Quote from: hazek on October 13, 2012, 02:45:46 PM

Quote from: dree12 on October 12, 2012, 10:31:31 PM

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Quote from: theymos on September 27, 2012, 09:52:25 PM

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.

I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

Really? The moderators are now twisting words and the reality to their benefit?

You admit that it is "not entirely true.". However, what you have described achieves the same effect of what dree12 has stated.

Bitcointalk isn't a democracy unlike Bitcoin, but the moderation needs to be done in a fair and objective way, with conflicts of interests sorted out and not participating. Moderators needs to do what is best for Bitcointalk and Bitcoin, not for their personal interests.

I am not saying that this isn't happening or that all moderators are guilty of this, but some like pointed out in this thread definitely needs to reconsider. For example, if theymos were more aggressive and as you can see GLBSE failed, this can significantly impact the bitcoin economy - "Official bitcoin forum moderator promotes illegal scams, censors doubters" could be a headline for an article, and that will give new bitcoin users a bad first impression.