Theymos and mods - rule 26 validity in META - censorship of relevant facts ?

[cryptohunter]

LOCAL RULES - NO POSTERS THAT HAVE DISAGREED WITH ME EVER IN ANY THREAD ALLOWED TO POST HERE. LOL imagine this was possible to enforce. Completely mad.





I started a thread here.  I would like to have full clarification of this rule on boards where there is no self moderation and it is not a sales based thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099936.0

It seems there is need for clarity and reasoning behind such a rule being applicable on meta board.

Some people seem to believe that facts and observable events that are relevant and on topic can be censored by using and  ad hominem fallacy based reasoning.

I mean if the poster is confined to posting only facts and observable events that are relevant and on topic  then why would it matter who creates the post?

It seems to me certain persons are asking for the right to spread and proliferate ideas, assumptions , actions and statements that are incorrect, misleading and dangerous  whilst setting rules that prevent facts, observable events that would dispel these net negative and dangerous ideas.


Meta has no self moderated threads for this exact reason. It seems certain people believe that they can create a self moderated environment here by setting their own local rules and having them enforced by mods.

I think this matter should be cleared up because before when I have requested certain people do not post unless they back up their claims with some credible case i was told no person can dictate who replies or takes part in a thread in meta.

So it seems there is need for clarity on this.

I can personally see no positive outcome or reason for preventing facts and observable on topic and relevant information being presented. So long as that  criteria is obeyed then what reason could there be to preclude it.

I think this needs clarification because this issue is not one I have ever noticed on this board before. The rule seems to leave it to the mods discretion since I mean any kind of crazy rules could be invented by the poster,

Would be good to see what kind of reasoning is behind this and if it is valid on meta at all. Where there is no self moderation for good reason.

The idea of precluding individuals posting on a thread here I was told previously is impossible if they keep to facts and it is on topic. It seems people are saying differently now.

If this rule is applicable on meta board and I put local board rules stating that posts that are not accompanied by facts or observable events that support their post ....then peoples posts can be deleted that do not abide by these rules and they can be banned for breaking my local made up rules?

I mean that even makes sense but using ad hominem fallacy to preclude facts and observable events that are relevant seem ludicrous and dangerous.

[1714767069]

1714767069

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

The administrators knows what's best for the forum. if they see any reason for a self moderated topic on meta board they'll implement it.  Beside those were just suggestions by other forum users, the forum is open for suggestions that'll better it that's why we have the meta board. you can counter their suggestions and it's will be left for theymos to make his disscussion.

[cryptohunter]

The administrators knows what's best for the forum. if they see any reason for a self moderated topic on meta they'll implement it.  Beside those were just suggestions

I certainly do not want self moderated threads on meta.

This is about rule 26 where some people they can believe they can outlaw facts and observable events using ad hominem fallacy based reasoning.

If people are restricted to presenting facts that are on topic and relevant and logical analysis of such the forum would be magnitudes more efficient and useful.

Most people present statements/ideas/views then asked why or what they are based on they vanish. These are mostly groundless and incorrect blatherings that are net negative.

[Harkorede]

The administrators knows what's best for the forum. if they see any reason for a self moderated topic on meta board they'll implement it.  Beside those were just suggestions by other forum users, the forum is open for suggestions that'll better it that's why we have the meta board. you can counter their suggestions and it's will be left for theymos to make his disscussion.

No, the rules are obvious already.. maybe it does need to be change simply becuase it doesn't serve some one's cause or it doesn't feel okay by them.

If people are restricted to presenting facts that are on topic and relevant and logical analysis of such the forum would be magnitudes more efficient and useful.

As far as I know, no one is restricted from creating their own threads and fill them with as many facts as they want or can present.

[cryptohunter]

The administrators knows what's best for the forum. if they see any reason for a self moderated topic on meta board they'll implement it.  Beside those were just suggestions by other forum users, the forum is open for suggestions that'll better it that's why we have the meta board. you can counter their suggestions and it's will be left for theymos to make his disscussion.

No, the rules are obvious already.. maybe it does need to be change simply becuase it doesn't serve some one's cause or it doesn't feel okay by them.

If people are restricted to presenting facts that are on topic and relevant and logical analysis of such the forum would be magnitudes more efficient and useful.

As far as I know, no one is restricted from creating their own threads and fill them with as many facts as they want or can present.

Sorry you will be banned soon if you have disagreed with me in the past.

this is not good enough you can not tie these 2 threads together forever.... therefore the facts and observable events will with held from analysis and this allows for the proliferation of false and misleading information and ideas.

this is the very reason there is no self moderated threads here.

Of course I don't agree with this idea of denying the presentation of relevant/on topic facts so for now I can simply say think about what you are saying carefully before posting again since if such rules hold sway here then they apply to you also.

Can you present a sensible case why you think facts and observable events should be precluded if they are on topic and relevant?

Maybe don't answer before you check if we have disagreed before at anytime. haha

[LoyceV]

I'm just leaving this here:

~ I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere.

[cryptohunter]

I'm just leaving this here:

~ I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere.

Well you either


1. want to be banned
2. do not agree with the notion of local rules on meta board.

which is it?

bake your noodle?

[suchmoon]

This is the second thread on the same subject by the same user on the same day. Please reduce the feeding of the troll to the threads already existing for that purpose in Reputation. Thank you.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

cryptohunter you need to go out & get laid, find a fucking hobby or something man.

I see you bitching on here every other day, you’re never going to win the battle you’re so intent on fighting. Seriously you’d be happier if you stopped this crap, I’m being deadly serious.

[cryptohunter]

This is the second thread on the same subject by the same user on the same day. Please reduce the feeding of the troll to the threads already existing for that purpose in Reputation. Thank you.

Define trolling.

suchmoon either

1. wants to be banned
2. does not believe in local rules on meta

which is it such moon

these are different threads this is for clarity on the rule and the reasoning of the rule makers.

the other thread is for normal users to give their views.

@ LFC

I am disagreeing with you now on the basis of this post is simply to clarify the rule I see people trying to enforce on meta and nothing personal.

[Harkorede]

Don't flatter yourself,


I'm not obligated to post in your thread... Since making a mountain out of a molehill is kind of your thing, you can post your numerous facts here and enjoy them.

[cryptohunter]

Don't flatter yourself,
snip

I'm not obligated to post in your thread... Since making a mountain out of a molehill is kind of your thing, you can post your numerous facts here and enjoy them.

Can you present here a molehill I am making into a mountain.

I disagree with your post.

Do you mean mole hills like - the entire boards right to free speech and the corruptions of the systems of control that seek to stifle and corrupt that?

Do you mean like with facts demonstrating this happening?

what molehills do you refer to?

Well we have disagreed now so it is up to your interpretation of rule 26 as to whether you respond.

[Harkorede]

Can you present here a molehill I am making into a mountain.

Molehill is the fact that some one don't want you to post on their thread, Stay the fucking clear. It's not that hard ? Is it, Considering that you can create your own. It's just like when someone doesn't want you in their apartment, but simply because you're in the same building you feel you should.

Mountain is that you feel should call the owner of the building as well as community executives to discuss why someone doesn't want you in their apartment.

[cryptohunter]

Can you present here a molehill I am making into a mountain.

Molehill is the fact that some one don't want you to post on their thread, Stay the fucking clear. It's not that hard ? Is it, Considering that you can create your own. It's just like when someone doesn't want you in their apartment, but simply because you're in the same building you feel you should.

Mountain is that you feel should call the owner of the building as well as community executives to discuss why someone doesn't want you in their apartment.

Sorry but this demonstrates you have no understanding of the wider implications.

Please try to gain understanding before continuing to discuss sensibly.

I have answered the "start a separate thread rebuttal" I have idea why you present it again.

[cryptohunter]

Bump for the answer with explanation of this censorship and presentation of a one sided argument being allowed and encouraged in meta.

Facts and observable events which are relevant and on topic should never be censored in meta even by the OP.
If they are not relevant or on topic they would be deleted anyway.

Any OP wishing to create a one sided view or one to which they will allow no sensible facts based rebuttal is likely untrustworthy and dangerous.

[Thule]

Funny how a simply YES or NO from theymos or any other mod is being so difficult to get.
It would take 5 sec for clarification but instead we will read never ending shitposts.

Thats the reason i personly dislike theymos as he is one of main reason of the total mess since he provides no real rules and everyone expecially the small cult group is interpreting the so called rules in their own personal favour harming the majority of the community.


Theymos i would also like to get a clear answer on that topic and would like to ask to finaly stop hiding on these topics

[actmyname]

Did you get your posts deleted?

If so, then refer to rule 23.

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.

Perhaps we should all familiarize ourselves with the rules.

[Thule]

the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.

Which means Mods can delete anything even if its on topic and relevant if doesn't fit in their own interpretation.
I got myself many posts deleted by a Mod even one which where simple questions or facts.
Is it now also against rules to ask critical questions or post critical facts ?Which mod has a problem with that and is deleting these posts based on his own interpretation ?

Is this statement about the fact also going to be deleted ?

[suchmoon]

the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.

Which means Mods can delete anything even if its on topic and relevant if doesn't fit in their own interpretation.
I got myself many posts deleted by a Mod even one which where simple questions or facts.
Is it now also against rules to ask critical questions or post critical facts ?Which mod has a problem with that and is deleting these posts based on his own interpretation ?

Is this statement about the fact also going to be deleted ?

Just read the fucking rules, how hard can it be? There are many reasons for posts to be deleted, e.g. serial posting. That's far more likely than your conspiracy theory of mods deleting posts because they contain on-topic facts or even ridiculous made-up bullshit that you and cryptohunter call "facts".

[cryptohunter]

the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.

Which means Mods can delete anything even if its on topic and relevant if doesn't fit in their own interpretation.
I got myself many posts deleted by a Mod even one which where simple questions or facts.
Is it now also against rules to ask critical questions or post critical facts ?Which mod has a problem with that and is deleting these posts based on his own interpretation ?

Is this statement about the fact also going to be deleted ?

Just read the fucking rules, how hard can it be? There are many reasons for posts to be deleted, e.g. serial posting. That's far more likely than your conspiracy theory of mods deleting posts because they contain on-topic facts or even ridiculous made-up bullshit that you and cryptohunter call "facts".

Can you list some made up bullshit that I call facts.

The very nature of you posting on this thread tells me you do not consider the local rules to have any sway on meta board.

I will await this made up nonsense that I call facts. Let's see what suchmoon presents.

Do you mean facts like:

Lauda is a proven liar.
Suchmoon supports a proven liar being on DT
Tman admits in black and white he red trusts people for presenting facts regarding DT members being liars?

these kinds of facts? You mean you now wish to see the proof again?