Censorship on Bitcointalk

[Raoul Duke]

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.

I can only admire you for all the work you've done just to fight a troll 

Cumprimentos e muito respeito

[Dancing Dan]

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.

Let me see if I get this right.  When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July?  You know it's mid-october, right?  We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here.   It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they?  Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis.

As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that!

If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail. 

[repentance]

If you want to ban Rarity for "derailing" threads with discussion about spiritual matters, you should probably take into consideration that the threads in which he's done that are threads into which the OP himself has already injected metaphysical discussion and spoken ad nauseum about his spiritual beliefs.  In fact it's literally impossible in those threads to get a sensible answer from the OP about his "business proposals".  Every question about how he's going to implement those proposals is met with metaphysical bullshit.  The OP himself frequently and intentionally detracts from "the real issues that are important and should be discussed", in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that he has no business model whatsoever for his ventures and that he does no actual work towards making them happen.

You can hardly blame people for discussing spiritual matters in a "business" thread when the OP's whole business model is literally "karma will make it happen" and the OP can't produce a shred of evidence that his "business proposals" are anything other than wishful thinking at best or outright deception at worst.

[LoupGaroux]

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.

Doesn't say Mod under your name... have you been banned and don't know it?

And seriously... they are not clamping down on free speech, and I am the poster child for pushing the limits of what can be written, and who can be questioned in a post. To date I have not been even given a single 7 day warning period to cool off. I did get one very polite request to tone down the rhetoric in a single thread, I believe the author being destroyed was perhaps a little slow, and as the request was polite I agreed to it. Rarity is gone not for speech but for suitable reasons. Rarity will be back in due course. Dancing cough cough Dan. And if indeed DD is Rarity come back to agitate for her pardon, that is in and of itself a violation of the TOS, and a bannable offense.

[augustocroppo]

Let me see if I get this right.  When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July?  You know it's mid-october, right?

Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.

We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here.

No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.

It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they?

Wrong.

The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.

Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis.

What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.

I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.

As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that!

No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.

If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail.

Let's verify your arguments. You started claiming that Rarity was banned by Theymos because of his/her responses in the Nefario thread:

We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user Rarity being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum.

Then a moderator and the administrator answered that the decision to ban was not based on anything you claimed:

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

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.

Frustrated with the answer, you demanded impartiality from the administrator and evidence that Rarity was posting "counterpoints" which "people weren't able to put up with it":

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. 

An answer was provided:

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.

So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:

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.

So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence. An answer was provided and the false claim was corrected. Then you required impartial evidence to prove Rarity's actions. Again, an answer was provided by a moderator. Unable to handle the overwhelming evidence starting to accumulate against your false claim, you decided to ask for more evidence. Then I provided enough evidence which supports every statement made by the administrator and the moderators.

The only epic fail here is you...

[augustocroppo]

I can only admire you for all the work you've done just to fight a troll 

Cumprimentos e muito respeito

Voce e bem-vindo, psy.

Ironicamente, eu apenas lembrei dos poucos incidentes que tive com Rarity e percebi que eles sao provas suficiente para justificar o motivo do banimento.

[Dancing Dan]

Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.

Of course it's the best you can do.  Nothing has happened recently to justify a banning.

No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.

Or, I can see that she has continued to post uninterrupted by looking at the post history?  You are embarrassing yourself.

The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.

The discussion in question assumed his guilt:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0

"The psychology of a con-man" presumes he is a con-man.  If someone were to post a thread titled:  "augustocroppo: the psychology of a child rapist murderer" I think we can all agree it would be okay to point out the false premise without getting banned.

What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.

I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.

Psychology was a subject of the post, and I am not aware of any moderator action against Rarity in that instance.  It appears you are the one in disagreement with the moderators on that.

No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.

No, if you follow the thread you will see that a moderator did in fact take action against mlawrence for the death threats he posted.  Again, you are the one out of touch with the moderators.

So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:

As the problem here is moderator bias of course moderators can be expected to deny it.  A moderator presented a false quote and has been unable to point to any specific thread as evidence.  There is simply no Casus belli present for the recent banning which is why every moderator has refused to point to the phantom posts that caused it.  It was about Theymos, unless a moderator can point to any evidence otherwise and so far they have not.

So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence.

Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning.  All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July.  

[stevegee58]

Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning.  All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July.  

Meh.  It's a web site.  The owners have full dictatorial rights over whatever is posted here and don't have to answer to anyone for it.

[Bogart]

I didn't know Rarity was banned, but was glad to read it.

Every time I saw a Rarity post I knew it would be incendiary and would contribute no value to the discussion.

Good move banning him (her?).  It'll be less for me to wade through.

[cypherdoc]

they need to ban me too since i post "off topic".  or maybe its b/c i criticized hazek.  can't have that.

[augustocroppo]

Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.

Of course it's the best you can do.  Nothing has happened recently to justify a banning.

Something happened or the ban would not happen. Rarity actions provoked the ban. Moreover, the decision to ban an user is not based only on recent events.

No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.

Or, I can see that she has continued to post uninterrupted by looking at the post history?  You are embarrassing yourself.

Since you referred to me as "we", I only explained that I do not know for a fact that Rarity was banned. I do not follow his/her annoying posts.

The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.

The discussion in question assumed his guilt:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0

The "discussion" is not a person to assume guilty or innocence. The users participating in the discussion had different assumptions and no conclusion was made.

"The psychology of a con-man" presumes he is a con-man.  If someone were to post a thread titled:  "augustocroppo: the psychology of a child rapist murderer" I think we can all agree it would be okay to point out the false premise without getting banned.

No, "we" cannot. I am not you and I do not agree with your assertion. It is quite misleading. If there was no reason or evidence to initiate the discussion, I would agree on a false premise. But this was not the case.

What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.

I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.

Psychology was a subject of the post, and I am not aware of any moderator action against Rarity in that instance.  It appears you are the one in disagreement with the moderators on that.

No, "psychology" was not the subject, neither was regulated markets. The psychology of a con man was the subject. Just because the thread tittle have the psychology word, it does not mean the subject was about psychology. Moreover, lack of moderation is not absence of evidence.

No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.

No, if you follow the thread you will see that a moderator did in fact take action against mlawrence for the death threats he posted.  Again, you are the one out of touch with the moderators.

Irrelevant. The subject in discussion is Rarity unnecessary posts. Only because mlawrence was moderated, it does not mean Rarity did not made misleading statements.

So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:

As the problem here is moderator bias of course moderators can be expected to deny it.  A moderator presented a false quote and has been unable to point to any specific thread as evidence.  There is simply no Casus belli present for the recent banning which is why every moderator has refused to point to the phantom posts that caused it.  It was about Theymos, unless a moderator can point to any evidence otherwise and so far they have not.

There is not any problem here. Bias is not an issue and the moderators have already admitted they are biased. No false quotes were produced by any moderator. Just because the reasons for the banning were not disclosed, this does not count as evidence for your claims.

So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence.

Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning.  All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July.

Your claim still remains false and with no evidence to support it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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

Really? The moderators are now twisting words and the reality to their benefit?

You admit that it is "not entirely true.". However, what you have described achieves the same effect of what dree12 has stated.

Bitcointalk isn't a democracy unlike Bitcoin, but the moderation needs to be done in a fair and objective way, with conflicts of interests sorted out and not participating. Moderators needs to do what is best for Bitcointalk and Bitcoin, not for their personal interests.

I am not saying that this isn't happening or that all moderators are guilty of this, but some like pointed out in this thread definitely needs to reconsider. For example, if theymos were more aggressive and as you can see GLBSE failed, this can significantly impact the bitcoin economy - "Official bitcoin forum moderator promotes illegal scams, censors doubters" could be a headline for an article, and that will give new bitcoin users a bad first impression.

[hazek]

There is no official Bitcoin forum.

[repentance]

Moderators needs to do what is best for Bitcointalk and Bitcoin, not for their personal interests.

Moderators do not need to do what is "best for Bitcoin".  This is not an official forum for the promotion of Bitcoin and nor does it pretend to be.  While there may be many discussions here which portray Bitcoin in a bad light, the answer is not to demand that the nature of this forum be changed so that Bitcoin is portrayed in a falsely positive light - it's to create on online presence with a different purpose.

[BeetcoinScummer]

Good riddance. He/she/it was so annoying that I feel like any other member using Frienship is Magic pony avatars should be banned as well.

[BlackHeartFund]

I don't know Rarity, but reading his recent posts, I have to agree this banning is sketchy. I like this forum and don't want to get banned, but I don't see how it's wrong to discuss whether or not the owners of GLBSE are responsible for what is owed. I am not going to wade into that argument, I didn't lose much from GLBSE, but it seems extremely strange to ban someone who is raising these questions, and then blame it on months old posts in some thread no one cared about at the time. Not to mention... was he banned for suggesting that regulation can be a positive thing? Or for getting off topic in a thread where the OP was discussing philosophy? I didn't know that those were offenses.

If the consensus of the board moderators is that GLBSE owners other than nefario hold no responsibility, and that continuing to discuss this issue is not allowed, why not just say that? They control this board and have the power to decide what is allowed here, we all (almost all) understand and accept that. Banning someone and then being clearly dishonest as to the reason, making a huge reach to claim it was for months old posts, really hurts the credibility and appearance of openness of this board, which sucks because this is the best BTC resource by far. Again this is your board and you can do as you wish, but it makes you look silly to suggest that this user would have been banned for these old "regulation" posts if he had not posted about GLBSE this week. Just man up and say no talking about mods owing money.

Please don't ban me, just giving my 0.02 BTC.

[BlackHeartFund]

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?

WTF?

I have never notice this Rarity before this thread, but the search funtion works and they didn't delete all his posts...

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

Shareholders, no, but what about partners and officers like Theymos?

Illegal implies it was against the law, and presently we still do not know if GLBSE was against the law in any jurisdiction.

There is no legal weight to the argument that Bitcoins = Get Out of Jail Free.  The securities themselves are regulated regardless of what they are traded for.  

Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.  

So you admit that anyone intending to buy knew what they were going to be purchasing. Thanks

No, folks here do not realize what Theymos did, that the illegality made the shares worthless.  You yourself, in fact, just acknowledged you do not accept that fact.  Theymos does, which is why he dumped the shares on the rubes and knew to get out as soon as the authorities were involved.  

Mods or not, the people posting BS excuses and clear untruths instead of being open or just saying you don't know, are really looking bad here.

This is my last post on the subject, I have no direct interest in this situation and am just posting my opinions as an outside observer. I hope you guys clean this shit up, this board is too important to lose credibility over this.

[N12]

Let me counter all of your retarded conspiracy theories with a post of mine from the moderator forum way back from July, where I am suggesting the ban of Rarity.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=43081

Troll from SA, mentioned somewhere in the late pages of this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486823

Though it's really obvious anyway.

[Maged]

Every time I saw a Rarity post I knew it would be incendiary and would contribute no value to the discussion.

And that is the exact reason why Rarity was banned. That was made clear through an overall view of Rarity's posts, and especially recent ones. Three out of the 10 reported posts against Rarity were moderated. Rarity had also been previously brought up for being banned, as well as warned. Not to mention, Rarity had an orange ignore button (this isn't directly used against people, but it can be used as contributory evidence).

I surprised nobody posted this, given that I explicitly said that people could say that I was the one who requested the ban, but here is the particular request I made:

Rarity, for trolling. All he's been doing is wasting everyone's time. He never listens to reason, even to the point where most of our regular trolls give up:

I'm happy with this. Far as we're concerned the matter may rest.

I'm not going to keep responding to these ridiculous accusations based on rumors and assumptions.

Sounds like you just admitted to them all, just with the caveat that you were going to stop the lies and lies of omissions later if you got a sucker on the hook.  Sure you would have.  Sure!

He also went on to make a total mockery of the scammer tag system:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117590.0

It's to the point that I can only believe that he is doing this on purpose. Theymos, I know that you have a conflict of interest here because Rarity has been debating you regarding GLBSE, so feel free to let him know that I made this request. Also, if someone else could second this, that'd be great.

(it was subsequently seconded)

Normally, if that's all a person did trolling wise, that'd be alright. However, this has been a pattern for Rarity and this forum has really just seen enough. Making that thread that I mentioned really was what broke the camel's back for me. Prior to that, Rarity was only being destructive to meaningful conversation in a few threads, but making that thread broke the containment.

Again, there was no problem with any single post (except for a few here and there that were dealt with), rather it was the overall picture that resulted in the ban.

[Raoul Duke]

...
I surprised nobody posted this, given that I explicitly said that people could say that I was the one who requested the ban...

I read it as you giving permission to Theymos to disclose it to Rarity, not to someone else to disclose it to other forum users.