Moderator is doing a bad job

[hazek]

The only reason why I moved some threads discussing what ever aspect of Bitcoin Foundation with whatever opinion and not others is a time difference.

Specifically I moved all treads in the initial time period after the announcement when I thought I'd eventually move the announcement as well, I did so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about. And I now leave all threads in the time period after I was instructed to leave the announcement in Bitcoin Discussion and that I can do the same with threads commenting on it, and again I do so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about.

The inconsistency is a result of me trying to be consisted in the beginning and me being given my instructions and readjusting my moderation so that it could again be consistent. Anyone reading anything more than this into my actions is seeing motives or actions that just aren't part of reality.

[1713540238]

1713540238

[1713540238]

1713540238

[cypherdoc]

The only reason why I moved some threads discussing what ever aspect of Bitcoin Foundation with whatever opinion and not others is a time difference.

Specifically I moved all treads in the initial time period after the announcement when I thought I'd eventually move the announcement as well, I did so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about. And I now leave all threads in the time period after I was instructed to leave the announcement in Bitcoin Discussion and that I can do the same with threads commenting on it, and again I do so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about.

The inconsistency is a result of me trying to be consisted in the beginning and me being given my instructions and readjusting my moderation so that it could again be consistent. Anyone reading anything more than this into my actions is seeing motives or actions that just aren't part of reality.

is that yellow ignore button of yours not reality also?

is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality?

[hazek]

The only reason why I moved some threads discussing what ever aspect of Bitcoin Foundation with whatever opinion and not others is a time difference.

Specifically I moved all treads in the initial time period after the announcement when I thought I'd eventually move the announcement as well, I did so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about. And I now leave all threads in the time period after I was instructed to leave the announcement in Bitcoin Discussion and that I can do the same with threads commenting on it, and again I do so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about.

The inconsistency is a result of me trying to be consisted in the beginning and me being given my instructions and readjusting my moderation so that it could again be consistent. Anyone reading anything more than this into my actions is seeing motives or actions that just aren't part of reality.

is that yellow ignore button of yours not reality also?

is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality?

I didn't censor anything, I split the topic and moved your off topic posts to the appropriate section and deleted the few other off topic posts that you kept posting in the initial thread only because I couldn't split those and merge with the split thread as I've explained myself here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1267686#msg1267686
and here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1268026#msg1268026

[cypherdoc]

The only reason why I moved some threads discussing what ever aspect of Bitcoin Foundation with whatever opinion and not others is a time difference.

Specifically I moved all treads in the initial time period after the announcement when I thought I'd eventually move the announcement as well, I did so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about. And I now leave all threads in the time period after I was instructed to leave the announcement in Bitcoin Discussion and that I can do the same with threads commenting on it, and again I do so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about.

The inconsistency is a result of me trying to be consisted in the beginning and me being given my instructions and readjusting my moderation so that it could again be consistent. Anyone reading anything more than this into my actions is seeing motives or actions that just aren't part of reality.

is that yellow ignore button of yours not reality also?

is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality?

I didn't censor anything, I split the topic and moved your off topic posts to the appropriate section and deleted the few other off topic posts that you kept posting in the initial thread only because I couldn't split those and merge with the split thread as I've explained myself here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1267686#msg1267686
and here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1268026#msg1268026

continuing to use the "off topic" excuse as a reason to banish my comments over here to the Meta forum is not helping your case but in fact illuminating your hypocrisy.  most threads are filled with off topic posts and i don't see you censoring/deleting/banishing those posts to Meta.  you would have been best served by meeting my moderator criticisms head on in the original threads and explaining your position as you have here in this thread open for all to see.  censoring post after post of mine yesterday within seconds clearly showed a panic to avoid iluminating criticism and i'm guessing embarassment. it didn't have to be that way.

the real conundrum, as i stated previously, is that i thought you were a champion of free speech and opinion as was my impression from you in past posts.  i am greatly disappointed.

[theymos]

you would have been best served by meeting my moderator criticisms head on in the original threads and explaining your position as you have here in this thread open for all to see.

This certainly would have been off-topic. The replies of both of you would then have needed to have been deleted.

[augustocroppo]

is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality?

No, because if your posts were really critical for the forum discussion, they would not stand out to the attention of the moderators. Moreover, you seem to ignore what censorship really means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.

I am very skeptical about Wikipedia, but the above quote shows that you are complaining over accepted moderation, not over censorship. By accepted moderation I mean the mutual agreement you accepted once you created an account in this forum. Do not forgot this forum is a private institution and as such it can moderate whatever it regards as necessary for its private matters.

continuing to use the "off topic" excuse as a reason to banish my comments over here to the Meta forum is not helping your case but in fact illuminating your hypocrisy.

It appears you are making a special pleading. This indicates that your true concern is where the posts are and by who they are being read. If is that so, I suggest you become a donator or VIP member. The colourful coins below the user name offers what you are demanding: special attention for your posts.

[cypherdoc]

so if all you guys and hazek insist that my posts were moved/deleted/censored solely b/c they were off topic, then you wouldn't mind me starting a thread in the Discussion Forum titled:  Moderator Bad?

[cypherdoc]

let me make one other point.  what you see at the beginning of the thread is everything i said.  i only had to repost one comment and its clear which one that was.  so what you're seeing now is a complete picture of everything.  just how bad is it?  i'd say except for the "shitty" comment, not too bad at all.  what you see is what was banished here to Meta solely b/c hazek can't take the slightest bit of criticism.

[Atlas]

Cypherdoc, why does it matter so much?

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc, why does it matter so much?

b/c i've never had comments here censored initially, then "moved" only after i complained about the censorship, and then had those actions defended with an ad hominem argument about being off topic.  what this is about is no one wants the moderators criticized even mildly.

you'll recall on the day you made those 5-6 troll threads i made only one critical comment in one of your threads about the # of troll threads and you didn't even refute my argument.  you simply responded that your threads weren't being taken down b/c hazek agreed with you philosophically.  i didn't like that answer at the time but i let it go.  

[bitcoinbear]

allowing 5-6 threads on the same topic simultaneously, by a guy like Atlas, bashing the devs and BF is inappropriate.  that's my opinion.

I disagree that bashing the devs and/or BF is inappropriate. What is this, the catholic church? 5-6 threads on the matter may be out of line though.

Is it possible to merge threads? When Atlas starts up a bunch of threads, or when something big happens and ten people all start identical threads, could the moderators merge the threads? That way there would not be any censorship, just organization.

[Atlas]

allowing 5-6 threads on the same topic simultaneously, by a guy like Atlas, bashing the devs and BF is inappropriate.  that's my opinion.

I disagree that bashing the devs and/or BF is inappropriate. What is this, the catholic church? 5-6 threads on the matter may be out of line though.

Is it possible to merge threads? When Atlas starts up a bunch of threads, or when something big happens and ten people all start identical threads, could the moderators merge the threads? That way there would not be any censorship, just organization.

The thing is the threads weren't all the same.

[cypherdoc]

i'm sorry.  but it is very clear to me now that hazek is bad news:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118273.0

[bitcoinbear]

Is it possible to merge threads? When Atlas starts up a bunch of threads, or when something big happens and ten people all start identical threads, could the moderators merge the threads? That way there would not be any censorship, just organization.

The thing is the threads weren't all the same.

Could you at least put similar topics in the same thread? I know there is a rule against posting off-topic to the thread at hand, but there is some leniency. Plus, most of your posts are about four words long (you got a whole 9 words in that last post), it is a total waste of a thread to have such a short post taking up the OP.

Here is a great idea: Start a new thread, name it "Topics of interest to Atlas" and post all your one line musings there so they do not crowd the forum.

[cypherdoc]

Is it possible to merge threads? When Atlas starts up a bunch of threads, or when something big happens and ten people all start identical threads, could the moderators merge the threads? That way there would not be any censorship, just organization.

The thing is the threads weren't all the same.

Could you at least put similar topics in the same thread? I know there is a rule against posting off-topic to the thread at hand, but there is some leniency. Plus, most of your posts are about four words long (you got a whole 9 words in that last post), it is a total waste of a thread to have such a short post taking up the OP.

Here is a great idea: Start a new thread, name it "Topics of interest to Atlas" and post all your one line musings there so they do not crowd the forum.

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

[bitcoinbear]

The thing is the threads weren't all the same.

Could you at least put similar topics in the same thread? I know there is a rule against posting off-topic to the thread at hand, but there is some leniency. Plus, most of your posts are about four words long (you got a whole 9 words in that last post), it is a total waste of a thread to have such a short post taking up the OP.

Here is a great idea: Start a new thread, name it "Topics of interest to Atlas" and post all your one line musings there so they do not crowd the forum.

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

You got banished to Meta? Whoa, that's deep.

[cypherdoc]

The thing is the threads weren't all the same.

Could you at least put similar topics in the same thread? I know there is a rule against posting off-topic to the thread at hand, but there is some leniency. Plus, most of your posts are about four words long (you got a whole 9 words in that last post), it is a total waste of a thread to have such a short post taking up the OP.

Here is a great idea: Start a new thread, name it "Topics of interest to Atlas" and post all your one line musings there so they do not crowd the forum.

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

You got banished to Meta? Whoa, that's deep.

yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'.   oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself.

[augustocroppo]

let me make one other point.  what you see at the beginning of the thread is everything i said.  i only had to repost one comment and its clear which one that was.  so what you're seeing now is a complete picture of everything.  just how bad is it?  i'd say except for the "shitty" comment, not too bad at all.  what you see is what was banished here to Meta solely b/c hazek can't take the slightest bit of criticism.

It is very bad. You do not have appropriate arguments to support your endless ranting. E.g., since you have this crave for attention, you have to spam useless posts in another thread:

I now see I made a big mistake and should have never assumed it is either alright or fair to retroactively set local rules after posts have already been made and apply those rules to those posts.

I apologize to everyone affected by my actions.

WTF?  i just found this thread.  and you two guys have the temerity to justify your actions of censoring my posts with the ad hominem of "off topic"?

You fail to comprehend why moderation is necessary and you do not know the meaning of "ad hominem":

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'.   oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself.

You sound quite pathetic and your English writing skill is terrible.

(This is not an "ad hominem". I am not trying to undermine any argument... You have none.)

[cypherdoc]

let me make one other point.  what you see at the beginning of the thread is everything i said.  i only had to repost one comment and its clear which one that was.  so what you're seeing now is a complete picture of everything.  just how bad is it?  i'd say except for the "shitty" comment, not too bad at all.  what you see is what was banished here to Meta solely b/c hazek can't take the slightest bit of criticism.

It is very bad. You do not have appropriate arguments to support your endless ranting. E.g., since you have this crave for attention, you have to spam useless posts in another thread:

you are insulting.  what does this have to do with getting attention?  hazek has been caught red handed deleting/censoring posts on two occasions; once directly to me and the other to stan.distortion. read thru the posts from the beginning here.  as i said, the only comment that could be construed as "bad" is the "shitty" comment but that was in reaction to an insult hurled at me by hazek.  it seems you're just as sensitive as he.  if this is your definition of bad you'd better stay away from the Internet otherwise i will continue to hurt your fragile feelings.  

I now see I made a big mistake and should have never assumed it is either alright or fair to retroactively set local rules after posts have already been made and apply those rules to those posts.

I apologize to everyone affected by my actions.

WTF?  i just found this thread.  and you two guys have the temerity to justify your actions of censoring my posts with the ad hominem of "off topic"?

You fail to comprehend why moderation is necessary and you do not know the meaning of "ad hominem":

i do understand why moderation is necessary but i don't think it applies to what i said.  btw, here's someone who agrees with my original complaint just so ppl don't think i'm exaggerating when it comes to what Atlas did.  this was in a pm to me:

I agree that Atlas has been making too many topics, and I warned him about that. I'm not going to delete the existing topics.

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'.   oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself.

You sound quite pathetic and your English writing skill is terrible.

(This is not an "ad hominem". I am not trying to undermine any argument... You have none.)

now you're resorting to lame criticism?  who's pathetic?  you, i'd say, by bragging about your little VIP and colored coins.

i think that definition is spot on the way i'm using it.  if English writing skills are so important to you, how's this?:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1269864#msg1269864

now go criticize him.  you're just a little apologist.

[cypherdoc]

my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here.  i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.

yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'.   oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself.

You sound quite pathetic and your English writing skill is terrible.

(This is not an "ad hominem". I am not trying to undermine any argument... You have none.)

this is an example of your tunnel vision apologist attitude.  you can't even recognize when someone resorts to slang.