REEEE: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

[Quickseller]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51454349#msg51454349

Continued from above because Suchmoon censored the thread.

Most recently the Cookie Monster (o_e_l_e_o) complained that he didn’t receive a PM from theymos asking him to remove lauda from his trust list and exclude him.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51452774#msg51452774

I hypothesized this was because some of his logged IP addresses match another forum user.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51453907#msg51453907

Suchmoon did not like me saying this and called me a troll.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51454132#msg51454132

She subsequently locked the thread preventing further discussion about the matter.

Substantially all of the original OP of the other thread.

Since the "Lauda PM" is now public knowledge let me just state that this sort of thing - forum owner/admin sending a PM demanding "recommending" to exclude a certain user from my trust network - is deeply unwelcome. Theymos can blacklist anyone he wants, there is no need for him to coerce others into doing this. At the very least this call for action should have been done publicly. I want to put this out in case anyone wants to exclude (or blacklist  Wink) me for this opinion.

Reopening since suchmoon continues to censor her thread.

at no point will both threads be open

[1714785755]

1714785755

[1714785755]

1714785755

[1714785755]

1714785755

[1714785755]

1714785755

[1714785755]

1714785755

[suchmoon]

at no point will both threads be open

Why you're not banned is a mystery to me. You're basically threatening to keep derailing my thread with your off-topic bullshit as soon as I unlock it. You already had an identical thread, which you then wiped and moved to Archival, why create a new one?

Well, have it your way. I'm gonna go microwave some popcorn, make it good by the time I get back.

[marlboroza]

And then you said this:

It is not made up. I don’t think you want this specific issue addressed.

And then killyou72 said this:

No I do, please come out and say you are a global mod with proof please. It will make my day

So you should continue from that post, not from the middle of conversation.

[Quickseller]

at no point will both threads be open

You're basically threatening to keep derailing my thread with your off-topic bullshit

Wrong. The subject of why certain users did not receive the PM in question is exactly on topic. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, and understand you don't want this specific topic highlighted.

[suchmoon]

Wrong. The subject of why certain users did not receive the PM in question is exactly on topic. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, and understand you don't want this specific topic highlighted.

No, it was off topic. As an OP of the thread I'd argue I have a fairly good understanding of the topic. It's about admin's demand/recommendation, not about the IP addresses of the recipients. You can highlight whatever you want here though. I'm puzzled as to why you're not doing anything with that.

[Quickseller]

Wrong. The subject of why certain users did not receive the PM in question is exactly on topic. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, and understand you don't want this specific topic highlighted.

No, it was off topic. As an OP of the thread I'd argue I have a fairly good understanding of the topic. It's about admin's demand/recommendation, not about the IP addresses of the recipients. You can highlight whatever you want here though. I'm puzzled as to why you're not doing anything with that.

The subject of who was receiving the fact based argument and why they were part of the group receiving this is very much on topic.

I will both highlight this subject and allow others to continue posting in a non-censored manor about the topic you locked.

[mikeywith]

Do you mind explaining how did you come to know about the IP thing? I have nothing against you , but if anyone else (except an Admin) came up with that claim I will say they are trolling, until and unless proven otherwise, so i see nothing wrong with anyone thinking you were trolling and distracting the discussion.

Also assuming you are right about the Iogs, how is it related to him not receiving the same PM? I don't think Theymos uses and IP address to send a PM, he would simply get a list of all users who include the member he wanted removed and send them the same PM and that's all about it.

I can only think you were trying to change the direction of the topic to something else, i could be wrong but that will have to be explained.

[suchmoon]

The subject of who was receiving the fact based argument and why they were part of the group receiving this is very much on topic.

I will both highlight this subject and allow others to continue posting in a non-censored manor about the topic you locked.

Except you didn't provide any useful information in that discussion and haven't done anything in this thread to substantiate your claims either. You basically said a user has the same IP as another user. The logical conclusion would be that you're making it up because there is no plausible way you could have such info. You didn't even say who the other user is. Your posts in my thread were useless off topic garbage.

Locking a thread to keep it trolled off rails is not censorship. Deleting posts could be considered censorship under certain circumstances (although in most cases you could just post your shit elsewhere) but the thread is not self-modded and your posts are still there.

Edit: mikey's too fast.

Edit2: Quicksy seems to be on a rampage of off-topic trolling: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154689.msg51481561#msg51481561

[jackg]

YOU'VE MADE A THREAD JUST TO WHINE? SERIOUSLY?

I mean I'm interested to know why certain users didn't get the pm to exclude Lauda. It's clear that Theymos has been forced to take back control of the forum and a make shift president of Trust while nothing productive happens here because people are too focuseds on petty issues.

I suggest locking and deleting this thread entirely that doesn't start with "suchmoon did this" and instead poses the question as to why Leo wasn't sent a pm by the admin.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would hardly call my post complaining, it was a mere statement of facts. I suspect I didn't get the PM because I had removed Lauda from my trust list hours before for a different matter, which I explained in my post.

Given I only connect to the forum internet via a variety of VPN servers or Tor exit nodes, I have probably shared an IP address with 10s or 100s of other forum users at some point.

I don't know how I earned the nickname "Cookie Monster", but I love it. Om nom nom.

[Quickseller]

Also assuming you are right about the Iogs, how is it related to him not receiving the same PM? I don't think Theymos uses and IP address to send a PM, he would simply get a list of all users who include the member he wanted removed and send them the same PM and that's all about it.

I would presume theymos compiled a list of those he wanted to send the PM to, and part of the criteria would be based on who is associated with lauda and related alts (of lauda and of those associated with him).

If someone were to share say an office, or a home-office or a home with another person, it would probably be a pretty safe assumption to say they at least sometimes share an IP address. If they (sometimes) share an IP address, they might show up as a possible alt. I am however specifically saying he is not an alt of someone else that posted in the thread in question.

Anyway, perhaps you should ask suchmoon if there is any other reason why she might have wanted to lock the thread besides the alleged "off topic" posting

[Quickseller]

After further consideration, I will drop the issue presently.

if anyone wishes to post something, feel free to PM me and I will unlock it for you.