Censorship on Bitcointalk

[SaltySpitoon]

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.

So you are a new user, but you have actually watched Pony and Dank going at it for ages? But I digress, you don't get banned for calling out the mods, I've seen people do so on various occasions, and I've seen them get pretty vile while at it. If Theymos or any of the other mods just took their liberties at banning, this forum would be a lot emptier place, as there's a new thread about one of them being a bad mod, or being incompetent, or just an asshole every day. They don't seem to care that much.

My point is, if you get banned from here, there's probably a real reason, as I haven't ever managed to get banned, and I tend to have that tendency.

[1713568292]

1713568292

[1713568292]

1713568292

[1713568292]

1713568292

[AndrewBUD]

Attention is great

[BitcoinINV]

I have had words with a mod, but it was in private the way it should be.

[hazek]

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

[Raoul Duke]

First of all I will not share why Rarity was banned. Reasons for a ban are between the forum administrators and the person that was banned and no one else. In most forums you would be banned just for questioning why someone was banned.

I will just say one more time that the theymos thread had nothing to do with it.

Now Rarity: Go spread your FUD somewhere else.

[jojo69]

you don't get banned for calling out the mods, I've seen people do so on various occasions, and I've seen them get pretty vile while at it. If Theymos or any of the other mods just took their liberties at banning, this forum would be a lot emptier place, as there's a new thread about one of them being a bad mod, or being incompetent, or just an asshole every day. They don't seem to care that much.

My point is, if you get banned from here, there's probably a real reason, as I haven't ever managed to get banned, and I tend to have that tendency.

Good point, I been mixing it up with one of the mods pretty good;  I have had threads deleted, but surprisingly the banhammer has not come down.

[theymos]

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

[Dancing Dan]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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. 

[dree12]

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

Please respond here. As moderator of Bitcoin Discussion, you are to share in the blame.

[Beans]

Rarity was spamming all over the place, damaging bitcoin as well as select users.

[BadBear]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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. 

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.










   

[dree12]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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. 

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.

And Atlas doesn't?

[BadBear]

And Atlas doesn't?

Yes he does. You're barking up the wrong tree there, I'm the one who requested his last ban, which theymos lifted a few weeks ago at his own discretion. My opinion on that isn't really a secret, don't want to derail the thread though. 

Can't really blame theymos for giving him another chance I guess, at least he seems to be trying and accepting advice.

[Dancing Dan]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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.  

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.

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?

[BadBear]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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.  

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.

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?

So you've only looked at Rarity's recent posts, have no idea what I'm talking about, but feel knowledgeable enough about the situation to make this thread then call me a liar? Seems likely. If you were being a bit more reasonable I'd help you out, but since you're being a dick and obviously don't really want an explanation I'll ignore you instead, I have better things to do. Good luck with your whole thing here though.

[URSAY]

I am afraid to speak openly here in fear of being banned so I do not speak here as much as I used to.  I am waiting for the new alternative and I will have plenty of juicy things to share there when I discover this new oasis.

[Dancing Dan]

I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity.

He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.

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.  

Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed.

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?

So you've only looked at Rarity's recent posts, have no idea what I'm talking about, but feel knowledgeable enough about the situation to make this thread then call me a liar? Seems likely. If you were being a bit more reasonable I'd help you out, but since you're being a dick and obviously don't really want an explanation I'll ignore you instead, I have better things to do. Good luck with your whole thing here though.

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.

[Raoul Duke]

I am afraid to speak openly here in fear of being banned so I do not speak here as much as I used to.  I am waiting for the new alternative and I will have plenty of juicy things to share there when I discover this new oasis.

You're kidding, right?

I'm one of those dudes who often post off-topic(or snarky) replies just for the fun of it(and have been banned for it) and I'm a Moderator, FFS.
Or you're telling me you can't manage a 7 days ban without complainting about it, if it comes to that?
You can still read, after all.

[augustocroppo]

In what thread are you asserting all this has occurred?  Post examples.  Where did Rarity derail a thread to talk about philosophy or ideology?

In the second and third posts of the thread The psychology of a con man - Zhou, which was initiated to discuss the psychology of a con man based on the famous user Zhou Thong, the user Rarity decided it was better to discuss the detrimental aspects of psychology and how regulated markets are the solution for economical issues:

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion > The psychology of a con man - Zhou

Psychology is a barbaric and corrupt practice, that entire article is just a load of BS.  Zhou is innocent, and is acting exactly like an innocent man should by doing everything he can to resolve this unfortunate issue.

I'm sorry folks around here were ripped off, but that is the inevitable result of the free market beliefs so many people around here believe in, not the fault of an honest man like Zhou tong.  A well regulated market with the government looking over our shoulder to keep everybody in line is the only way to solve this scamming issue.  Believing in an article about a phony, fraudulent science is just falling for one more scam.

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.

How do you know that? Are you Rarity? How do you know that Rarity questioned a moderator when no evidence or no user even indicated that this happened?

The face is Rarity was never banned until this moment, so show us the posts that caused it.

Redundant statement.

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?

Here:

Your paranoia is disturbing, your accusations against me are even more baseless than your witch hunt against Zhou Tong.  This is why we need government involved in this, every witch hunt will always find new victims and I guess I'm up!

Also here:

As a socialist/communist and a member of a spiritual group that has had to battle tons of spurious attacks from government I am very familiar with the concept of government witch hunts.  No government is perfect and we should always work to improve them, however the safeguards they provide are a huge step up from the unrestrained mob justice you get in a situation like this.  

I think you would be surprised how many other leftists are flocking to bitcoin.  The concept of being able to track every transaction, as opposed to the total anonymity of cash, is a huge benefit if you are trying to exercise control over the market.  Now, you don't actually manipulate the Bitcoin itself, you just regulate it's use within your market by setting up whitelists for approved wallets.  Any blacklisted or unlisted coins are sent to the government for redistribution before they can enter the market.  That all seems a bit off topic for this thread though, but as I've said before it's very like Satoshi is actually a leftist and not any sort of libertarian at all.

...and here, as well:

Who said I'm not?  I just believe that market needs to be very strictly regulated and people should not take unfair levels of compensation, as many top executives and business owners do today.  They should be more like the mining cooperatives were most of the profit is going back to the labor force.

So, if you follow Rarity's posts, I am sure you agree that whatever Badbear suggested with his answer, is based on verifiable and factual evidence.

If that is not enough, I must add that once I got caught by Rarity's rants and a forum moderator thought I was being off-topic. So the moderator moved a few posts to the off-topic section, which proves that Rarity was indeed disturbing the forum discussions by producing misplaced statements and deceitful claims:

Bitcoin Forum > Other > Off-topic > Private war between Rarity, augustocroppo and mlawrence

This has moved to "Off-Topic" by the mods to let it die.  We have stated our opinions - let's let everyone make up their mind.

You have the power to lock the thread, but regardless I won't be paying anymore attention.

I'm 'the mod' who moved this to 'Off-Topic', supposedly to let it die. And no, I didn't get a single bitcent from Intersango, Zhou Tong or any party in this debate.

See this? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97141.0) I don't give a fuck about Chaang Noi being a VIP or Matthew being another staff - what is off-topic goes to the off-topic section in my books. And no, us mods do not get a single bitcent from being a mod - we're just volunteers that help to unclog everything in this forum.

There, I said it.

[jasinlee]

Can you feel the burn?