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.
Of course they do, like with the scammer tag the law has nothing to do with this, it's a matter of honor to maintain a forum with free speech when you claim to be doing so.
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.
Of course you disagree, and you should not be criticized for defending yourself or a fellow poster from false accusations as you are doing with Rarity.
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.
The name Zhou Tong was in the title, you don't get to pretend it was not about him. You are being dishonest and absurd, the discussion assumed his guilt and was examining his psychology. Read the thread.
Irrelevant. The subject in discussion is Rarity unnecessary posts. Only because mlawrence was moderated, it does not mean Rarity did not made misleading statements.
The unnecessary posts in question were pointing out the need for moderation of death threats. You can't find any real examples because they don't exist.
Your claim still remains false and with no evidence to support it.
A request for evidence is not a claim.
User Rarity was an obvious troll from the start. When discussing Bitcoin, they would replace Bitcoin with their imaginary centralized freezable currency and continue the discussion as if it was actually Bitcoin they were talking about. When faced with obvious questions about how their pretend currency was vastly different (mining isn't necessary, what happens when miners process blacklisted transactions, et cetera) than Bitcoin, they would simply evade and ignore, knowing an actual response would tear down their house of cards.
Another false accusation. Rarity appears to have been talking about regulation of people using Bitcoin and repeatedly pointed out she would not regulate the currency itself in any way. That all the criticisms of Rarity seem to be based on lies is not making a good case the ban was not crooked.
Let me get this straight, the only evidence you have of this accusation is something I have to pay $10 to see? And you are calling me retarded for not believing your hidden evidence? Why do you have no facts you can actually share with us?
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:
Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 10, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
I'm happy with this. Far as we're concerned the matter may rest.
Quote from: Rarity on October 10, 2012, 04:01:16 PM
Quote
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=117590.0It'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.
This is a clear admission Rarity was banned for criticizing Theymos. Rarity made that post in response to Theymos admitting he did not reveal everything in his sale post, and claiming that he would have done so later in the sale. Why the hell should an unbiased observer take Theymos at his word on that? The only evidence of Rarity "not seeing reason" is not believing Theymos? Who wanted GLBSE to remain an illegal market? Who is now doing nothing but sniping from the sidelines while Nefario sends out refunds?
And why is Rarity making a mockery of the scammer tag system by complaining that a written contract on these forums was broken? It seems more a mockery that Dank was allowed to get away with it and continues to solicit donations towards his music as if he were capable of playing any.
And if "mocking the scammer tag system" is worthy of banning, do you intend to ban dank for turning the thread about his deceptive breach of contract into a discussion of how illegal drugs cure cancer which is caused by a weak soul?
Of course not, you are just making a weak excuse for being caught red handed trying to shut down a critic of the administrator.
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.
And yet when asked to share any evidence of trolling, all you can do is point to some offsite forum behind a paywall?
What a ridiculous thread. So much bother over a 7 day ban. I’ve banned myself from this forum for a week or more at a time for my own sanity.
Moderators, was it a 7 day ban? I haven't seen Rarity logged in or posting since.
