum aren't Congress, aren't duly elected or appointed officials of any state. They aren't even the agents of the state.
Rights start with ownership. The forum is OWNED by its owners. Those owners use admins and mods to (as they see fit) to maximize the value of their property. Property they own and have every right to control. There is no difference between kicking a hunter off your land and kicking a person off a forum. Both involve lawfully controlling one's property.
You don't need a freedom of Speech from other citizens you know why?
1) Other citizens don't have a monopoly on violence. Other citizens can't under the law use force to silence your speech.
2) Sure maybe you can't speak on this forum without rules (much like you can't hunt on anyone's private property without permission) but until bitcointalk.org becomes the sole mechanism of speech for the human race you have other options.
TL/DR:
I hate "rights" hypocrits. I bet even now you fail to see that your demands of freedom of speech are a violation of the rights of others ... the rights of property owners to be free in the ownership of what is theirs.
Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Who can't abridge the freedom of speech? That's right Congress can't. Last time I checked the mods on this forum aren't Congress, aren't duly elected or appointed officials of any state. They aren't even the agents of the state.
Rights start with ownership. The forum is OWNED by its owners. Those owners use admins and mods to (as they see fit) to maximize the value of their property. Property they own and have every right to control. There is no difference between kicking a hunter off your land and kicking a person off a forum. Both involve lawfully controlling one's property.
You don't need a freedom of Speech from other citizens you know why?
1) Other citizens don't have a monopoly on violence. Other citizens can't under the law use force to silence your speech.
2) Sure maybe you can't speak on this forum without rules (much like you can't hunt on anyone's private property without permission) but until bitcointalk.org becomes the sole mechanism of speech for the human race you have other options.
TL/DR:
I hate "rights" hypocrits. I bet even now you fail to see that your demands of freedom of speech are a violation of the rights of others ... the rights of property owners to be free in the ownership of what is theirs.
Bolded the important part, that's why banning someone isn't censorship. I don't know how much more simpler it can be made. The only valid point I've seen made is that there are others who should be banned, but that's hardly new. Unbanning Matthew doesn't seem like the best solution to that particular problem.