It might be time to rethink the whole "local thread rules" idea.

[makomk]

I kind of predicted this when Theymos originally offered to allow thread starters to set local rules which the moderators would enforce, but they've basically turned into a scammer's dream. Usagi in particular is making good use of them to ban anyone who points out the myriad ways in which he's screwing over investors and lying about the values of his underlying assets from his threads. In particular, he's banned everyone who's pointed out how badly his planned trade-in scheme would screw over investors from his latest thread trying to convince people to take him up on it, so that he can screw them over without the inconvenience of comments pointing out the holes in his claims.

Unless we want the forum moderation team to help scammers swindle suckers out of Bitcoins, it might be a good idea to rethink what kind of rules people can set in their threads.

Also, I notice Usagi claims to have spoken to theymos personally about setting these kinds of local rules and got his agreement on it:

EDIT: to avoid a seperate post please clarify this.  You repeatedly refer to "local rules" which allow a thread-starter to choose who may post and what content they may post.  Can you PLEASE point me to some official FAQ or guidelines post giving any validity to such "local rules"?  I honestly can't find one - but will happily stick to local rules if (and only if) such official guidance exists.  If no such guidance exists then please don't waste your virtual ink in the future referring to such meaningless "local rules" again.

I spoke with Theymos directly on this. I can only advise you that you probably don't want to break local rules too often. No I can't point you to a FAQ. I'm unaware of where local rules are described.

[1714062083]

1714062083

[1714062083]

1714062083

[theymos]

Local rules of that sort should be a red flag to potential investors.

[cunicula]

Local rules of that sort should be a red flag to potential investors.

Add this statement to the warning on long-term offers.

[hazek]

I don't think your example with which you raised this issue is valid because even if a scammer is using local rules to silence his critics, any critic is still free and welcome to make their own thread, dedicated solely to that subject.

If I recall correctly there were at last 10 threads (probably way more) discussing and warning about pirateat40 and raising all kinds of issues why people shouldn't think he is legitimate but people did the stupid thing anyway.

[makomk]

Local rules of that sort should be a red flag to potential investors.

They should be, yes. Not everyone's going to realise that, and since he's banned everyone who's likely to point this out from commenting in his threads they're going to carry on not realising that. Then there's the small issue that investors aren't in fact rational (no-one is) and creating an environment where all the comments are positive is a really good way of convincing people to rationalise away their doubts.

Also, since it's a red flag and not proof positive of scamming, anyone who did point it out could expect the usual cavalcade of comments about how they have no evidence, they're trolling, they should shut up... Remember what happened with Pirate?

[Stephen Gornick]

I kind of predicted this when Theymos originally offered to allow thread starters to set local rules which the moderators would enforce,

I hadn't known of local rules.   Here's an example:

Local Rules: the following accounts are banned from posting in this thread: Puppet, EskimoBob, Deprived, Factory, nimda, 556j, MPOE-PR, cunicula and guruvan. Please post scam accusations in the scam accusation forum or you will be banned from next month's thread.

The reason I didn't know of them is because I don't often frequent the "securities" forum board.  I did a forum search and all but one use of "local rules" occurred in the securities forum.

After noticing that, how can anyone who invokes local rules to squelch dissent ever be taken seriously?

Here's Theymos' post on "local rules"

OPs can specify local rules
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31782.0

And another thread on the topic:

Individual Thread Rules: Enforceable?
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97756.0

[stochastic]

Local rules are a bad idea.  By having local rules, it gets rid of an important way to evaluate a person.  Lots of people on these forums have lost credibility just in the way they handle confrontation or disagreements.

I am going to see if I can make some local rules when I do my thesis defense in a few weeks. 

[repentance]

Local rules are a bad idea.  By having local rules, it gets rid of an important way to evaluate a person.  Lots of people on these forums have lost credibility just in the way they handle confrontation or disagreements.

I am going to see if I can make some local rules when I do my thesis defense in a few weeks. 

I think that local rules can be useful in keeping a topic on track.  I also think that the mods should look at how they're being used in a thread.  When threads about major things don't stay on track we see multiple spin-off threads spawned by people who think their particular point has been lost amongst the noise.  This leads to useful information being spread across multiple threads in multiple forums and makes it harder for people to keep up to date with what's going on.

I don't think local thread rules should be able to be used to exclude specific posters from a discussion, though.  The mods will already remove off-topic posts, and I'd hate to see moderation based on who a poster is rather than the content of a specific post.  theymos has given people time out for trolling before and will no doubt do so again.  OPs can lock their own threads if the discussion gets derailed and re-open it only when the thread has been cleaned up or split (I do think the mods should use the thread split and thread merge options more often).