Fact based on topic relevant information should not be silenced in META

[cryptohunter]

Fact based, on topic input should be silenced in meta.

I notice some persons are trying to set some local rules in threads to prevent fact based debates taking place so that they may attempt to present a one sided argument and allow only those that support their side to contribute.

No observable events nor facts should ever be precluded from a thread if they are on topic and relevant surely? this enables misleading and false information to proliferate and appear to be valid since there are no rebuttals allowed. This in meta is ludicrous.

This is not in anyway the same as someone setting rules for the type of person that can purchase their items on the sales board. It is your item you can decide who you sell it to. On a discussion board people have the right to present facts that are on topic and relevant. The very notion of trying to preclude persons that can offer a facts based rebuttal/refutation is net negative.

This is just another attempt to silence people that want to rebut and make a sensible, logical and fact based refutation of the central points they are trying to enforce as truth when perhaps they are not.

Setting " rules" for who can reply on a thread in meta is totally corrupt.

All persons posting in meta are subject to the same rules.

Sensible, on topic debate.

When something is off topic then there should be a sensible case provided for why it was off topic and a warning given.

For something to be off topic again needs clear criteria provided.

Actually as many of you have noticed I am very much in favour of developing criteria that can be applied fairly to every person on this forum.

[Hivalley]

As long as a thread isn't self moderated by the original poster,then anyone and everyone is allowed to air their various views and as long as such inputs are on topic and makes absolute sense then it sure wouldn't be removed by a mod(as only self moderated threads can the OP preside over the discussions),and in the meta board selfmod threads aren't allowed
With that being said I do not know how according to you certain users are smouldering and sniffing out inputs from certain users as regards their original posts.
A user could add certain "clauses" to their posts and advice certain users not to comment on their topic,probably as such users find it difficult to stay on topic and not result in troll upon troll,and I've seen you add such clause couple of times,so I don't see any problem with it.

[TMAN]

Setting " rules" for who can reply on a thread in meta is totally corrupt.

then anyone and everyone is allowed to air their various views

READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU TWO

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
#26

[cryptohunter]

Setting " rules" for who can reply on a thread in meta is totally corrupt.

then anyone and everyone is allowed to air their various views

READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU TWO

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
#26

That would be only invoked for sales based threads. Where you do not want lower ranks to bid. Or similar situations.

There can be no reason for a moderator ever to remove facts based on topic or relevant discussion. It would be entirely ludicrous especially on a board such as meta.

The optimal result/outcome requires all fact based evidence available be presented for further analysis. You can not start prevent that under any circumstances on a board like meta. I actually believe all facts based opinions should be allowed on ALL posts and that any opinions or statements or accusations that can not be backed with evidence or highly corroborative events should be deleted.

[TMAN]

That would be only invoked for sales based threads.
There can be no reason for a moderator ever to remove facts based on topic or relevant discussion. It would be entirely ludicrous especially on a board such as meta.

read the rules - you do not dictate them...

[SaltySpitoon]

Fact based, on topic input should be silenced in meta.

I notice some persons are trying to set some local rules in threads to prevent fact based debates taking place so that they may attempt to present a one sided argument and allow only those that support their side to contribute.

If any posts is fact based, on topic and relevant then it must never be silenced.

No. People can set local rules (within reason). Some people don't want to have a debate regardless of the topic. If you feel your voice must be heard, create your own thread.

That would be only invoked for sales based threads.

There can be no reason for a moderator ever to remove facts based on topic or relevant discussion. It would be entirely ludicrous especially on a board such as meta.

Not true. If I made a thread and said that someone was not allowed to post in it, and he did, he'd get a warning from a moderator first (post deletion), but a ban would follow if it continued. Local rules are relatively absolute. Now, some things are kind of unenforceable, like, if anyone posts in this thread, they owe me money. Or something to that effect, but not allowing individuals to post in a thread is within their right.

[cryptohunter]

Fact based, on topic input should be silenced in meta.

I notice some persons are trying to set some local rules in threads to prevent fact based debates taking place so that they may attempt to present a one sided argument and allow only those that support their side to contribute.

If any posts is fact based, on topic and relevant then it must never be silenced.

No. People can set local rules (within reason). Some people don't want to have a debate regardless of the topic. If you feel your voice must be heard, create your own thread.

That is not what meta is for.

If you just want to voice an opinion that you are scared that will not hold up under a fact based analysis and debate then don't post it in meta full stop.

May as well say - I think this opinion is incorrect because I fear facts based rebuttal and refutation being presented

LOCAL RULES - nobody with a different opinion to myself regardless of whether your opinion can be substantiated with factual observable evidence and mine I just made up because it suits my agenda.

Why would anyone wish to preclude fact based relevant information being presented?

[SaltySpitoon]

That is not what meta is for.

If you just want to voice an opinion that you are scared that will not hold up under a fact based analysis and debate then don't post it in meta full stop.

Why would anyone wish to preclude fact based relevant information being presented?

Does not matter. As I said, local rules are there for a reason. If someone owns a thread and they don't want to hear from you, they have the right to not allow you to post in that thread. Create your own thread if thats an issue.

READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU TWO

Read an entire post before commenting OK
You've pointed nothing to what I said that's not in the rules

Read before commenting

As long as a thread isn't self moderated by the original poster,then anyone and everyone is allowed to air their various views and as long as such inputs are on topic and makes absolute sense then it sure wouldn't be removed by a mod(as only self moderated threads can the OP preside over the discussions),and in the meta board selfmod threads aren't allowed

^ Not true. Individuals can set local rules in any board (again within reason as I pointed out before) If you set a local rule, regardless of whether your thread is self moderated, it is to be followed, otherwise moderators will take action.

[cryptohunter]

That is not what meta is for.

If you just want to voice an opinion that you are scared that will not hold up under a fact based analysis and debate then don't post it in meta full stop.

Why would anyone wish to preclude fact based relevant information being presented?

Does not matter. As I said, local rules are there for a reason. If someone owns a thread and they don't want to hear from you, they have the right to not allow you to post in that thread. Create your own thread if thats an issue.

Don't agree.

This stops one sided and incorrect theories and assumptions being presented as accepted facts to other readers that could not discern they were perhaps groundless nonsense by themselves.

The mods will use sensible discretion to enforce them.

Present a case of having such a thing in meta bearing in mind persons post only on topic, factual , and relevant information.

Are you saying you want to provide an environment where what I have described above can take place?

Mods discretion which I think should be analysed and explained if required. The deliberate moderation and censorship of relevant on topic information should be in extreme cases only. I see no possible use of such in meta but perhaps on a sales board where you can not have self moderation for scam reasons but want to prevent lower ranks bidding on your items.

Local rules are not up to the poster to enforce only a mod at their sensible and explainable discretion.

Local rules are really a request to mods NOT rules that are enforced just because they have been written.

If someone is complaining about fact based, on topic and relevant posts being made in their threads then you really need to worry about their reasons for that.

I don't think you can say what a moderator will do.

I would hope they could answer why important, relevant and fact based information had been deleted - that would be highly net negative.

[TMAN]

Don't agree.

if you don't agree then continue posting in the other thread. Prove us all wrong

[Hhampuz]

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

[TMAN]

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

FACTS = RULES

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
#26

Cryptohunter really needs to stop breaking forum rules

[SaltySpitoon]

Don't agree.

This stops one sided and incorrect theories and assumptions being presented as accepted facts to other readers that could not discern they were groundless nonsense by themselves.

The mods will use sensible discretion to enforce them.

I don't really care if you agree or not, just know that it is against forum rules, and you can be banned for ignoring local rules. Moderator discretion on the matter would be like, not allowing local rules in a scam accusation thread, or not agreeing to enforce local rules if they are too complicated, too much of a hassle, or intentionally baiting people to break them.

People have the right to be left alone if they feel someone is stalking them across boards. If they say that they don't want someone posting in their threads, you can't post in the threads.

Do what you will with the explanation I've given you.

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

It does not. Be it the most insightful post of all time, or garbage, if an OP doesn't want someone posting in their thread, it is their right to not allow them to. Your remedy is to make a new thread so you can discuss what you'd like discussed.

[cryptohunter]

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

Again present your case or stop voicing groundless statements.

[Hhampuz]

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

Again present your case or stop voicing groundless statements.

I am presenting factual and on topic comments.

[cryptohunter]

Don't agree.

This stops one sided and incorrect theories and assumptions being presented as accepted facts to other readers that could not discern they were groundless nonsense by themselves.

The mods will use sensible discretion to enforce them.

I don't really care if you agree or not, just know that it is against forum rules, and you can be banned for ignoring local rules. Moderator discretion on the matter would be like, not allowing local rules in a scam accusation thread, or not agreeing to enforce local rules if they are too complicated, too much of a hassle, or intentionally baiting people to break them.

People have the right to be left alone if they feel someone is stalking them across boards. If they say that they don't want someone posting in their threads, you can't post in the threads.

Do what you will with the explanation I've given you.

I think that depends on if they're real facts or "cryptohunter factsTM".

It does not. Be it the most insightful post of all time, or garbage, if an OP doesn't want someone posting in their thread, it is their right to not allow them to. Your remedy is to make a new thread so you can discuss what you'd like discussed.

That entire reply is simply based upon an ad hominem attack.

Stop with the threats of being banned for presenting factual, on topic and relevant information. If that ever happened that would just be another indication the board has gone to the dogs. Unless it was a selfmoderated topic or for a very good reason like sales board.

Reason for a post should always be disregarded. The content of a post should be analysed on its own merits.

There is a reason there are no self moderated threads in meta else why not have them here.

I was told specifically by persons here several times before that nobody has a right to preclude any other person to be part of my threads so long as they were on topic and credible.

Demonstrate now why this would have advantage over what I have said regardless of what either believes that unofficial broad rules states and its actual meaning.

@hhampuz

You need evidence... provide it.

[SaltySpitoon]

I give pretty decent advice on the forum rules. If you choose not to take it under advisement, thats on you.

[cryptohunter]

I give pretty decent advice on the forum rules. If you choose not to take it under advisement, thats on you.

I would rather see a detailed and sensible debate that analyses the advantages and disadvantages of such local rules here in meta.

I can see no reason for such a censorship of relevant facts and enabling of incorrect, untrue and misleading information to be pushed on to people as accepted truth.

This is the thread to investigate such claims. You are free to present your case as to why such local rules would be an advantage here on meta.

Sounds just like another step to setting and agenda here and enforcing it here in meta regardless of whether analysis of proven facts and other credible information would provide a refutation of the OP's possibly incorrect and misleading groundless opinons/statements.

I disagree with you and would see an explanation given if you are correct.

If it was as simple as stopping people presenting relevant facts presenting them here in meta there would just be self moderation.

[criptix]

You can just make a new thread, quote the specific post in the OP and discuss it there.

You just arent allowed in a specific thread, not in a whole sub.

[cryptohunter]

You can just make a new thread, quote the specific post in the OP and discuss it there.

You just arent allowed in a specific thread, not in a whole sub.

You can not tie those threads together forever can you?  All relevant factual information needs to be presented on the same thread for optimal outcome.

How would that prevent one sided incorrect and misleading agendas being pushed in meta?

That actually only serves to facilitate the spreading of false information and misleading incorrect ideas.

Both sides of statement, accusation or idea must be fully analysed for optimal outcomes to be achieved.

Any other censorship than to remove incorrect, unsubstantiated and off topic information is not optimal in meta.

Why would anyone wish for sub optimal outcomes to occur.

Makes zero sense hence why censorship of on topic relevant facts/information can not take place in meta.

The only reason one would want fact based, relevant information being presented is if they know their ideas and statements will not hold up under fact based scrutiny and therefore wish to mislead persons reading the thread. There can be no other reason for trying to stop facts based relevant information being presented.