Moderators should not be in the pocket of sig campaigns. It is crazy bias.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I have noticed that posts regarding a certain project chipmixer, are being unfairly moderated.
posts are being removed in a way that mislead the reader and hides the truth. They are removing evidence given as a rebuttal to accusations and false statements they permit to remain.

It is not advisable permit moderators to be paid and controlled by projects here. It created a very poor situation.
The moderators are not allowing legitimate criticism of the selection process for the project that selected and pay them.

JollyGood is permitted to cast out his speculation  and ask for reasoning  and proof but when answered with links and my valid rebuttal the moderator deleted it. This says to the reader I am avoiding the challenges and questions  

I clearly wish to debate the chipmixer selection process and the other clear points the OP opens for debate but suchmoon and JollyGood are deliberately try to derail and cast a accusations  or pose questions I am not permitted to answer.
I understand there can be a pressure from projects who pay moderators. This is a flaw allowing mods to wear sigs. It is better to select moderators that do not require sponsorship from projects.
Imagine judges paid by companies they consider cases against in court room.
The pay the forum bestow is enough or find moderator that will contribute for good will.

The only conceivably part of my post that can be off topic is the responding to the accusation of suchmoon and jollygood and those accusations are still on the thread and not deleted to this time.

If I want to agree with the thread starter and say I believe this selection process and the campaign manager is not tell the truth and is cheating by claiming to seek what he does not seek then I can say that.

If Jollygood make a lot of personal attacks and speculation about myself that is off topic but could be relevant so if the moderator allows this you must be allowed to answer and provide evidence and reason.
Moderators sponsored by projects here are not legitimate,  and if they are delete and removing half of a debate to advantage that project it is unfair and bias.
I am lock this thread as this one or two occasions. If this bias continue I will update with examples.
I will show here off topic and concerted effort to detheremy thread or post and attacks that I have reported that moderator refuse to delete them  
Moderation should be neutral and responsible.  Introduce incentive to be bias and protective of income is big flaw.

Locked for further observation and evidence to review.

[hilariousandco]

Of course mods shouldn't be in the pocket of anyone and that goes without saying, but why would them having a signature matter? If they were corrupt then anyone could bribe them to do something with or without a signature. In fact, it would probably be more likely to happen if they didn't have a signature. If you have any evidence of corruption then you should post it as that is a serious accusation and should be looked at if true and if it was then those mods should be removed from their position. I can only speak for myself here but nobody is going to get any special favours from me regardless of whether they're paying me or not. I've looked at the report queue and there's two posts against you that were reported for being off topic/trolling. I didn't handle the reports or delete the posts but many times users are quick to jump to a conspiracy when in reality the truth is they were likely just off topic or they were removed for breaking some other rules and they were probably removed by a mod that has absolutely nothing to do with chipmxer (unless of course he is getting some money from them behind the scenes but again, evidence is needed and merely a mod having a signature is unlikely to effect their judgement here).