I'd like to speak to the manager

[FrancisK]

I disagree and the context for that one post that you single out is that he had been posting multiple with arguments and it is a fact that scorp does repeat the same thing even after being corrected numerous times. Still, that doesn't even bother me, but again I find anything beyond a week suspension to cool down is beyond overkill. That's my main gripe.



Many arguments and supports are on page 169 if you are interested. He stated things that are not disputable, yet they still are stated, and ad nauseum (like Ponzi). Creating money out of thin air is immoral. We know who does it and why. This isn't a debate, and for our site, it shouldn't be ignored; it's basic knowledge what's going on. Let me guess, all of these guys care so much about the real economy and middle class they led us down this road of debt, usury, printing, bailing out of friends after real speculation/gambling, socializing losses. Come on now, this is just silly to not recognize or admit. But I'll leave it at that (here) - you're free to go to that thread and post of course.

I'm really not interested I didn't know we were even talking about bitcoin I thought we were talking moderation and member conduct. I concede any discussion on bitcoin to you, I fully and freely admit I don't know anywhere close to as much about it as you do. It's a speculation investment to me that's and I've done well buying and selling it, I don't have anywhere near the knowledge on it that you do or even most others in that thread.

But brother from that reply it sounds more like you have an issue with scorpion not having the same view as you on bitcoin, not necessarily his moderation.

Purpleurkel a long time heavily contributing Christian member just picked up a ban for calling out a bunch of guys who contribute nothing. A random no info member calling a moderator pathetic and an Israel shill on top of everything else is in a different realm don't you think? You don't think you're just maybe a little bias here on this one because it involves bitcoin?

 

[Blade Runner]

But brother from that reply it sounds more like you have an issue with scorpion not having the same view as you on bitcoin, not necessarily his moderation.

For the third time I have an issue with suspending others in the first place, then in the second place for totally unreasonable time lengths. That is the moderation problem, because it's biased. How could I have the issue? I didn't do the suspending, but I also have been suspended before for disagreeing, and it's not right, it's punishment for disagreeing. If you ask one more time about this it shows me you basically can't read or comprehend a pretty obvious bias, which isn't mine.

 

[scorpion]

For the third time I have an issue with suspending others in the first place, then in the second place for totally unreasonable time lengths.

Pro tip: when a moderator clearly and unequivocally asks you to stop your drunken shitposting, don't turn around and immediately make another drunken shitpost and then also insult him.

Very easy to avoid having your account suspended with this one simple trick.

 

[Blade Runner]

Pro tip: when a moderator clearly and unequivocally asks you to stop your drunken shitposting, don't turn around and immediately make another drunken shitpost and then also insult him.

Very easy to avoid having your account suspended with this one simple trick.

No further comment. You and the others know my assessment.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Pro tip: when a moderator clearly and unequivocally asks you to stop your drunken shitposting, don't turn around and immediately make another drunken shitpost and then also insult him.

Very easy to avoid having your account suspended with this one simple trick.

Magoo correctly made the point before that its a conflict of interest when a moderator participates in a thread and then suspends their opponent in the thread.

It would be like a basketball match when the captain of one team is also the referee. Since you are heavily participating in the Bitcoin thread you should let other moderators who do not participate (or participate minimally) in thread deal with moderating the thread.

 

[scorpion]

Magoo correctly made the point before that its a conflict of interest when a moderator participates in a thread and then suspends their opponent in the thread.

99% of my posts in that thread are interacting with you, chance vought and Blade Runner. And I've never suspended any of you for posts made in the crypto thread, despite our long-standing debates, which have occasionally become heated.

I was not even interacting with jayco in the lead up to his suspension. He was hardly my "opponent". He just started spamming the thread with low-quality posts, and when asked to stop he repeated the behavior and became belligerent.

The moderation team already has guidelines in place to prevent conflicts of interest and bias in regard to punishment of members who have been debating with a moderator. But as anyone can clearly see for themselves by reviewing jayco's recent posts on the crypto thread, that situation did not apply in this case.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Jayco clearly needs a perma ban. He is unhinged.

I am against banning Jayco. The guy is a riot. His "lots of fans of the Rothschilds on here" comment in the bitcoin thread was the funniest thing I've read since last week.

 

[NSOE]

I am against banning Jayco. The guy is a riot. His "lots of fans of the Rothschilds on here" comment in the bitcoin thread was the funniest thing I've read since last week.

I think he was jaguarcat earlier, and possibly AynRus on RVF 2. One of the few commenters that I remember as a lurker, with quirky life observations. I really believed he was who he said. That colonialism, western exploitation foiled by soviet liberators shtick is very common in internet comments in Poland from those who tout Russia and now also China.

 

[Blade Runner]

His "lots of fans of the Rothschilds on here" comment in the bitcoin thread was the funniest thing I've read since last week.

I can't recall but I'm pretty sure you aren't even pro BTC.

That's what is so amazing over there. We have people so unhinged about their position against BTC that they have gone full throttle to the "Creating money out of thin air is not only OK, it's good".

And then long suspending or banning others. Let's be honest - I called it out earlier, because it's a major abuse of "moderation" - nothing moderate about that at all.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I can't recall but I'm pretty sure you aren't even pro BTC.

If by pro BTC you mean that Bitcoin is going to save the world then no I'm not pro BTC. But I'm not anti BTC in the sense that you can't make money off it.

And then long suspending or banning others. Let's be honest - I called it out earlier, because it's a major abuse of "moderation" - nothing moderate about that at all.

If banning jayco was a "major abuse of moderation" then I don't see the point in having moderation in the first place.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

If by pro BTC you mean that Bitcoin is going to save the world then no I'm not pro BTC. But I'm not anti BTC in the sense that you can't make money off it.


If banning jayco was a "major abuse of moderation" then I don't see the point in having moderation in the first place.

Read what he said again, it was “long banning.”

 

[scorpion]

That's what is so amazing over there. We have people so unhinged about their position against BTC that they have gone full throttle to the "Creating money out of thin air is not only OK, it's good".

And then long suspending or banning others. Let's be honest - I called it out earlier, because it's a major abuse of "moderation" - nothing moderate about that at all.

You're still defending jayco after he revealed himself as a deranged IRT obsessed with colonialism and other men's genitalia? Apparently a shared faith in the Bitcoin religion goes a long way in your mind.

Also, if you continue to run around the forum mischaracterizing (or lying about, more accurately) my transparently justified punishment of jayco as "abuse of moderation" motivated by personal bias, we're going to have a problem. Anyone can go view the thread for themselves and clearly see that jayco was spamming the thread with low-quality shitposts, was warned to cut it out, and then chose to respond in an aggressive and belligerent manner.

Let it go and get on with your life.

 

[Blade Runner]

If by pro BTC you mean that Bitcoin is going to save the world

Of course not. Its utility is in insurance from the real technocrat abuse coming, the CBDC. That is a comment on fiat of course, as it is a digital fiat and its purpose is control (vs BTC which is trustless, permission-less, stated ad nauseum).

If banning jayco was a "major abuse of moderation"

It was escalated to be something big that should not have happened.

@scorpion I don't have a problem with you as a poster or in general, at all. I have a problem with how you use your moderator "powers" in the BTC thread, where you contribute. This is something that is recurring, which to me suggests that you shouldn't be moderating it. That is both fair and logical. Again, I don't have a problem with you posting there. You clearly don't like it when people challenge you there. I have been on the receiving end of that already. The other moderators should moderate it.

I've read and re-read the points leading up to the banning of jayco, and I maintain my position on this topic, this instance. The aftermath is just internet mud slinging and more emotions, which incidentally are the ones involved in your suspending him in the first place.

 

[TruckDriver9]

I've read and re-read the points leading up to the banning of jayco, and I maintain my position on this topic, this instance. The aftermath is just internet mud slinging and more emotions, which incidentally are the ones involved in your suspending him in the first place.

I don't know about You, but I was suspended more than once back in the RVF and even when I didn't agree with that, it never crossed my mind to come back swinging and start insulting everyone. And that's what jayco did. He didn't just throw some mud in troll's lounge - that's just the cleaned-up aftermath. He started a whole new thread calling us all "fake Christian, vile imperialist trash" already in the title. And the only reason why @scorpion was the one to drop the banhammer, is because I (as a newbie) didn't want to make this decision single-handedly.

 

[Blade Runner]

And that's what jayco did. He didn't just throw some mud in troll's lounge - that's just the cleaned-up aftermath. He started a whole new thread calling us all "fake Christian, vile imperialist trash" already in the title.

I don't disagree with the banning given what happened. That's not my point. A month suspension set it off. Again, the point here is common contributors to a given thread (with multi paragraph posts and debate back and forth) shouldn't be wielding suspension powers in the same thread: this is my point.

 

[TruckDriver9]

A month suspension set it off

A week.
I think only IIMT scored a month long suspension (not counting Music cause it was a plagiarism case) and when he came back he didn't throw insults left and right.

Again, the point here is common contributors to a given thread (with multi paragraph posts and debate back and forth) shouldn't be wielding suspension powers in the same thread: this is my point.

And we are trying to avoid it.
But jayco's initial suspension wasn't for a different opinion than Scorpion's about bitcoin, it was for sh#posting and mouthing off when asked to stop.
And as I mentioned earlier, anytime you find Yourself in an argument with one of us, just tag another one in the thread and we will sort it out.

 

[Blade Runner]

And as I mentioned earlier, anytime you find yourself in an argument with one of us, just tag another one in the thread an we will sort it out.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I'm not going to point any fingers and I fully support all of our moderators, however I think it is reasonable for a moderator to ask another moderator where there is a potential conflict of interest. Even if their actions were justified there may be a perception of bias and it harms the good work they do and the site as a whole. So for example if they are posting in a particular thread a lot and have beef with someone in that thread, they should voluntarily recuse themselves when it comes to discipline. We have enough moderators to share duties so that this should not be an issue. This is what I would like to see going forward.