Natural permitted flow of a thread - 1. The false allegation.

@SS you are blue...

It is, anyone could leave anyone negative feedback for liking lemons if they really felt like it.

Yes, but you claimed it was a legitimate use of the trust system and it is not. Red trust is for proven scammers and those STRONGLY intending to scam. If people can give red trust because you said you like lemons or for telling the truth about others wrongdoing the score becomes meaningless. So I disagree.

I don't want to debate you because I don't care about your opinion

this is not a sensible attitude to take though because you could well be denying yourself the opportunity to adopt a more optimal approach or outlook.

False allegations don't matter all that much, this is the internet, just ignore the people you don't like, and that is really the extent of your recourse unless its a major issue that requires moderator intervention (death threats, doxing, etc). If someone calls you a flea infested coke head, you don't challenge them to a battle of wits, you say, yeah whatever.

Some false allegations do matter especially if you do not want to appear with a scam tag on or have your argument or points dismissed on FALSE grounds. I agree with you on flea infested coke head, but then replying something similar to them with accompanying evidence to support your claim seems fair play. If you post is then deleted then their posts should be too.

If someone claims you scammed them, you provide evidence that you didn't, if they want to refute your proof, thats on them, if not, leave it as is

If only this was so easy. Often it is only possible if they supply the details of the scam. With open ended accusations where they do NOT even give their example you can only request that they supply the evidence or example on which they are basing this claim. Often they will NOT and they just keep repeating it as if it were true.

The ONLY option open to you in this instance is to provide your own evidence of their untrustworthy deeds based upon observable events that can discredit their false claims.

You are very caught up on observable facts and all, but what happens if someone disagrees with you? Then its no longer a fact, its an opinion. I've been stating the lemon thing as absolute fact, but you seem to disagree with me. There are very few facts on this forum, moderator discretion is what allows them to classify trolling versus people having a difference of opinion.

This part to me is clearly wrong. I class an observable event (the term I mostly use) as something I can observe. When I say it is an observable event or even a fact that the pharmacist was caught red handed using a sock puppet account himself or that notildah is an account seller or tman said he will, can and just has given me red trust for presenting facts then these are clearly observable events and to me meet the threshold of being a fact i.e. " something that is true or something that has occurred"

You saying liking lemons makes me untrustworthy and deserving of red trust is just your opinion it does not mean it is an observable fact.

So I do not agree.

TLDR; In my opinion, you need to relax. Stop caring so much what others think. Who cares if there are some people you think are jerks, ignore them. If you can't look past what other people are doing, you are going to be incredibly unhappy here, and I imagine everywhere else. Stop worrying about potential loopholes that have existed for years, but nothing has come of them.

this is potentially true and I do not care what THEY think, i do care that they have via these broken systems given themselves the power to scam tag my account for telling the truth about them after they lied about me. I find it unfair and I also see this kind of thing leading to the crushing of free speech here on this entire board.

I had 5 minutes of freetime with nothing better to do, so I wrote out more than a few words. If you want to work on saving your own time, I'd recommend not responding to me, I might read your response, I probably wont respond. By the way, believe it or not, I'm not a jerk (as far as I know) I'm not a short tempered crotchety miserable existence thats just here to tell you what to do. I'm just a fella who advocates for being aloof when it comes to forum drama, and saving everyone's sanity one blunt paragraph at a time.

I like your replies, You are generally polite and also it is enjoyable for me to see if I can gain new insights that would benefit me and as ever I am open minded and ready to adopt a more optimal view on anything. You are one of the far better posters here and do have a reasonable degree of critical analysis which I enjoy. Just because I am not unwilling to adopt to much of what you say does not mean I do not want to continue to debate with you. I have lots of free time and it is often hard to discuss anything other than cars or females with most people so the forum although hostile is actually great fun for me. I never feel upset although I do get hostile to those than unfairly seek to give me a scam tag or give others a scam tag when they are observably the ones more deserving of them in many cases. I do not like to see observable double standards permitted, condoned , sanctioned and even supported by people that are meant to be impartial.

Anyway as always yours was the best post on my thread (except my own imho) so it is always good see you reply. There are very few people on the entire board that can have a reasonable debate and stay civil. Perhaps a handful that I have encountered.

@actmyname

Can we stop with the local thread rule bullshit on Meta?

Yes I would prefer meta was not allowed to have local rules, I have already had an entire thread that states local rules can create an echo chamber

If you look back at my local rules in time you will notice they only stated previously

Any person can contribute so long as they don't just voice groundless attacks, all opinions should be accompanied by some form of argument, case or observable events/ examples.

But still they just came and with false accusations and would not present any evidence when I called them to present it.

What is 'making it personal'? Can you rigorously define that?

What I mean is.. and I think i detailed it more previously in hypothetical scenario based threads..

No mentioning peoples user names here or presenting examples of instances here on this board. It is meant as a hypothetical example so it does not crash down into a full scale war and insults. If we can keep it hypothetical at times then it is possible to keep it from becoming too personal.

Even then the first comment from them was that I was butthurt and trolling and more personal remarks in the very first post so I then just had to use the local rules to prevent them from posting at all ,,,, however suchmoon just posted anyway after recognising he should not by talking about it in the thread from which I am excluded in rep and contains posters I said should not post here.

This proves they report me for posting in their local rules based threads but just feel it fine to do it in mine.

I am quite happy for local rules to be abolished in meta they are not appropriate here really.

If false accusations regarding a persons observable actions on this board can not be backed up with observable events/examples they should be punished seriously. You should be able to present a case/examples for your accusations that holds up to scrutiny or forced to retract or be punished.

There should not be loop holes where false accusers and those that are observably untrustworthy get rewarded and the wrongly accused are punished. Let's close that down and set some precedents to discourage this behaviour.

If your post, in response to a false allegation, is: "Your claims are unsubstantiated. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion." then I do not see why it would be off-topic at all. Do you have an example of one such response that was deleted?

Well perhaps someone can find how to get the posts back because they were in my mail box but they seem gone now? i was only reading them the other day and had previously created an entire thread on that delete.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118069.msg50064384#msg50064384

that was his message bringing me on topic under a false accusation and no evidence

I posted something like this with some hostility I am

a/ present evidence and examples of these walls of nonsense and slime that should be burned or remove this accusation.

b/ i presented evidence that he himself is proven to have sneakily created a sock puppet account to racist troll shit post all over the board for extra btc dust and then I posted the evidence of this taking place.

this to me is a fair response to him making me on topic for posting noxious slim walls of nonsense and bring me into and OP regarding shitposting and banning people. In light they already tried to ban me 2x and also have red trusted me for telling the truth about them before.

I think a few more back and forths and my posts got vaporised and they still just get to discuss me in terms of the OP without any evidence and their posts are fine.

This is just one example. Mainly I guess the posts do go off topic slightly after I am falsely accused or they will provide no evidence when I ask for it but continue to state it as if it is true.

This is just 1 kind of example of why my posts are deleted and yes the mods may be acting within their mandate but it is a loophole to allow untrustworthy people to falsely accuse trustworthy persons falsely and then get them punished or banned for simply demanding evidence or presenting observable events to discredit the false accusers if they keep on doing it.

Actually I just found another strange glitch when looking through my deleted posts. I have exactly the same posts delete 3 times at different time stamps. So this is also a problem when stacking up numbers of deleted posts.

Anyway I am going through every single deleted post. So far I find none that are false accusations or not accompanied by observable events and many seem to maybe even have been deleted for quoting someone elses post that was deleted? does that count as a delete against me? Actually ignore that it is going off topic here i guess.

If a "local rule" is added after the thread is created, it is not in effect.
If a "local rule" states that user A cannot post in the thread, then user A should not post in the thread. Regardless of how unfair the rule is, it is at the moderator's discretion for enforcement and if I were A then I would stay on the side of caution. Create a new thread in response.

Agreed, quite a few of my deletes are because I did not realise local rules were real I thought they just made that up. Also when they showed me the actual rule I could not believe it was valid in meta board where the truth is paramount.

However if you create a counter thread too often, you will just then called a spammer and they will insist that is reason for a ban. False accusations with regard a persons observable actions on this board should be supported with evidence or observable events at point of accusation.

@direwolf
your first local rule is quite indicative; you don't really want to debate you only want a platform to rant

nice to start with a false allegation

I've said it to you before; you take things way too seriously here

off topic but I will class it as natural flow.

Well when you get a scam tag for simply asking people to look into the post history of someone that falsely accuses you of lying 3 x and will not present any evidence then I will tell you you are over reacting when you mention it and get pissed off. Then if you complain about it and 2 of their observable colluding pals in other schemes come and red tag you then I will tell you stop worrying about it. Then when they admit they gave you red trust for presenting facts and you say they need to remove it another friend of theirs says that is blackmail and you need more red. Then we will all say in public let's all now try and report his posts and get him banned for that. Then mods come and give 10 merits to posts saying your posts are all stupid shit, and receive 20 merits from those that red trust you for simply saying we want you to leave the board.

Then I will just say you are taking it all too seriously and there is no problems here it is just you, and its' all your own fault and you cause all of your own issues.