Let me quote this passage taken from your wall of text that probably you havent fully read due the long AI text.
Have you seen "your examples"? You have shared ALL bids make by a moderator!
(sorry - I mean you posted what AI writes...)
Since a moderator has not acted in your favor, removing comments - that according to common math and judgement are also pretty correct - there is a supergang of favoritism?
....
1. Expanded Examples of Moderator Cyrus Bidding in Auctions (Potential Conflict of Interest)
Cyrus, as a global moderator (user ID 78147), has the authority to moderate any thread, including those in Collectibles. Participating as a bidder in auctions without explicit recusal creates a perceived conflict, especially if moderation is needed (e.g., disputes or deletions). No direct moderation by Cyrus was found in these threads, but the pattern of repeated bidding in auctions by the same host (anonymousminer, user ID 1668017) raises questions about neutrality. Here are more instances beyond the previously noted ones:
• In the [Auction] Mybits Silver Series 1/2oz versions thread (started June 27, 2025), Cyrus placed bids on Lot 1 and Lot 2 for 0.0006 BTC each. The thread shows no deleted posts or moderation actions, but Cyrus’s involvement as both a potential moderator and bidder aligns with the proposed rule’s concern over conflicts.
Link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5548073.0 • In the [Auction] RARE 2017 Xerola 6 coin set - #10/100 thread (started around June 2025), Cyrus bid 0.002 BTC. Again, no deletions or edits by moderators were noted, reinforcing the pattern of unrecused participation in anonymousminer’s sales.
Link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547958.0These add to prior cases, such as the RARE TGBEX auction (where Cyrus made three bids) and the Lealana/Cryptonic multi-lot auction (bid on Lot 1). This recurring dynamic was explicitly called out in a rule proposal as an example of potential bias, where a moderator’s bidding could influence or appear to favor certain sellers.
2. Accusations of Moderator Favoritism and Selective Communication
In the HOW TO BUY OR SELL HERE… thread (a key guide for Collectibles transactions), user Kazkaz27 (user ID 2716227) directly accused moderators of favoritism, stating they’ve “reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.” This ties into broader discussions in the thread about cliques and biases, where Kazkaz27 proposed a rule requiring moderator recusal and public logging to address these issues. Responses from users like owlcatz (user ID 313016) and bitbollo emphasized the public nature of the forum but didn’t refute the favoritism claims, instead suggesting self-moderation as a workaround. The thread itself is self-moderated with 28 deleted posts, which users speculated could reflect selective enforcement to silence dissent.
Similar complaints appear in other contexts, such as a thread drawing attention to administrators (including Cyrus) for account recovery issues, where users reported uneven responses—some resolved quickly, others ignored—hinting at preferential treatment.
3. Trust System Misuse and Clique Perceptions
The trust feedback system is often cited as a tool for cliques to favor allies or target critics, particularly in Collectibles where sales rely on reputation. In the Members of the RedTrust leadership thread, discussions highlight biases and favoritism in trust ratings, noting that negative (red) trust is sometimes retaliatory rather than evidence-based. Key points:
• Reciprocal ratings form cliques: Users like DdmrDdmr described negative trust as retaliation for calling out scams, creating “strategic” alliances.
• Biases beyond commerce: Trust is misused for non-scam issues (e.g., personal vendettas), with favoritism in who gets tagged. Users hugeblack and Fillippone criticized unverified inclusions in “leadership” lists as biased.
• Specific inclusions: anonymousminer, Cyrus, and MoparMiningLLC (user ID 1478835) are listed with red trust accusations linked to scam threads (e.g., anonymousminer in topic 5233577.0; MoparMiningLLC in 5369583.200; Cyrus in 1483539). This suggests a network where high-trust users (Cyrus has +13 trust) might protect or favor each other while targeting outsiders.
Link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5431084.0In the Examples that negatively impact the Bitcoin Collectibles Community thread (in the Reputation board), users discuss derails and trust misuse, with Kazkaz27 highlighting repeated negativity from MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer as agenda-driven, potentially tied to cliques. This reinforces favoritism claims, as trust ratings appear influenced by group dynamics rather than objective evidence.
4. Patterns of Selective Moderation and Deleted Content
While direct logs of Cyrus’s moderation in Collectibles are sparse, user complaints point to uneven enforcement:
• Self-moderated threads like the HOW TO guide show heavy deletions (28 posts), often by OPs aligned with certain groups, which critics argue favors established sellers like anonymousminer by removing critical posts.
• In scam accusation threads involving MoparMiningLLC (e.g., Titan Mint scam discussions), users question why accounts remain active despite allegations, implying moderator leniency for insiders.
• Broader forum rules note that scams and trust ratings are “not moderated” to avoid abuse, but this hands-off approach is accused of enabling favoritism in high-stakes boards like Collectibles.
These patterns suggest a clique dynamic where users like Cyrus, anonymousminer, and MoparMiningLLC benefit from mutual support (e.g., bidding, trust ratings), while outsiders like Kazkaz27 face derails or ignored appeals. If needed, further digging could involve specific scam threads referenced in trust discussions.
You (lol the AI) has tagged:
@Cyrus
@owlcatz
@DdmrDdmr
@hugeblack
@bitbollo
@Fillippone (
LOL )
@MoparMiningLLC
@anonymousminer
I am sorry for this off topic. But come on - these guys doesn't deserve my words... but you CANNOT completely saying something like this (you or AI).
If you think really there is something like this or moderators are unfair it's clear the wrong place for you.
Yes, there are no doubts that these "suggested rules"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 are already in place, but just doesn't applies to posts you have mentioned.
You have taken also random topic created by a newbie (!) on December 23, 2022, 09:49:04 AM
for criticize the DT system ...
It's truly unfair accusing these people to make a scam - at this point I don't see any reason why I should trust you for this randm and serious accusation. Based on what? It's ok ... everyone should make their judgement by reading this discussion.
These patterns suggest a clique dynamic where users like Cyrus, anonymousminer, and MoparMiningLLC benefit from mutual support (e.g., bidding, trust ratings), while outsiders like Kazkaz27 face derails or ignored appeals. If needed, further digging could involve specific scam threads referenced in trust discussions.
