Quote from: theymos on March 30, 2019, 11:08:28 PM

No debate!

Just a statement give as if an establish fact ?

"good reports" - reported by proven untrustworthy and made good by mods that support these kinds of people on DT. I see.

Threats?

Please make a sensible detailed examination - look I will make it step by step. Just stop me at the step you feel is incorrect.

Let's walk through this and have a sensible debate. I mean perhaps I am wrong. Step by step. Let's see.

THE THREAD IN QUESTION.

Let's take it step by step.

People are discussing their opinions of whether hostfat should be banned or not. Not just the OP many others are voicing their opinions on "action" or banning of hostfat...but not substantiating their opinions to any degree that I can see.

hostfat - is a mod = yes or no? - then other mods and their SIMILAR actions are of course on topic as a precedent and for obvious comparison. If we are considering if he should be banned or not?

Prior instances of mods supporting observable scammers/liars and other observably untrustworthy persons and examining if they get banned or not is of course totally relevant and sets a precedent and back ground? This is what the thread is about.? how could it possibly be irrelevant or off topic.

What is the point of just saying yes ban or not ban him with nothing to compare to or no precedent ? it makes no sense to keep it entirely ON ONLY the individual person and the individual sponsor?? how is that even sensible?? suggesting you are not allowed to bring in similar instances to make a reasonable case for actions is nonsense. Judges use precedents to decide on actions, lawyers told please don't mention or bring up precedents or you will be in contempt of court or struck off would be ludicrous.

How can you speculate or decide on the fate of a mod for certain actions without considering SIMILAR situations in the past/present? I mean it would be pointless to speculate with no background or precedent right??

The rest of the post is called bringing a supporting case to substantiate the view that you are presenting? all of which is true. Or do you find some of it incorrect?? because if you do not list it in that post then people will start asking for details of what you mean or to clarify and it start to lose focus.

How would another post saying " i don't think hostfat will be banned for that" be helpful in the slightest without bringing a supporting case and precedent??

The supporting case I present for HOSTFAT not likely to get banned in my opinion for this true and I can bring evidence to support each of the claims.

Saying this kind of reply is license to ban is ludicrous. This post if voted on outside of the weird world of meta would be found to be on topic. There is no need for others to derail by taking it on to discussing DT. .

I do not believe 60 of those 60 were good. I don't think even 20 of those could be demonstrated in the full context of the thread to be good reports. I often start posting ON topic and relevant posts and suddenly get attacked by this same scum and start answering their accusations. THEY ARE causing it. Ban them .

Have people ever been banned before for presenting " largely on topic " observable events and historical back ground?

What about suchmoon saying they were taking me off ignore to deliberately get my posts deleted??

What about my fake red trust?

ALSO

1. what happened to addressing the rest of my post?

2. why threaten people with the silencing hammer when you have not even conclusively won the debate at all?
that is heavy handed cowardly tactics.

4. 60 good (who says they are good wheres the debate) I am calling out mods as supporting these scumbags who are reporting me ....of course they may well mark them as good.

. Let us examine every single one and let me demonstrate in the context of the personal attacks on myself that would have taken place in each of these instances that I was simply defending myself and presenting observable events and facts. Why are they all not getting banned for posting offtopic junk and nonsense in my threads over and over and totally flouting my local rules. DOUBLE STANDARDS. Yes that's right I don't bother snitching and crying to the mods or you because I am no snitcher. Even if I report posts for breaking my local rules they get ignored. I mean just go to my threads saying no making it personal. BOOM straight away all DT launching personal attacks straight away.

5. do you refuse a public debate with me on all the OTHER issues I raised in the above post. YES OR NO.
I am more eager to debate the trust system and those persons observably dominating it far more than my posts being deleted.

I mean I am accepting that I could be wrong about this and I just need to adjust my point of view on how forums work and debates are allowed to unfold. However so far I do not see at all how that post is off topic or irrelevant else of course I would not have even brought a thread about it? I am not complaining just so that it can be demonstrated I was wrong and it should have been deleted.

I am grateful for this board and to you really in the big picture, and it is not without regret I find myself having to react like this towards you personally. However you are the warden of this board entrusted by satoshi and you should consider the wider implications of the systems of control you are creating here and the people that are slipping into sub admin controlling positions.. People being treated fairly and equally is something that must be fought for even if it means some people must eventually sacrifice their own accounts for this cause.

From now on I will detail in my posts how each part is relevant and on topic and post only observable events. If that gets my posts deleted I will be requesting open debate on each and every one.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you since I guess there is no way to actually win some personal battle here with you. I mean down here you are the train man. However I just want to help you see that I am honestly here to help the board more than you realise.

I ask again how did I end up the bad guy here?

.