Quote from: mprep on July 16, 2018, 02:18:02 AM

Honestly, if the entire thing arose from an account lock being mistaken for a ban, this would probably take the cake for the biggest misunderstanding in Bitcointalk moderation history.

I cant exactly remember. Seems like the first time I got perma-banned might have been 2016 when I was posting rather aggressively with my negative opinion of Ethereum mainly w.r.t. to the scaling plans (which I have been vindicated on by now). But I may be mistaken. I am 100% certain the @Anonymint account was never banned. @theymos closed it for me at my request (and again I wish I would have instead realized to scramble the password so as to not have bothered him with that request).

I remember one of the reasons I wanted to quit was because I was disappointed also in myself that some scammer @BitcoinEXpress had tried to use me to pretend he could attack Monero. So I surmised I was too ill and not thinking clearly enough. Sort of like my technological mind can continue to run on autopilot even though my awareness of other things was like a zombie.

I know I was not in a good state of mind or health. I was very depressed about my health but trying to remain productive and sustain some hope. I am more upbeat now that my health is not so intractable.

EDIT: after eating brunch, I now have a moment to try to remember. Looking back at some of my multiple accounts history, I remember I voluntarily tried to quit multiple times because I was discouraged by all the trolling and arguments I was becoming mired in. I quit the @AnonyMint account. Then created but quit @TheFascistMind. So neither of those two accounts were banned. Im almost certain that the first account of mine that was banned was @TPTB_need_war. I think that is correct, because I vaguely remember that I also created the account @HONCHO at that time.

Quote from: mprep on July 16, 2018, 01:33:19 AM

It's just that I'm generally disillusioned with the general public's ability to sacrifice even a bit of convenience.

Well many of us find discussion valuable enough to invest our time in it, yet we also dislike the strife. So surely we are willing to spend a little bit of money or effort to have less trolling and more high quality discussion.

The real issue is whether decentralized moderation would actually work and lower the level of stress that people endure in discussions.

I know there are at least a dozen or more members here on this site who I can have very civil discussions with. If I had them in my moderator set, such that any post they flag as trolling is not seen by me, I think my life would be much less stressful.

For example I would trust @miscreanity as a moderator to flag posts that I probably should not read. He would know what would cause me to get angry and waste time.

Before I got ill, I would basically spend my life coding, talking a little bit with others about coding and engineering issues, doing sports, and then social life off the computer. I basically need discussions to network with those who have knowledge I need to discuss and to form groups for projects. Given that is a very significant component of the economics of what I do with my career, I think it has value and should not be entrusted to a moderation policy and system that devolves into so much time wasted on strife.

As for the general population, you may be correct although I think we can probably find some features from decentralization that would entice them. The masses also like new things. Even a small market these days is still a 100 million users.

EDIT#2: I am now reading what you quoted about moderation policy which says trolling and repeated false accusations are not allowed, but then you said insults are allowed. This is a clusterfucked policy. Clearly @stereotype was making false accusations about myself endangering my children several times in more than one thread. So clearly that was repeated false accusations and not merely insults. In fact, I think I even told him that my kids were in the USA, not with me. So he damn well knew they could not be getting Tuberculosis from me or other filipinos. But damn-it their mother is a filipina and they also come back to the Philippines as adults (not children anymore) without my permission, so it is not like we can stop filipinos from exposing themselves to Tuberculosis even though it is endemic here. How many times I warned my adult (19 at that time) son not to kiss girls from the poverty area where his mother originates from but he refused and preferred to live in that squatter area than live in my house in the gated subdivision (or maybe he didnt want to live with my gf who is not his mother?). So it is absolutely insane torture what @stereotype was writing. Even now when I think back on it, I still feel it is torture. There is no way I can participate in a forum that subjects me to that torture and not end up freaking out. He knows if he stepped one foot in the Philippines and made a comment like that to anyone here (not just me), he would not be alive very much longer. They would slice him up with a bolo knife and make kinilaw a la Brit. Seriously. I just asked the filipinas here in my household what would happen to @stereotype if he made that sort of statement to their parents or any parents in this country, and they did not hesitate and responded immediately that he will die immediately.

But the more salient point is that there is no policy you can make which is not going to be subjective. That is why instead of a moderation policy, I prefer that we can each choose our own moderators, so that we can just squelch from our display those things which we do not like. Because there is no such thing as a fair moderation policy. Because the subjectivity is too ambiguous. Cant exist. Waste of time to attempt one.