Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on September 07, 2019, 09:40:32 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 07, 2019, 12:03:50 PM

BUT THEN that would add considerable weight to our central point.

You seem to advocating that rather than explain the reasoning behind his bias moderation and corruption he just run away and lock the thread.

Thanks for highlighting the problem with allowing corrupt moderation.

If they were not corrupt and had ZERO TOLERANCE for ALL posts that were off topic and irrelevant that would be great. Please ask them to return.

Yes that is my exact point.

Where do you get that Bitcointalk is fair, unbiased and has moderators that are a paragon of virtue or should be?

I've been here since the earliest days of this forum and it's not really any different now than it was back in 2010.

This is a private, cost free, BITCOIN biased forum ran by people with very strong opinions.

You can always just hop on over to Roger Ver's happening place LOL.

~BCX~

That's all well and fine but if they apply different rules to different members then they should not be upset when people recognize this and bring it up.

Perhaps Ver has a point then. If moderators are free to and clearly do discriminate against different members with different views and enforce the rules as they suit them and not objectively and transparently, then he is free and correct to comment on that.

The point is more favorable (for this board) if you are talking btc vs bch - the bias moderation would still be bias but there could be some case for stating this is a btc forum and understandably there could be some deep rooted opinions that are going to be harder to push toward 100 % objective moderation since people believe in the merits of btc over bch (since 99.9% of the board likely are not trained in the technical matters to make a truly informed decision) then it is not something easy to be truly objective about. Although really it should be a strongest argument (when view and analysed objectively) that wins and that is adopted.

The point is far less favorable when it involves sheltering observable and independently verifiable scammers and financially dangerous individuals against whistle blowers. Then when you notice the same group are all wearing and creaming off the highest paying sig (including the mods) you start to see that the two tier system of rule enforcement is quite a matter of self enrichment only, rather than supporting differing ideas of a decentralized trustless project.

We would like a set of transparent rules that are enforced equally and fairly for all members as much as possible.

If the board freely admits that will never happen, then that is fine. Let's not complain though when people recognize their is certainly unfair and biased censorship.

Another forum is of no interest to us at this time. For the most part the freedom of speech is still excellent. Only when you question the systems of control and dare to examine the backgrounds of those self elected to those systems will you start to get censored and given a financially dangerous warning on your account.