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

[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.

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.

Sure i get your point, but people who are interested in facts/truth/etc would at one point visit your thread and read your arguments.

I dont think its such a big problem.

If people dont want to debate with you its totaly fine - you can just open a new thread and discuss the topic there.


If the other thread is wrong and based on incorrect information, people will disregard it and switch to your thread.

[1715010302]

1715010302

[1715010302]

1715010302

[1715010302]

1715010302

[1715010302]

1715010302

[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.

Sure i get your point, but people who are interested in facts/truth/etc would at one point visit your thread and read your arguments.

I dont think its such a big problem.

If people dont want to debate with you its totaly fine - you can just open a new thread and discuss the topic there.


If the other thread is wrong and based on incorrect information, people will disregard it and switch to your thread.

Impossible to guarantee this and there is no sensible reason to censor it in the first place for locating the  truth or reaching the optimal solution. 

The downside is that a totally misleading case can be presented as fact and truth if only only people the thread starter decides can contribute.

Can you tell me one reason for someone even wanting relevant facts to be censored in their threads?
Ad hominem attacks are not valid reasons to leave the board open to such misuse.

[SaltySpitoon]

Its the forum's version of a restraining order. If people feel threatened/harassed by a member, they can make a local rule stating that they don't want them in any of their threads. Censorship means that you have no voice and no outlet. Its not censorship to tell people to get out of your house (your thread). You are free to make another topic elsewhere. No one here has the right to make other members feel not welcome here. Obviously, this is a shared space, so ignoring people is a tool for casually running into a member you have a problem with around, but ignoring is not the solution for when someone follows you around, thats where local rules come in.

This isn't something that gets a debate. The forum in general does not care if it hurts your feelings to not be able to break its rules. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, or if you think its fair, the rules are the rules. Meta isn't special, its a section about the forum itself, not about your relationships with others. The reason moderation rules are a little more lax in Meta is because its supposed to be a place where users can criticize the forum itself, and obviously, having a heavy handed moderation policy in place in a section meant for criticism looks shady. That does not give you any special permissions in the Meta sections. If your facts are unwanted by the OP of a thread, as dictated in the local rules, then your facts are not welcome.

You can make any argument if you'd like, but as I said, it really doesn't matter. I don't care to force you to believe me, but with this you should have complete knowledge of the rule, why it exists, and why it applies to you. Whether you agree or not. I'll point to this thread when you are banned and trying to say it was unjust, and how blindsided you were by the unfair moderator action.

[cryptohunter]

Its the forum's version of a restraining order. If people feel threatened/harassed by a member, they can make a local rule stating that they don't want them in any of their threads. Censorship means that you have no voice and no outlet. Its not censorship to tell people to get out of your house (your thread). You are free to make another topic elsewhere. No one here has the right to make other members feel not welcome here. Obviously, this is a shared space, so ignoring people is a tool for casually running into a member you have a problem with around, but ignoring is not the solution for when someone follows you around, thats where local rules come in.

This isn't something that gets a debate. The forum in general does not care if it hurts your feelings to not be able to break its rules. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, or if you think its fair, the rules are the rules. Meta isn't special, its a section about the forum itself, not about your relationships with others. The reason moderation rules are a little more lax in Meta is because its supposed to be a place where users can criticize the forum itself, and obviously, having a heavy handed moderation policy in place in a section meant for criticism looks shady. That does not give you any special permissions in the Meta sections. If your facts are unwanted by the OP of a thread, as dictated in the local rules, then your facts are not welcome.

You can make any argument if you'd like, but as I said, it really doesn't matter. I don't care to force you to believe me, but with this you should have complete knowledge of the rule, why it exists, and why it applies to you. Whether you agree or not. I'll point to this thread when you are banned and trying to say it was unjust, and how blindsided you were by the unfair moderator action.

This is word salad that does not provide anything new to what has been stated already and is merely another long winded ad hominem attack.

The post needs to be judged on its own merits. This has nothing to do with the poster.

If you allow only factual, relevant and ontopic posts then this kind of ad hominem defense is broken.

Moderating factual relevant and on topic posts does indeed look very shady. Hence why it can not be allowed to happen ever.

The fact that a huge proportion of posts are baseless incorrect and misleading opinions are the real danger. Your notion of preventing facts being censored so that those incorrect and misleading statements and ideas can prevail is utterly ludicrous in a sub board like meta.

It is quite simple that if you rely on FACTUAL RELEVANT AND OBSERVABLY CORRECT information only and this information on its own merits makes people feel unwanted then of course they must feel that reveals something about them that is to be considered undesirable once such relevant facts are analysed.

Your entire reasoning seems bogus and quite nonsensical like with the lemons thing. You need to have your opinions critically analysed like any other person. This is nothing personal against you  but I feel your opinion on this  is wrong and totally illogical if you are interested in the truth or optimal solutions/outcomes being presented.

You of course can have your opinion but that does not make it logical nor beneficial to the forum on the whole.

Sorry I do not share your view and you have not presented any kind of sensible case as a rebuttal.

Simply saying you think it should be a certain way without presenting a case for why is again unsubstantiated and actually misleading.

I say again provide me with a sensible case as to why any facts based on topic and relevant information should be censored from any threads in meta.

 

[SaltySpitoon]

Alright, well that was just my input as someone who was a global moderator here for ~6 years, banned and warned countless people for the same thing, and was part of the collective conversation that established what moderator discretion is for these types of cases, and how and when we should typically enforce the rules.

No, but you are probably right here.

[cryptohunter]

Alright, well that was just my input as someone who was a global moderator here for ~6 years, banned and warned countless people for the same thing, and was part of the collective conversation that established what moderator discretion is for these types of cases, and how and when we should typically enforce the rules.

No, but you are probably right here.

Are you saying you were told directly from theymos as part of your mandate that

1. expressing like for lemons is enough to get red trust?
2. fact based relevant on topic information should be censored in meta on ad hominem based reasoning?

and

You can present a sensible and logical case for factual, relevant and on topic information being deleted from a thread in meta. That you fully agree with. Leaving out the invalid ah hominem based reasoning that you presented previously.


If you can not provide the latter why would you be in favour of it?

This is a sensible debate that is beneficial to the entire forum. We need to reach the optimal solution for the greater good of the entire board.

I would rather see a rule implemented that says no swearing and overly aggressive language rather than a ban on presentation of relevant facts.

Or post only opinions and claims that you can back with evidence or credible case or face a short ban.

If this is how this has been enforced up until now then perhaps it should be analysed and reviewed.

Seems ludicrous that anyone would  seek to prevent fact based on topic and relevant information being presented in a sub board where the entire forums evironment is seemingly shaped.

If it does not allow factual, on topic and relevant discussion here then that has implications for everyone.

Why not just have self moderated threads here then? makes no sense. Looks super shady

You are saying that you personally banned users for presenting what you knew to be factual, relevant information?  you actually punished people and allowed/enabled incorrect and misleading information to proliferate unchallenged?  

[SaltySpitoon]

You aren't going to read anything I say anyway, so I'll just say Yes.

[cryptohunter]

You aren't going to read anything I say anyway, so I'll just say Yes.

I have read everything that you have posted. What would lead you to believe that I have not.

I am open for debate but ad hominem attacks are not sensible rebuttals. All posts should be judged on the merit of the content the poster identity should largely be irrelevant. Using something that is irrelevant to preclude factual relevant information is quite unsound.

Please read my post and answer each point. I will do the same for you. This is how a debate is supposed to proceed.

[SaltySpitoon]

You aren't going to read anything I say anyway, so I'll just say Yes.

I have read everything that you have posted. What would lead you to believe that I have not.

I am open for debate but ad hominem attacks are not sensible rebuttals. All posts should be judged on the merit of the content the poster identity should largely be irrelevant. Using something that is irrelevant to preclude factual relevant information is quite unsound.

Please read my post and answer each point. I will do the same for you. This is how a debate is supposed to proceed.

Please don't misunderstand this as me having a debate with you, because neither of us have any say in the matter one way or the other. I just posted to tell you about the rules and why they apply. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not stating my opinion on the matter, I'm letting you know that you are breaking the rule #26 and why.

I couldn't care less if you disagree, decide to listen to me, or if you object. I posted to let you know and thats all.

[cryptohunter]

You aren't going to read anything I say anyway, so I'll just say Yes.

I have read everything that you have posted. What would lead you to believe that I have not.

I am open for debate but ad hominem attacks are not sensible rebuttals. All posts should be judged on the merit of the content the poster identity should largely be irrelevant. Using something that is irrelevant to preclude factual relevant information is quite unsound.

Please read my post and answer each point. I will do the same for you. This is how a debate is supposed to proceed.

Please don't misunderstand this as me having a debate with you, because neither of us have any say in the matter one way or the other. I just posted to tell you about the rules and why they apply. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not stating my opinion on the matter, I'm letting you know that you are breaking the rule #26 and why.

I couldn't care less if you disagree, decide to listen to me, or if you object. I posted to let you know and thats all.

 
What is your opinion on the matter? excluding ad hominem based grounding which is invalid to my central point. The posting of facts and observable events are not altered by motivation so it is irrelevant to this discussion. Posts outside facts based and presentation of observable fact are not part of this thread. That would be for another thread.

[suchmoon]

Page two of a grayed out thread so it seems like a good time to remind: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0

[Bibite]

For the Meta section, it's a valid point.

Let's compare, it's like saying the Parliament (Meta) is the place to talk and debate about our society, everyone can enter and everyone can raise his/her voice.
But once you're in the parliament and you want to give your opinion, people tell you to shut up.

This is not how you create a friendly environment.

Theymos were saying in a pm Bitcointalk doesn't need politicians,  it's true, but that's exactly what is going on

[cryptohunter]

Page two of a grayed out thread so it seems like a good time to remind: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0

Remind people here run away and hide from facts based observable events debated with someone that will not bow to their agenda and misleading nonsense.

Suchmoon here to post the first off topic post. Local rule 26 lol no offtopic posters like suchmoon allowed please.

Another person with very strange views including

"most" pre merit legends are spammers

It is idiotic and incorrect to believe that some of the  99.87% of the board can make some posts as good or better than some of posts made by the 0.13%  of this board. LOL what an opinion to have.

This type of person trying to enforce his views upon the board is ludicrous.

Anyway lets stay on topic.

At this time presentation of facts and observable events that are on topic are of course allowed here in meta. Preventing that presentation on thread would look shady at best. Ad hominem attacks and suggesting motivational influences do not  have any bearing on pure facts based presentation and observable events there in black and white.

You are actively enabling the proliferation of incorrect and misleading information by censoring facts and observable events that refute them. You may as well say I want people to only hear a motivated and engineered agenda and only accept the input of those that support that agenda. Totally ludicrous on meta.

[TMAN]

At this time presentation of facts and observable events that are on topic are of course allowed here in meta.

Rule #26 - have you read it and understood it yet? your stupid ramblings add 0 value to the forum. I do wonder if itll be a perma ban or just a cool-down

on topic - if its only a 7 day ban, will you come back and continue to act in the same way?

[cryptohunter]

At this time presentation of facts and observable events that are on topic are of course allowed here in meta.

Rule #26 - have you read it and understood it yet? your stupid ramblings add 0 value to the forum. I do wonder if itll be a perma ban or just a cool-down

on topic - if its only a 7 day ban, will you come back and continue to act in the same way?

Rule 26 should  have no bearing on meta board where facts and observable events are concerned..  You can not silence facts and observable events that are on  topic and relevant in this section it makes zero sense. It would only benefit trust abusers and other untrustworthy individuals not interested in finding the truth but rather to present their own agendas with no sensible analysis.

Let's see if you can back up the rest of your statement.

Stop begging for me to get banned you pathetic weasel. I know you are terrified of the facts and observable events that I present.

The only people that want to silence on topic and relevant facts are people like you. There are observable events and facts that I can and have presented that you are untrustworthy and a system abuser.

However this thread will not be derailed by this. This is to discuss rule 26 and its bearing on meta board.  I am quite sure that nobody will be prevented from posting on topic and relevant facts to any thread in meta. The very notion is completely ludicrous.

What happened ?? you said you would never engage me in meta again...  can't rely on anything you say can we... .seems untrustworthy to me  lol

[TMAN]

Your behaviour is ludicrous, you ignoring the rules is ludicrously stupid, me referring to you being banned is fun. As you breaking my local rule is a FACT, breaking rules can lead to a ban - FACT, so if it’s not a perma ban, will you continue to break the rules? I notice you have stopped posting in my thread - are you now worried about the possibility of a ban?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Your behaviour is ludicrous, you ignoring the rules is ludicrously stupid, me referring to you being banned is fun. As you breaking my local rule is a FACT, breaking rules can lead to a ban - FACT, so if it’s not a perma ban, will you continue to break the rules? I notice you have stopped posting in my thread - are you now worried about the possibility of a ban?

It's true, those are the facts.  Meta isn't exempt from having local rules, and that was confirmed by SaltySpitoon.  Therefore regardless of whether c-scunter thinks that's fair or not, those are the rules--which he keeps breaking.  TMAN, if I were you I would have somehow crowbarred that thread into the Reputation section where you can self-moderate it.  It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to have a discussion about yourself and the Russians there, and you could keep the trolls out.

[cryptohunter]

Your behaviour is ludicrous, you ignoring the rules is ludicrously stupid, me referring to you being banned is fun. As you breaking my local rule is a FACT, breaking rules can lead to a ban - FACT, so if it’s not a perma ban, will you continue to break the rules? I notice you have stopped posting in my thread - are you now worried about the possibility of a ban?

I have finished posting the facts that I wished to post there. That is it.

If i wish to post additional facts and observable events I will do so.  

You can make any rules you like but sensible and reasonable moderation will take place when and if a mod decides to take it.

I can only see very negative implications for removal of facts and observable relevant and on topic posts here in meta hence why no self moderation is allowed.

ARE YOU TMAN AFRAID OF FACTS AND OBSERVABLE EVENTS ? WHY IS THAT?

You can not red trust for fact based posts.

Can, have and will.

if you don't like it I suggest you petition all other DT-1 members to exclude me or if they feel that my tagging of you is not needed or accurate they will reach out to me like adults and have actual fluid conversations

so - Like it or fuck off back to your hole.


xxxx laters sexy pants

Which facts and observable events are you scared of?

So you red trust for facts and observable events and now want to stop facts and observable events being posted when on topic and relevant.

Sorry that is not just unfair it is dangerous for the entire board.

Salty spittoon says he has banned people for posting on topic and relevant facts in meta. That sounds like enabling the proliferation of potentially false and misleading information. I would not expect he had thought about that before reaching for the ban hammer.

Imagine those persons posting net positive information and getting banned for the sake of net negative misleading and incorrect posters in a sub board that has implications for every single member.

Seems very strange to me. Hence why it is good to have a thread about it like this.

1. to understand the how the rule is enforced in meta
2. to understand the reasoning behind the enforcement.

sorry you just want to silence facts and observable events when red trusting people for presenting them does not work.

[TMAN]

Which facts and observable events are you scared of?

Why are you ignoring the FACT that you broke the rules in my thread? Why oh why

[cryptohunter]

Which facts and observable events are you scared of?

Why are you ignoring the FACT that you broke the rules in my thread? Why oh why

I don't accept your rules have any validity in meta. For the reasons above stated. Please try to understand that and stop asking the same question over and over.

Your interpretation of the rules is obviously broken if you think you can leave red trust for facts being presented about liars or relating to scams.

You can not red trust for fact based posts.

Can, have and will.

if you don't like it I suggest you petition all other DT-1 members to exclude me or if they feel that my tagging of you is not needed or accurate they will reach out to me like adults and have actual fluid conversations

so - Like it or fuck off back to your hole.


xxxx laters sexy pants

Why are you scared to answer my questions and why are you scared of facts and observable events which are on topic and relevant?

Make sure to answer or else you look to be diverting.

What happened to your statement that you would not engage with me again outside of rep. Can we trust anything you say?