Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 06:08:22 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 05:03:16 AM

Does a member who censors the community from further discussion and locks threads to have the last (misinformative) say, deserve a trust feedback tag?

If you ask this question, it is because you still have not learned, or have not wanted to learn, what the trust system is all about. Unless you are referring to a neutral tag where almost everything fits, but seeing where the story comes from I don't think it goes that way.

I know what the trust system is all about however there is obviously a blurred line that needs clarification on almost a case-by-case basis...especially when it comes to censorship, afaik.

Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 06:08:22 AM

And by the way the premise is false, JG is not censoring the community because he couldn't even if he wanted to. The proof is that you yourself are talking about it.

BitcoinGirl.Club, examplens and Sexylizzy2813 all responded before JG's posts above, and may have wanted to respond to his latest one due to the content of what he had said. I personally, also wanted to respond to that post due to the misinformation within it. Instead, the thread is locked, and myself, the 3 users above, and anyone else who wanted to comment; now can not. This is censorship of few is censorship of a few which means censorship of the community. We are a part of the community, aren't we? Looking at it in the way of "everyone must be censored in order for it to be censorship" is not the right way to look at censorship.

This was the final response by JollyGood:

Quote from: JollyGood on September 22, 2023, 05:57:36 PM

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist

snip

Maybe you have checked it out by now. When someone says they are convinced something is a scam yet want to promote it for money and no other reason, there is a problem. Had he backed it up with another nonsensical statement stating the same, it would have been a negative tag. He reluctantly started twisting words and trying to make it that he did not mean that therefore it was a neutral tag.

Quote from: BenCodie

snip

Quote from: LoyceV

snip

It is laughable but I am not surprised by his conduct.

--------------

The post deleted from PytagoraZ is here. Let him make his signature quota elsewhere unless he posts something worthy of not being deleted.

It will be locked as I created it 14 days and posted three times 14 days ago and and not again till now. I basically allowed others to post their views though I did expect at least one troll appearing. Anyway, this thread can remain as a reference for the obsessive conduct by BenCodie after he received a neutral tag.

And let this thread be yet another reminder how a troll is still trying to attack me by using the Goebbels doctrine of propaganda: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Pathetic but not entirely unexpected conduct by BitcoinGirl.Club again.

It includes accusations toward myself in the first part of the post, then BitcoinGirl.Club later in the post...It also describes the 4 responses linked above as "trolling" when no one, aside from PytagoraZ (who deleted their post) was trolling, afaik.

There are unaddressed issues in this thread, there is no closure except the one of that JollyGood provided, with several members muted. Is this really an okay forum practice? Create issues, then mute discussion about them when things start going in a direction that you do not like?

Here is another example of ongoing censorship alongside JG: Refunds for the BetKing.io ICO Scam - Which I am addressing because it is an incident of censorship that is much more relevant to the trust system, considering it is relating to a scam.

Quote from: BetKing.io on Today at 06:03:38 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on September 21, 2023, 11:15:50 AM

It's great that you are refunding clients...but how about all the people who have faced dire consequences from the delay of BetKing's token until now? Now, just a refund? Of course you are in a better position as the price went up.

I commend that you are refunding as it's better than a scam, but I think that BetKing should not be allowed to promote on the forum and negative trust ratings should not be removed even when as many people as possible could be refunded.

There are always going to be people who miss your thread and do not claim a refund because of the endless possibilities of what happens in periods of years. That is something that you can never compensate for.

Delete my post again and I'll be making a topic to express my opinion since you are censoring me here.

This is such an obviously wrong take. This wasn't a scam. We didn't just keep funds. The funds raised (including > $1 million of my own) were used and the business ran out of money and had to close. It's as simple as that.

If we were just sitting on funds and decided to refund now, why would we not have done it when BTC was at 60k instead?

I could have replied to this quite easily, except, I was muted by BetKing.io who decided to lock the thread after my response (after trying to mute me by initially deleting my post, causing me to re-post).

Is it a separate incident requiring a separate thread?
No, because it is the same problem - the OP is trying to censor further conversation to prevent further damage to their reputation.