Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October.
Of course it's the best you can do. Nothing has happened recently to justify a banning.
No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first.
Or, I can see that she has continued to post uninterrupted by looking at the post history? You are embarrassing yourself.
The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.
The discussion in question assumed his guilt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0
"The psychology of a con-man" presumes he is a con-man. If someone were to post a thread titled: "augustocroppo: the psychology of a child rapist murderer" I think we can all agree it would be okay to point out the false premise without getting banned.
What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.
I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.
Psychology was a subject of the post, and I am not aware of any moderator action against Rarity in that instance. It appears you are the one in disagreement with the moderators on that.
No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post.
No, if you follow the thread you will see that a moderator did in fact take action against mlawrence for the death threats he posted. Again, you are the one out of touch with the moderators.
So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you:
As the problem here is moderator bias of course moderators can be expected to deny it. A moderator presented a false quote and has been unable to point to
any specific thread as evidence. There is simply no Casus belli present for the recent banning which is why every moderator has refused to point to the phantom posts that caused it. It was about Theymos, unless a moderator can point to any evidence otherwise and so far they have not.
So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence.
Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning. All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July.