How fair BitcoinTalk moderators are?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

It is true, in that case where both yours and his posts were deleted (I reported them, but probably there were more who are also annoyed AF with that drama) he started it, but you joined in that offtopic. In the end, it doesn't really matter who started when you are both derailing the thread from its initial purpose.

I also reported those posts for off topic. I’m sure there were several of us who did so, lending further weight to the report.

If you consider his posts on-topic, then my replies to his posts are supposed to be on-topic as well. If he was addressing the main topic, so am I. The Moderators are deleting my replies to his posts while his posts are still there. I feel like they are just telling me to shut up. If you delete my posts because it was off-topic, then how are his posts addressing the main topic?

Right, but there are cases, like the one I mentioned, where both of your posts were deleted for being off-topic. Now you have this one where your post was deleted but his wasn’t, because they weren’t sure or whatever.

What’s untrue is what you’re suggesting in the title. The moderators aren’t unfair; if any of them were, they wouldn’t last long. You’re making a bigger deal out of it than it is.

[Xiestar]

If you consider his posts on-topic, then my replies to his posts are supposed to be on-topic as well. If he was addressing the main topic, so am I. The Moderators are deleting my replies to his posts while his posts are still there. I feel like they are just telling me to shut up. If you delete my posts because it was off-topic, then how are his posts addressing the main topic?

Bitbollo is just using his experience on other casinos on Biggerz existing scam issue too although elaborating it on detailed manner is already a bit exaggerated and spammy but still on topic.

Discussing around that premise is a different matter because it will derail the original topic of that thread, hence off-topic.

Ignoring him is the right call here. It will save you so much energy that you are using rn to this negativity. FYI, I had a conflict with Bitbollo a long time ago. I just ignore him since no one can remove his trust feedback except him. No amount of distrust can remove his negative feedback regardless if he is not a DT anymore.

[libert19]

Some of the moderators' actions really convinced me to think that they care about who reported the posts. They don't care if the report is from an average forum member.

FWIW, I have reported 390 posts, except 3 recent reports (which were marked as, 'good') all were made ages ago, back when my account was absolute nobody and stats are following: https://talkimg.com/image/UxeSzm

This leads me to say, mods aren't partial towards who makes the report. Now, fair disclaimer, this is my personal experience and doesn't reflect that same may be case for everybody.

[MarryWithBTC]

Some of the moderators' actions really convinced me to think that they care about who reported the posts. They don't care if the report is from an average forum member.

FWIW, I have reported 390 posts, except 3 recent reports (which were marked as, 'good') all were made ages ago, back when my account was absolute nobody and stats are following: https://talkimg.com/image/UxeSzm

This leads me to say, mods aren't partial towards who makes the report. Now, fair disclaimer, this is my personal experience and doesn't reflect that same may be case for everybody.

I am even of the opinion that moderators shouldn't know who reported a post. They should only see the report and judge based on that particular post reported such that there won't be an accusation of bias.

In the additional idea to curb spam thread, someone suggested that a user should be sig banned when an x number of DT members report their post. But I disagreed that it should be when an x number of reports are made, irrespective of who reported.

However, I wouldn't feel bad if a moderator's decision favour's an OG who has made over 1000 good reports over me. It is expected that he that made thousands of good reports should be right 90% times they report. So, moderators can quickly agree with established members and quality posters than they will do with a random poster.

[libert19]

Some of the moderators' actions really convinced me to think that they care about who reported the posts. They don't care if the report is from an average forum member.

FWIW, I have reported 390 posts, except 3 recent reports (which were marked as, 'good') all were made ages ago, back when my account was absolute nobody and stats are following: https://talkimg.com/image/UxeSzm

This leads me to say, mods aren't partial towards who makes the report. Now, fair disclaimer, this is my personal experience and doesn't reflect that same may be case for everybody.

I am even of the opinion that moderators shouldn't know who reported a post. They should only see the report and judge based on that particular post reported such that there won't be an accusation of bias.

Sounds good. But, what are chances that malicious people will bombard the mods with unnecessary reports? Having username to the side may be helps a bit with that?

In the additional idea to curb spam thread, someone suggested that a user should be sig banned when an x number of DT members report their post. But I disagreed that it should be when an x number of reports are made, irrespective of who reported.

I am not sure if DT members report posts in first place but yeah not fan of this idea. Agreed with the emphasized part though.

However, I wouldn't feel bad if a moderator's decision favour's an OG who has made over 1000 good reports over me. It is expected that he that made thousands of good reports should be right 90% times they report. So, moderators can quickly agree with established members and quality posters than they will do with a random poster.

Nah, they should solely take action based on each individual report and context provided.

[Shishir99]

OK.

So, this is your version of fairness and justice. I get it.
I intended to ask the community how fair the moderators are. If your version actually says it was fair, then it was fair. Some people basically told me to shut up and move on. I have tried to move on before, and I would try again. But I don't think these forum elites will let it go that easily.

Since theymos also think that the moderators are fair, and nothing unfair happened, I will just lock this thread and move on.