[To Theymos] Why was Goat banned?

[ChrisKoss]

Use the ignore function and everyones happy, who cares if someone posts something stupid?

I completely disagree.  The ignore function barely works.  

If everyone is ignoring someone, then they don't disrupt threads. But as soon as one person quotes and replies, the ignored person's posts become part of the discussion. You can't avoid them, and threads are derailed and overcomplicated to the point of no longer being useful.  Happens way too much right now.  

Anyone who says this was an arbitrary, biased ban hasn't been paying attention to Goat's post history.  Go read his last hundred posts and tell me that he was contributing the conversations he was a part of.  He repeated the same points over and over, trying to dictate his point instead of discuss it. Having an occasional legitimate criticism or some good posts doesn't excuse you from being a belligerent disrupting troll the other 90% of the time.

I fully support theymos' recent bans of Goat and Rarity, and hope he continues banning anyone who repeatedly disruptive or belligerent.

[ChrisKoss]

Charlie,

This is a private forum that was first set up by the MtGox people (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), and it's managed by the admin they appointed.

It is Theymos' right and obligation to remove those who are harming the quality of these forums.  The ban was not a result of bias, there were plenty of neutral reasons to ban Goat: he was trolling and belligerent.  Just because Theymos has a personal disagreement with someone does not give them ban-immunity or a free pass to troll.   He did the right thing.

[gweedo]

Charlie,

This is a private forum that was first set up by the MtGox people (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), and it's managed by the admin they appointed.

It is Theymos' right and obligation to remove those who are harming the quality of these forums.  The ban was not a result of bias, there were plenty of neutral reasons to ban Goat: he was trolling and belligerent.  Just because Theymos has a personal disagreement with someone does not give them ban-immunity or a free pass to troll.   He did the right thing.

This forum was here wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy before mt gox was here, it was setup up by satoshi and sirus i am pretty sure. Mt gox just host's the forum that is there only involvement with it.

[deeplink]

If Theymos can not maintain a neutral position, then he should resign and hand the reigns of power over to someone who can enforce the rules consistently and independently of their own subjective feelings or any personal criticism that has been leveled against their private business activities.

That's usually when the communities I've been in fall apart, some person comes along thinking they can do better and then everything goes to hell.

If you look at the big players in this community, much power is concentrated in few individuals and organizations: Bitcointalk, Bitcoin Foundation, MtGox, BitInstant, that's about it. As far as I can tell, these people are all doing great jobs (mostly) and have good intentions. That does not mean I am not highly skeptical of any concentration of power and I react in a very sensitive way to the smallest indication of misuse of power. Why? Because power corrupts. Why could what happens all the time in the real world not happen to people in this small and unregulated community?

On a technical level Bitcoin may be able to survive corruption. Yes, so is concentration of power irrelevant? No, because socially there are enormous challenges ahead. I see a growing split in the community: a compliant majority defending almost anything and a skeptical minority. And that's fine, because everyone is entitled to have their own opinion.

But Bitcoin is an experiment. If any majority is wrong and cannot be convinced otherwise, Bitcoin can fail.

[CharlieContent]

Charlie,

This is a private forum that was first set up by the MtGox people (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), and it's managed by the admin they appointed.

You've already been corrected, but if you had read my post properly you would have known that this forum predates Mt. Gox by several years. No offense, but you make yourself look pretty dense by weighing in with ignorant assertions, especially when the truth of the matter is right here in this thread. I humbly suggest that you should ensure that you know what you are talking about before you try to correct me on a matter I am clearly far better aquatinted with than you.

No one is expecting you to know everything, but when you assume you know more than someone else and you are wrong, well....

...you know what they say about what happens when you assume. You make yourself look like a bit of a cunt.  

It is Theymos' right and obligation to remove those who are harming the quality of these forums.

I agree.

The ban was not a result of bias

How on earth would you know? I suspect you are making assumptions again. Haven't you learned your lesson about that yet?

there were plenty of neutral reasons to ban Goat: he was trolling and belligerent.

That is true. So why was he only banned when he criticized Theymos, and not before? I admit that he became more vexing recently, but it's a rather rum coincidence that his behavior was suddenly deemed to be intolerable as soon as he began to take issue with the personal dealings of Theymos, isn't it? Especially as this has happened a few times recently.

Just because Theymos has a personal disagreement with someone does not give them ban-immunity or a free pass to troll.  

I never suggested that it should. However, as I have said many times now, if Theymos suddenly decides to ban someone right after they have a personal disagreement, and the official reason is behavior that was previously tolerated over a long period, then it is a cause for concern.

He did the right thing.

Yeah, maybe. But did he do it for the right reasons? That's up to everyone to decide. You certainly seem to have made your mind up. Personally I am not so sure.

[augustocroppo]

So if someone in power has not been democratically elected they can and should be free to do whatever they want, no matter how unfair or corrupt it is?

If is not detrimental for the matters which they represent, yes.

With that kind of mindset I wonder why you are even involved in the Bitcoin project.

I am not yet involved in any project related to Bitcoin. I am only a participant of this forum.

So there is no reason to wondering.

I think if a man owns a house he should be able to do anything he wants in it. But Theymos does not own this house. He is merely looking after it for the benefit of us who live in it.

This is not a house and the participants of this board do not live here.

This forum is the heart of Bitcoin discourse. It has been since the very beginning of the Bitcoin project. It's not just some private forum that Theymos started.

That does not mean the forum administrators have any obligation to agree with the demands of Bitcoins users.

I don't have a problem with forum rules. Spammers, scammers and anarchy makes for shitty discussions. The problem is that the rules don't seem to be enforced in a consistent, impersonal and impartial way. If rules suddenly become more strictly enforced when the person who breaks them criticizes the private business practices of the administrator, then we have an unfair situation, wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not.

Moreover, no user has been banned due criticism against Theymos. This has already been explained by the administrators and moderators.

[augustocroppo]

When the hell did I say it was going to be a little utopian society? It's no wonder people are getting banned from here if they're losing their temper with people like you who have the balls to quote someone and completely lie about what they're saying at the same time.

You made a suggestion and I replied with a suggestion using your own words.

You suggested that the forum administrator are running this forum "to fashion their own little utopian societies" while inviting people to participate in your forum.

I suggested that your are inviting people to participate in your forum "to fashion" your "own little utopian societies".

There is no lies, only a clever use of your own words against your argument.

 

[augustocroppo]

No one is expecting you to know everything, but when you assume you know more than someone else and you are wrong, well....

...you know what they say about what happens when you assume. You make yourself look like a bit of a cunt.  

That is true. So why was he only banned when he criticized Theymos, and not before? I admit that he became more vexing recently, but it's a rather rum coincidence that his behavior was suddenly deemed to be intolerable as soon as he began to take issue with the personal dealings of Theymos, isn't it? Especially as this has happened a few times recently.

How do you know that? Which evidence you have to prove that Goat was banned only when he/she criticized Theymos?

You had put yourself in a very fragile position in this board with the above offensive post.

I recommend you to find evidence to support your assumptions.

[CharlieContent]

So if someone in power has not been democratically elected they can and should be free to do whatever they want, no matter how unfair or corrupt it is?

If is not detrimental for the matters which they represent, yes.

Your support of unfairness and corruption is bizarre to me. I think we must have very different opinions on many matters and should perhaps agree to disagree. I hate unfairness and corruption so I think we are unlikely to reach a consensus or even have any meaningful debate since we come from such diametrically opposed positions. I never thought I'd see someone unapologetically defend unfairness and corruption! Only on BitcoinTalk, haha.

I think if a man owns a house he should be able to do anything he wants in it. But Theymos does not own this house. He is merely looking after it for the benefit of us who live in it.

This is not a house and the participants of this board do not live here.

This made me laugh. You have metaphors in Brazil too, right?

If rules suddenly become more strictly enforced when the person who breaks them criticizes the private business practices of the administrator, then we have an unfair situation, wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not.

Hahaha. Is defending the indefensible a hobby of yours?

If you think it is a perfectly fair situation, then why are we arguing? Even if I prove to you that it happened like that beyond a doubt, then you have already said you approve of it regardless?

Moreover, no user has been banned due criticism against Theymos. This has already been explained by the administrators and moderators.

Only if you choose to blindly believe them despite how suspicious it seems. If you want to believe them, fine. I choose to think for myself rather than just believe what people tell me without questioning it.

How do you know that? Which evidence you have to prove that Goat was banned only when he/she criticized Theymos?

Hahaha. Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?

Do your own research if you want to read the posts where he took issue with Theymos.

Generally, you seem like a pretty despicable person. You seem to approve of corruption and unfairness. I think what you have said is loathsome, and I don't understand how anyone could have the sickening opinions that you espouse. You're obviously some kind of totalitarian statist, and I don't think that Bitcoin is right for you. Bitcoin is about liberty and freedom, both of which seem to be anathema to your own personal philosophy. On a personal level, you make me sick. People like you are the reason that Ernesto Geisel, João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo, Emílio Médici and Artur da Costa e Silva were in power in your country. I would not be surprised to learn that you supported them if you are old enough, or perhaps you were even a part of their government. I want nothing more to do with a man like you, who supports corruption openly. You are a vile excuse for a human being.

[augustocroppo]

(...)
Ignoratio Elenchi.

Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from “ignorance of the nature of refutation.” In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi… For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud,’ you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’” … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue.

The subject in discussion is about Goat's banishment, not what you fictionally assume about my character.

Do your own research if you want to read the posts where he took issue with Theymos.

I do my own research:

I decided that he harms discussions too much to be allowed to continue. He posts more than Atlas and his posts are of lower quality. When he argues about something, he ignores all of the arguments of his opponents and just repeats the same nonsense over and over. I suspect that he may be intentionally trying to stir up drama in order to hurt the forum and the community.

The ban will not expire automatically. I may review it later.

Goat's gone off the deep end lately, you can't reason with him at all. Warnings won't work he'll just troll about that too.

He needed a break from the forums.

So, where is your evidence which demonstrates that the user Goat was banned solely because he/she criticized Theymos? You just have fallacious assumptions like this?

Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?

Because event A did not happened, it not means event B happened.

[augustocroppo]

If repeating bad arguments over and over and not listening to the points of the other side is bannable, augustocroppo should have been gone a long time ago.  He argues for Theymos instead of against him though, so it isn't a problem.

I do read all the arguments. If I did not, I would not be able to refute them.

I argue for evidence, not for Theymos. If there was coherent evidence countering my arguments, there would not be a refutation from my part.

[augustocroppo]

The timing is legitimate evidence.  The arguing for long term problems for the users is undercut when these so called long-term problems are only handled immediately after criticizing Theymos on GLBSE.  You ignore this, and the only evidence you will consider is the words of the very same administrators who are being questioned.  Of course they are going to deny wrong doing, but the timing doesn't support their claims.  

So, where is the evidence? Present the posts with the time-stamp and I will discuss the matter. Your assumption is not evidence.

[CharlieContent]

The subject in discussion is about Goat's banishment, not what you fictionally assume about my character.

I assume nothing about your character. You made it very clear what type of person you are in the above posts where you very plainly state that you are prepared to defend corruption and unfairness.

So, where is your evidence which demonstrates that the user Goat was banned solely because he/she criticized Theymos?

It's impossible to prove that. Only Theymos knows exactly why he banned Goat. If you read my posts carefully you will see that at no point have I asserted that he was definitely banned solely because he criticized Theymos. All I have done is point out a worrying series of coincidences.

Here are the facts:

Goat is an idiot. He has trolled, acted belligerently, lost a lot of investor coins, etc, for the whole time he has been a member.

He was only banned when he criticized Theymos, and not before.

His behavior was suddenly deemed to be intolerable as soon as he began to take issue with the personal dealings of Theymos.

He isn't the only person to suddenly have longstanding behavior deemed intolerable as soon as they criticized the personal dealings of Theymos.

These facts don't prove anything. But they do give me cause for suspicion.

If you want to ignore these facts completely and put all of your faith in Theymos telling the truth about his reasons then it is up to you. Maybe I'm a cynical bastard, but I usually decide what to believe for myself rather than trusting people blindly. If you need irrevocable evidence of a lie before you are prepared to question people's version of the truth, well I suppose you are just a much more naturally trusting person than I am.

To be honest I am not sure why you are still trying to debate me on this issue. You have already said that if Theymos did decide to ban Goat because he criticized his private business dealings then it would be OK with you, so why are you asking me to provide proof? Even if it were possible to prove it, such proof would be greeted with indifference by you.

In an unrelated matter, your understanding of Aristotle on logic seems to be a little flawed. I am glad I got my degree in Philosophy from Oxford rather than wherever you studied it.

[Maged]

Hahaha. Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?

And yet a very strong majority of the people who have ever been banned on BitcoinTalk.org have not once criticized a staff member. If I'm understanding you right, that means that we should never ban someone once they criticize one of the staff? Because statistically, only a handful of people have been banned after criticising a staff member out of hundreds of people who have been banned, so you can't say that it's a problem in that sense. Nor are we banning an overly high number of people from the pool of people that criticise us, so that's not an issue, either. So again, you're saying that we just can't ban people period after they criticise the staff because it might be a conflict of interest. So then who does ban them if they do something bad? It can't be another staff member, because you still claim that is a conflict: in both of the recent ban cases (Rarity and Goat), another mod has approved of the ban. So, I guess we give the decision to the people? Well, damn, that doesn't work either, since they both had orange ignore buttons.

So please, tell me, what the hell are we supposed to do in such a situation?

[CharlieContent]

Hahaha. Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?

And yet a very strong majority of the people who have ever been banned on BitcoinTalk.org have not once criticized a staff member. If I'm understanding you right, that means that we should never ban someone once they criticize one of the staff? Because statistically, only a handful of people have been banned after criticising a staff member out of hundreds of people who have been banned, so you can't say that it's a problem in that sense. Nor are we banning an overly high number of people from the pool of people that criticise us, so that's not an issue, either. So again, you're saying that we just can't ban people period after they criticise the staff because it might be a conflict of interest. So then who does ban them if they do something bad? It can't be another staff member, because you still claim that is a conflict: in both of the recent ban cases (Rarity and Goat), another mod has approved of the ban. So, I guess we give the decision to the people? Well, damn, that doesn't work either, since they both had orange ignore buttons.

So please, tell me, what the hell are we supposed to do in such a situation?

Well, first off I should say that think the moderation policy is pretty good on the forums, generally, and I appreciate the fact that you are listening to me and engaging with me publicly.

I don't think that if someone criticizes a moderator they should be immune from banning.

I think, simply, that if you are going to ban someone you should do it for an objective reason and do it promptly. If Rarity was banned for trolling, then he should have been banned months before he had a chance to criticize Theymos. If Goat was banned for being a general fool, then he should probably have been banned even longer ago.

Their behavior was tolerated for a very long time. It was only punished after they criticized Theymos and his personal business activities. If this is a total coincidence then it is a very strange one. I think most people would agree that this looks suspiciously like corrupt censorship, even if some of them think that Theymos has the right to corruptly censor anyone he chooses.

I would suggest that if you are going to ban someone for trolling or idiocy, don't do it after they have been allowed to get away with it for months. Otherwise you might coincidentally end up banning them for long standing behavior immediately after they have criticized the chief administrator of this forum. And that looks bad.

[K1773R]

Hahaha. Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?

And yet a very strong majority of the people who have ever been banned on BitcoinTalk.org have not once criticized a staff member. If I'm understanding you right, that means that we should never ban someone once they criticize one of the staff? Because statistically, only a handful of people have been banned after criticising a staff member out of hundreds of people who have been banned, so you can't say that it's a problem in that sense. Nor are we banning an overly high number of people from the pool of people that criticise us, so that's not an issue, either. So again, you're saying that we just can't ban people period after they criticise the staff because it might be a conflict of interest. So then who does ban them if they do something bad? It can't be another staff member, because you still claim that is a conflict: in both of the recent ban cases (Rarity and Goat), another mod has approved of the ban. So, I guess we give the decision to the people? Well, damn, that doesn't work either, since they both had orange ignore buttons.

So please, tell me, what the hell are we supposed to do in such a situation?

Well, first off I should say that think the moderation policy is pretty good on the forums, generally, and I appreciate the fact that you are listening to me and engaging with me publicly.

I don't think that if someone criticizes a moderator they should be immune from banning.

I think, simply, that if you are going to ban someone you should do it for an objective reason and do it promptly. If Rarity was banned for trolling, then he should have been banned months before he had a chance to criticize Theymos. If Goat was banned for being a general fool, then he should probably have been banned even longer ago.

Their behavior was tolerated for a very long time. It was only punished after they criticized Theymos and his personal business activities. If this is a total coincidence then it is a very strange one. I think most people would agree that this looks suspiciously like corrupt censorship, even if some of them think that Theymos has the right to corruptly censor anyone he chooses.

I would suggest that if you are going to ban someone for trolling or idiocy, don't do it after they have been allowed to get away with it for months. Otherwise you might coincidentally end up banning them for long standing behavior immediately after they have criticized the chief administrator of this forum. And that looks bad.

maybe he did bann him cause he tougd "now its tomuch". after all the problem got solved so where is the problem? the real problem would start if the moderators/admins would start banning without a resason! altough i didnt see this happen yet (if im wrong, proov pls )

[J-Norm]

Censorship is when someone says you cannot publish something. It is not censorship to refuse to publish something for someone else.

When you are on another person's forum and they remove your post that is called editorial control.

When you operate your own forum and someone tells you what you cannot put on it that is censorship.

There is a big difference. The publishers of this forum can remove any damn thing they want, that is part of free speech.