I haven't read the bickering between mprep and Anunymint
If I could make a friendly suggestion to read this page of this thread. Appears we are not bickering. You might be surprised by what you read above your post here.
Having rules about what you can and cannot do is not unusual in society. This is exactly the role of governments, and without these rules, people would be harming people and extorting people without regard for others.
The rules havent protected me from torture and massive abuse on this forum. Thus I do not think the rules are working very well.
I am all for rules that accomplish some benefit. I am not for rules that accomplish nothing.
Disallowing consecutive posting is an acceptable rule. Prevents us from bumping the thread more than once without waiting for someone else to post. Does not prevent us from adding to our existing post.
Some of the other allegations @theymos makes against me seem entirely arbitrary (c.f. below) and there is no such hard rule which is not subjectively ambiguous.
If you don't agree with a particular rule, or a group of rules, you should make an argument to have the rules changed, not ignore the rules.
I did not knowingly ignore any rule. I just refused to agree to @theymos subjective summary of what I did wrong because there was no well defined, well publicized rules that I broke.
I think Anunymint should agree to not excessively create successive posts in threads
I was perma-banned for that?
Of course I have no problem with not doing that and have not been doing that since I realized that was a rule.
But the other crap @theymos lists is purely subjective nonsense.
But I am not wanting to come back anyway. I think the forum is clusterfucked with trolling as it currently is. As explained in the up-thread discussion. It is not a long thread. Maybe take a read if you have time.
Look, you're banned because you've been fundamentally unwilling to follow any forum rules.
What rules? You wrote multi-posting. I stopped consecutive posting once someone told me that is not allowed. But seems you were also accusing me of copy+pasting my points in multiple threads. But I was not the creator of those duplicate threads. If you moderators allow users to create duplicate threads on the same topic, then why cant I reply to all of them?
Your rules seems highly ambiguous, subjective, and arbitrary. Thus potentially subject to abuse and corruption.
He has several accounts all banned for ban evasion. It seems that the underlying offense which caused him to initially get into trouble (and often the thing which causes his alts to get noticed) is excessive multi-posting. But when he was warned and/or temporarily banned for this minor thing, he kept evading his bans. This forum cannot operate unless its few rules are followed, so ignoring the warnings and temporary bans that you receive and continuing to do the same stuff is unacceptable. People who do so are not welcome here.
His bans will not automatically expire, and any future alts we see from him will be permabanned. I may manually reconsider his ban if he promises to actually try not to break forum rules. The rules are not meant to silence anyone, but to keep the forum usable and fair. When someone multi-posts excessively, it monopolizes a thread in a way which harms everyone else's ability to communicate. Based on his posts in this thread, I think that he will just continue to break rules if unbanned, so I will not unban him at this time.
bitcointalk.org is not a normal for-profit company. Even if banning iamnotback somehow stopped all future ad revenue, he would still be banned, since his rule-breaking is disrupting the forum's mission of hosting free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics. (As explained above, "free discussion" is not "unmoderated discussion".) Similarly, I would welcome effective competition from decentralized forums, and I would be thrilled to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org in favor of a better-in-all-ways decentralized alternative. But although decentralized forums have existed for a long time (eg. Freenet's FMS is almost exactly what iamnotback keeps describing, and has existed since before Bitcoin), they have unfortunately not been widely used since the era of the semi-decentralized Usenet system, mainly due to vastly inferior usability.
His bans will not automatically expire, and any future alts we see from him will be permabanned. I may manually reconsider his ban if he promises to actually try not to break forum rules. The rules are not meant to silence anyone, but to keep the forum usable and fair. When someone multi-posts excessively, it monopolizes a thread in a way which harms everyone else's ability to communicate. Based on his posts in this thread, I think that he will just continue to break rules if unbanned, so I will not unban him at this time.
bitcointalk.org is not a normal for-profit company. Even if banning iamnotback somehow stopped all future ad revenue, he would still be banned, since his rule-breaking is disrupting the forum's mission of hosting free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics. (As explained above, "free discussion" is not "unmoderated discussion".) Similarly, I would welcome effective competition from decentralized forums, and I would be thrilled to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org in favor of a better-in-all-ways decentralized alternative. But although decentralized forums have existed for a long time (eg. Freenet's FMS is almost exactly what iamnotback keeps describing, and has existed since before Bitcoin), they have unfortunately not been widely used since the era of the semi-decentralized Usenet system, mainly due to vastly inferior usability.
What rule was I violating that keep the forum usable and fair
The reason I was pissed at you and your moderators is because your rules were not keeping the forum usable and fair!!!
How can you expect me to agree to something which is ill-defined. I would be a dishonest person if I agreed to that which is ill-defined and does not accomplish any goal that makes any sense.
The amount of personalized (ad hominem) trolling on this forum is juvenile and looks like an insane asylum to outsiders. I am sick of it. Who needs this crap in their life? We waste so much effort on these bitcointalk.org forums defending ourselves against reputation trolling:
The specific reason I do not want to state publicly would not affect my reputation, and would make Vod look bad....although I don't particularly like Vod, I think this is the right thing to do. Given sufficient pressure from those whose opinions I value (and Vod), I may change course. I would give particular weight to Vods pressure because it involves him personally. I will give no weight to what idiots like o_e_l_e_o and suchmoon have to say.
I find it a little hard to believe you would not disclose information that could make Vod look bad, are you willing to state this reason privately?Quickseller has such low morals he even uses children to forward his agenda. :/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2028469.msg20239127#msg20239127
"It is my understanding and belief that Martin Lawrence is a pedophile."
What's more - he complains instantly if anyone uses his real name, but he has no problems using my real name and calling me the worst name in the book...
Well Quicky, I have your name, tracing down your location - things are soon going to get as real for you as you made them for me.
Anyone who uses children the way you do deserves to be punished as harshly as possible.