Concerns about censorship

[terrytibbs]

Slap dat scammer tag on him so that he can join the discussion in the scammer subforum.

[BadBear]

Even if we say that Luke scammed all Eligius pool members by attacking alt chains (which I would disagree with), then he would still not be banned because scammers are not banned from this forum.

He didn't scam them in that they didn't lose anything.

However, he abused their trust.

If someone borrowed my car, went and robbed a bank with it
and then returned the car unscathed the next day, I would not
have suffered any financial loss.

I still would:
    - want to know about it
    - feel extremely displeased
    - never trust that person again

In other words: there was no scam, but there was most definitely wrongdoing.

Right, but that isn't the issue here.  There's other threads for that, this thread is about abuses of moderation during all this. Someone needs to point it out, there a lot of accusations/hyperbolic rants but no links/quotes/screens/nada anywhere.  

[BadBear]

You are really asking us to link to censored/deleted posts? You don't believe what I am saying? Well... lol!

I included quotes in there for a reason, if you can recall what/where the post was, or even just the general message of the post I'm sure it would help.  

I was also under the impression this was about more than just deletion of posts, with all the talk of dirty dealings and whatnot. Like Maged said earlier, some people may be overreacting, and the chaos is causing the real message to be lost.  

[BadBear]

My issue has only been about censorship and trying to find out the forums policy on it.

I have told you what threads and what posts were deleted but no, I do not have screen shots and no I can't link you...

I also still have the message from Maged about me being banned for "trolling" in the BFL thread.

Anyway, you could end a lot of this by just posting the forums policy on censorship so we know. My posts in the BFL were clearly on topic. My posts in the thread that got deleted where clearly on topic.

The post that got deleted in Diablos thread was not on topic, (It was just asking why the thread was stickied)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=14356.msg194511#msg194511

All replies must respond to the topic's original post in some way, even if they are replying to an on-topic reply. If your reply has nothing to do with the topic post, either add some content that is relevant or create a new topic.

If you want to bring up some history with you and Maged you should make another thread so it can be properly discussed, this thread is about Diablo and censorship in the Eligius matter, adding this here will just complicate matters.    
Theymos will have to look into the deleted posts.  

The posts in diablos thread was unnecessary after it was unstickied, since there was a thread on it already in meta.  

[BadBear]

I understand about the post in the Diablo thread being deleted.

However read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57123.msg679045#msg679045 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57123.msg680512#msg680512

My first post in this thread is not even about Diablo so why is it even here??? If this thread is only about Diablo then you need to move that post again...

For https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57123.msg679045#msg679045
Theymos doesn't like talk about moderation in the thread that's being moderated. A link to a thread in meta would be more appropriate, to keep the two subjects separated and easy to read.  As it is reading back through the eligius thread and the others is already kind of confusing. 

Just so people know what this is it is a thread some mod made to take posts from different threads and put them in one place. Diablo is not the only person who is being accused of censorship or supporting questionable activity. He is not even the main person behind the backlash to the censorship.

The title of this thread is clearly misleading...

This is just too vague. And I'm not sure why it's here either if it's not about Diablo. See what a mess off topic stuff creates?   

[Maged]

Fine, I renamed the thread to more match what the split topic was about, since I was the one that named this thread in the first place.

As for your complaints about potentially being banned, that was over excessive trolling, not posting off-topic. However, you proved that you weren't trolling after all, so the issue solved itself. Keep in mind, at the time, you were massively derailing a topic and bringing up points that had already been discussed. Had I complained to theymos instead of talking with you at the time, you would likely have been banned for a few days.

[dree12]

As the thread is now renamed, I believe this post is now on-topic.

The Bitcointalk forums were not designed to overcome censorship. To maintain a level of civility, I believe that there are scenarios where misbehaving users, for example Atlas, are banned from talking. However, the level of free speech maintained varies greatly between moderators. It can be concluded that the forum does not have a standard censorship level.

While I am not suggesting a "rate a mod" system, the input of forum users should be taken into account. A mod which receives a large amount of critisism should be given a warning by the higher mods or administrators to act more in line with the moderating standard. Some mods, which will not be named, have suffered a greater amount of controversy than other mods. It is my belief that these mods should be instructed by the higher mods.

To further increase the utility of such a solution, the forum should gain a more detailed "rules" document. Currently, one stickied post in fact states that the forum's only rule is to act in best judgement. This rule is ambuigious and insufficiently detailed. With the addition of a standard, both moderators and users would be able to act better in their best judgement.

[theymos]

My issue has only been about censorship and trying to find out the forums policy on it.

I strive to allow as much freedom as possible. It should be possible to express any idea as long as the idea will not get the forum in trouble and you express the idea using proper categorization, etc.

Habitual trolls are not welcome because they disrupt real discussion. Here are the recommendations (not policy) that I wrote for mods regarding trolls:

Trolls should be banned because they disrupt serious discussion. Identifying trolls is often difficult, however. I like to think in terms of "troll score": the higher the troll score, the more likely it is that a person is a troll. Examples of things that affect troll score:
- Having crazy positions (racism, etc.): large increase
- Posting long, well-reasoned posts: large decrease
- High posts-to-time-online ratio: small increase
- Been around for a long time: moderate decrease
- Posting many images: mild increase
- Much discussion of illegal sites: very mild increase
- Requires more moderation than is typical: moderate increase
- Using vulgarity, insults, or memes excessively: mild increase
- Posting topics with undescriptive titles: mild increase
- Seems disdainful of the Bitcoin community in general: mild increase
- Bumping old posts a lot: mild increase
- Giving people bad advice: mild increase
- Poor spelling/grammar: slight increase
- Criticizing moderation: moderate increase
- Complaining about anything: small increase
- Uses ad hominem attacks with unusual frequency: moderate increase
- Lying: moderate increase
- Inconsistent positions: moderate increase
- Posting the same arguments over and over again without bothering to respond to arguments against them: moderate increase
- Posting topics that will obviously evoke emotional responses: slight increase
- Posting replies that are themselves on-topic but which will obviously tend to bring the discussion off-topic: moderate increase
- Bumping old threads with replies that are not really worthwhile: moderate increase

None of these things alone warrant a warning, but when they occur habitually or when someone does many of them, they indicate that the poster is a troll.

Warn people who are doing many trollish things. Tell me if that doesn't help.

[grue]

- Criticizing moderation: moderate increase
- Uses ad hominem attacks with unusual frequency: moderate increase
- Lying: moderate increase
- Inconsistent positions: moderate increase

LOL

so questioning a moderator is about the same as lying or ad hominem attacks?

[Maged]

I guess thank you for asking (well you did not really ask...) me first if I was serious or a troll before you banned me...

Wait... you were banned? That had nothing to do with me. I never submitted your name for a ban review, nor did I ever mention anything to theymos directly.

[tysat]

- Criticizing moderation: moderate increase
- Uses ad hominem attacks with unusual frequency: moderate increase
- Lying: moderate increase
- Inconsistent positions: moderate increase

LOL

so questioning a moderator is about the same as lying or ad hominem attacks?

The questioning a mod things means if you're going against a mod when they're clearly right, or get pissed (and start spamming for 2 hours) because you were doing something stupid and got moderated for it.

[terrytibbs]

- Criticizing moderation: moderate increase
- Uses ad hominem attacks with unusual frequency: moderate increase
- Lying: moderate increase
- Inconsistent positions: moderate increase

LOL

so questioning a moderator is about the same as lying or ad hominem attacks?

The questioning a mod things means if you're going against a mod when they're clearly right, or get pissed (and start spamming for 2 hours) because you were doing something stupid and got moderated for it.

I don't think questioning and criticizing means the same thing in this context.

[BadBear]

Edit: I now see you are "staff" and not a "mod". I guess i should not respond to you then as this might be off topic. You should reread the thread and find out what was going on before you start telling us how to act.

I can see why Maged thought you were trolling, if this is how you converse with people 

[Maged]

Edit: I would like to request a formal scammer investigation be opened usually conducted by Maged as I have seen it before on here.

I would do that, but since theymos and most of the other mods disagree that Luke scammed his users, the case was closed before it even started.

My opinion on the matter, however, is already well-known.