I was fully prepared to bash Lucius when I went through the thread. In fact, that was my original intention: to present a devil's advocate in the presence of many consenting opinions.
There is nothing more to say about how Lucius handled the situation. It was the exact pace that I would have considered from someone that 'aims to curb spam' and it was the minimal number of posts required to stop the conversation.
I was almost certain that I wouldn't do well if you appeared in this thread - but I'm glad you decided to be objective and read the thread from which you made a completely logical analysis of what actually happened.
Perfect. Why this thread then?
Don't I have the right to open a thread once or twice in 5 years in this part of the forum? If someone in this case indirectly says that my posts are just filling in the signature quota it means nothing more than that I am a signature spammer - but as some others have noticed I have only responded to his false statements, so now I have become a spammer, and a liar who
make fake claims.
But now that we're here, shall we address the irony of Lucius abusing the trust system by negging deisik for being a signature spammer? And now flipping out about someone implying he's a sig spammer himself? Kids these days.
I was wondering when you would pull this case out, and it's entirely justified that this feedback should have been neutral - but I still refuse to change it even though they kicked me out of DT for it and none of the DT members will give me positive feedback because I am trust abuser. But how many such trust
abuse is given by DT members in past and even today, and I do not see anyone kicked out from DT for doing that...
In fact, I'm glad I found out what some members think of me, and that you completely agree with dkbit98 that I am posting in this forum only to fill my signature quota+that I am making fake claims+that I am just a kid.
I think you have already heard enough opinions on this topic and I suggest you lock this topic because everything has already been said and the future discussion will not bring anything new or bring something positive.
As I already wrote, I did not expect any support from the local board, and the fact that I was proposed as a moderator at one point means nothing - I left the local board because I received the same messages as in this case - posting just for fill my daily quota. Everyone just wants me to lock the thread, has freedom of expression got to the point that a few posts will destroy the forum?
Can I persuade you into changing this local rule? It looks better on you to allow the accused to defend themselves.
I know that it is not ethical to forbid someone to defend themselves, but it is also more than clear what both users meant in their statements - I honestly do not want to communicate with such people at all now or in the future.
Coolcryptovator, Stedsm , LTU_btc, The Pharmacist thanks for your posts.
I would like to hear the opinions of a few more people who normally appear in such threads - and then I will fulfill everyone's wish and lock the thread.