Cryptohunter wins. We know that always happens. Having researched very thoroughly his entire history and that of all the speculated alts I see not 1 single debate or argument he ever lost or that his points were ever debunked.
It's interesting to note that cryptohunter has about 50 pages worth of content to go through, which encompasses over 1000 posts alone across the year of replies before his posts ceased. And yet you say you've researched thoroughly not only their post history, but also that of the speculated alts (list, please). How long have you been researching the posts?
Very thoroughly. I wish I could answer that accurately, but yes It took a while
List of speculated alts? Well aside from TOAA and some others that have been accused of being cryptohunter due to similarities in style. I've not examined all of your posts although I see you you've even been able to mimick his posting style and even explained it was a very simple and basic kind of mess that was easy enough for most to replicate . I couldn't agree more.
Searching for the truth is always of interest to me, and to spend time and effort evaluating opinions and evidence is enjoyable.
I'm always very interested in talking about any member that is brave enough to make sacrifices to stand up for the truth.
However in this specific thread I would prefer to hear from the reporter and the mod that was complicit with deleting the post in question.
Thanks to hilarious and co for explaining there was no way to find out who deleted the post or who reported it and what their reasoning was for executing the request.
The same as it is impossible to find out what moderator marks my reports bad of the same person spamming my threads regularly with pictures demanding members stop contributing to my legitimate debates.
This maybe should be different for meta than the rest of the forum.
In general serious accusations ( especially those than have serious consequences more serious even than proven scamming ) should be required to post conclusive evidence. If they are unable to present any corroborating evidence at all and refuse to do so then they should be banned themselves for trolling. If you are claiming a person has taken action on this forum then how is it possible you have no evidence of this especially if you claim they are constantly repeating it.
This is not difficult to understand. If I claim you are a hyper troll and should therefore be banned, but im unable to present any examples of trolling at all? Then after you ask me 50 x and each time nobody can bring even 1 example of your trolling but I still continue to stalk your threads and post big images saying " don't feed the troll" or similar and you complained to the mods and they marked your reports bad? You would start to wonder?
Then I make more threads naming you as a hyper troll and continuing to fail to present any evidence at all, then you ask again for any examples or evidence of your trolling and say legitimately: well since the accuser.and nobody else can present any evidence of trolling it seems like a bogus and baseless accusation, but a mod deletes your post?so it looks like you just accept this ?
Lol I mean it is very strange that most people in meta prefer to try to either end this discussion, or still promulgate false information of trolling by saying " just stop trolling " or enquires over time taken to read through members past histories.
No member here says : well yes that is fucked up, you shouldn't make continuous baseless accusations for which you can not provide any examples of trolling at all and then demand punishment and then ask mods to remove the accuseds requests to see the evidence of trolling he is accused of and remove the person being accused post sensible stating well if you have no evidence of trolling stop talking shit and making baseless accusations.
The entire thing is ridiculous.
The thing is when forcing the accusers to drill down more they accept they can not demonstrate that what I am posting is true ( because you can not debunk the independently verifiable truth), but they claim is not relevant and on topic.
That is an entirely different accusation and must not be conflated with trolling.
What they are really saying is they don't want inconvenient truths that are relevant and on topic to be posted.
Sorry that's too bad.
Now if you want to get strict with on topic and relevant on me then we must get strict with on topic and relevant with all members.
I'm all for hammering out a permitted flow guide but as in the past when members have tried to suggest it nobody was interested.
The same as hammering out a more stringent and reliable set of rules for leaving merit. Nobody wants that either.
But anyway let's await the mod. If he doesn't come and explain then fair enough but if I had a clear and correct case for deleting a post i would simply present it and crush the members claims of bias and corruption.
That's just me though i like transparency and fair play.
I wouldn't object as strongly usually but this a particularly nasty case of deleting a persons ability to question or challenge those memebrs making serious and baseless accusations over and over.
