The moderators/admins of this site are a bunch of criminal aiding morons

[Kluge]

It is gone now but was there just a few hours ago. Funny how you were so quick to act on banning me but took so long to remove his post.

I will leave it as it is and you are still welcome to apologize. Like I said I didn't expect this thread to gain as much traction as it did.

I'm sorry, bittenbob. 

[ZodiacDragon84]

Let us take a step away from our monitors, and go out side for a minute to chill out. There is more to life than these forums. Bob, I hear what you are saying, but did you lose out on any profit or vital info when you were banned these past couple of days?

[the joint]

I really don't care about this situation, except for one thing:

Theymos, I sincerely hope that when you said that Vual had a "right" to be angry that you didn't actually make a decision based upon your own ethical code (as opposed to a legal code or and established forum code-of-conduct).  Poor choice of language? 

May seem like small potatoes...but my 2 cents.

Other than that, carry on.

[bittenbob]

Let us take a step away from our monitors, and go out side for a minute to chill out. There is more to life than these forums. Bob, I hear what you are saying, but did you lose out on any profit or vital info when you were banned these past couple of days?

Well I needed to respond to some people who were asking about the magazine during the ban. In particular on my thread about buying ad space for the first issue so the ban was not without consequence. If it were not for other members of the magazine stepping up (thank you everyone) then it very well could have been a lot worse. I was banned throughout the deadline but luckily we still had enough response to fill all available advertising slots. I know there is a lot more to life than these forums obviously but I take a lot of offense to being unjustifiably banned while others who threatened the magazine and physical harm on someone are allowed to keep posting.

Like I said I am leaving this as is from this point forward and I stand by all of my posts.

[ZodiacDragon84]

10-4 Bob. Im sorry it had to be that way.

[the joint]

I really don't care about this situation, except for one thing:

Theymos, I sincerely hope that when you said that Vual had a "right" to be angry that you didn't actually make a decision based upon your own ethical code (as opposed to a legal code or and established forum code-of-conduct).  Poor choice of language?  

May seem like small potatoes...but my 2 cents.

Other than that, carry on.

Theymos, after reading a little bit more about what you said, I have another outside comment.

Your comment that "premium" is subjective (while true) mitigates virtually all of your other arguments justifying the ban.

To say BittenBob was being "Disruptive,"  that "no one would possibly accept your offer,"  and that his claims to be on-topic are "clearly false" (I actually think it was 'clearly true' that he was on topic) -- these are all opinionated.

It seems to me that the ultimate reason that these bans occurred is that you (Theymos) simply didn't like them.  You formed your own opinions about the comments (as did anyone else reading the thread), but as the site Admin, you exercised your authority to act based upon those opinions.

In contrast, Vual's comments definitely qualify as a legal matter and should have been the primary issue.

Edit:  Aren't you also currently doing the same thing you accused Bittenbob of doing -- opposing the "spirit" of the topic?

[theymos]

There is no legal issue that wasn't handled. I deleted Vual's original attempt to buy violence (in his auction thread) immediately. I didn't know about the one mentioned in the OP until this thread. I deleted it shortly after my first reply in this topic.

Your comment that "premium" is subjective (while true) mitigates virtually all of your other arguments justifying the ban.

Why?

[bittenbob]

There is no legal issue that wasn't handled. I deleted Vual's original attempt to buy violence (in his auction thread) immediately. I didn't know about the one mentioned in the OP until this thread. I deleted it shortly after my first reply in this topic.

Your comment that "premium" is subjective (while true) mitigates virtually all of your other arguments justifying the ban.

Why?

Umm sorry to jump back in but it was a direct quote with the link in the thread. Its not like it was made up or something. The link was preserved for you to go over and look at it when you deleted it and banned me. Also with it being reported 3 times you had to have known about it.

[the joint]

There is no legal issue that wasn't handled. I deleted Vual's original attempt to buy violence (in his auction thread) immediately. I didn't know about the one mentioned in the OP until this thread. I deleted it shortly after my first reply in this topic.

Your comment that "premium" is subjective (while true) mitigates virtually all of your other arguments justifying the ban.

Why?

Why?  Because of the fact that premium being "subjective" gives immediate validity to any comment made by Matthew or Bittenbob regarding the quality of the domains (not an age comment), and said comments are in direct reference to the topic of the thread.

If you're going to give Vual the benefit of the doubt that his opinion is subjective and that he has a "right" (again, opinion) to be angry, then you need to give Bittenbob the benefit of the doubt that it was merely your own personal opinion that he was being disruptive and perhaps he felt he wasn't.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Oh my god what a clusterfuck of good-cop bad-cop.

I deserved to get banned for the lazy way I trolled vual. I could have been much more subtle but I got lazy. Stop arguing for me. Sometimes I do actually need a time-out.

Vual also deserved to be trolled for that ridiculous thread, and he's already admitted to having made a big mistake posting it. Since everyone is here, able to post, and no one involved is still acting the same, why is this thread even here much less continuing on this far?

Theymos isn't going to apologize for doing his job, members aren't going to be happy about getting banned, newbies are going to make mistakes, old trolls are going to keep them in check. The circle of forum life.

[bittenbob]

For the record Matthew I did say you deserved to get banned. You definitely earned yours.

[Maged]

Why?  Because of the fact that premium being "subjective" gives immediate validity to any comment made by Matthew or Bittenbob regarding the quality of the domains (not an age comment), and said comments are in direct reference to the topic of the thread.

And nobody was banned for that. Believe it or not, it's possible to argue the quality of a product without trolling at the same time.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Why?  Because of the fact that premium being "subjective" gives immediate validity to any comment made by Matthew or Bittenbob regarding the quality of the domains (not an age comment), and said comments are in direct reference to the topic of the thread.

And nobody was banned for that. Believe it or not, it's possible to argue the quality of a product without trolling at the same time.

This. Next time I'll be a sprite instead of a troll.

[theymos]

Why?  Because of the fact that premium being "subjective" gives immediate validity to any comment made by Matthew or Bittenbob regarding the quality of the domains (not an age comment), and said comments are in direct reference to the topic of the thread.

You seem to be very confused about the philosophy of moderation here. Anyway...

The usage of that word is subjective and a very minor thing that no one should care much about. When I read the OP, I don't expect the replies to be filled with comments about this one word. I'd expect the topic to contain this kind of stuff:

- Bids.
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the item (not "Isn't it sad when you have to tell your potential customers that the domain they supposedly would want to buy is expensive? ")
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the reputation of the seller (not "Lawl. You must be new here.")

Other things are probably off-topic.

If you're going to give Vual the benefit of the doubt that his opinion is subjective and that he has a "right" (again, opinion) to be angry, then you need to give Bittenbob the benefit of the doubt that it was merely your own personal opinion that he was being disruptive and perhaps he felt he wasn't.

Sure, bittenbob can disagree. But on bitcointalk.org he will be wrong. His posts there are blatantly off-topic according to all moderation precedence on this forum.

There are a few on-topic sentences from Matthew's posts that were deleted along with the larger posts. If you were arguing that I should not have deleted these, then you'd have some chance of convincing me (the topic is now locked, though, so I wouldn't really care). But bittenbob's posts absolutely should have been deleted; they were 100% useless. There's almost no chance that I will change my mind about that.

I don't care about Vual's opinion in this matter. His posts were as off-topic as Matthew's, and it is against forum policy to try to buy violence. But Matthew ruined vual's topic first, so I empathized with vual and I decided not to ban him. Those incorrect posts of Vual's that I saw were still deleted. Whether he was banned is not really important.

Also with it being reported 3 times you had to have known about it.

I don't read reports regularly.

[bittenbob]

Do you read posts before you delete them? It was in the post you deleted. The link to the original thread that is.