Protect Toned Coins by Destroying the Toned Coin Market

[Rigo-migration]

Well done Chris.

[lehigh96]

I'm thinking it's also my last time participating over at CT as well. Admins and mods have shown their true colors. If I do post, it will be to add my listings, nothing more! Even the threads started were removed as if they don't care about you Paul. They fear people are more on your side than the forum itself, and we are.

 

Sorry our support has hurt you Paul but you might just be better off without CT.

 

Ya know, it surprises me a little that you guys have demonized the entire CT administration group. This entire mess was caused by the actions of one moderator.

 

Doug only posts during the day and wasn't even on line when all of this went down. If he had been online, I strongly believe I would not have been banned. I have a long history of getting into heated debates with Doug, and he can be very infuriating at times. However, I still respect his knowledge and experience even if our opinions diverge in certain areas of numismatics. Furthermore, he is a very good moderator and I have never seen him use heavy handed tactics.

 

If I thought badly of the CT administration team, I would not have even attempted to get my banning lifted or reduced in time. The fact is that one moderator's actions has put them in a very difficult an unenviable position.

[cpm9ball]

I'm thinking it's also my last time participating over at CT as well. Admins and mods have shown their true colors. If I do post, it will be to add my listings, nothing more! Even the threads started were removed as if they don't care about you Paul. They fear people are more on your side than the forum itself, and we are.

 

Sorry our support has hurt you Paul but you might just be better off without CT.

 

Ya know, it surprises me a little that you guys have demonized the entire CT administration group. This entire mess was caused by the actions of one moderator.

 

Doug only posts during the day and wasn't even on line when all of this went down. If he had been online, I strongly believe I would not have been banned. I have a long history of getting into heated debates with Doug, and he can be very infuriating at times. However, I still respect his knowledge and experience even if our opinions diverge in certain areas of numismatics. Furthermore, he is a very good moderator and I have never seen him use heavy handed tactics.

 

If I thought badly of the CT administration team, I would not have even attempted to get my banning lifted or reduced in time. The fact is that one moderator's actions has put them in a very difficult an unenviable position.

 

I agree with you 100%. Despite the fact that Doug has said repeatedly that he never wanted to be a mod, I think he really prefers to remain in that position to help keep the ship on an even keel.

 

Yes, Doug can be a little exasperating at times. I think he and I are alike in that regard. We're both stubborn old cusses, but I have never seen him act in a heavy-handed way. When I saw the PM response you posted, "Never" , I knew that could not have come from Doug.

 

I have no doubt that desertgem went way too far. It is one of the unfortunate aspects of maintaining a site such as this, which has a continual influx of new people, that it isn't easy to develop a good screening process to determine who could be suited for the position.

 

Chris

[Rigo-migration]

I'm thinking it's also my last time participating over at CT as well. Admins and mods have shown their true colors. If I do post, it will be to add my listings, nothing more! Even the threads started were removed as if they don't care about you Paul. They fear people are more on your side than the forum itself, and we are.

 

Sorry our support has hurt you Paul but you might just be better off without CT.

 

Ya know, it surprises me a little that you guys have demonized the entire CT administration group. This entire mess was caused by the actions of one moderator.

 

Doug only posts during the day and wasn't even on line when all of this went down. If he had been online, I strongly believe I would not have been banned. I have a long history of getting into heated debates with Doug, and he can be very infuriating at times. However, I still respect his knowledge and experience even if our opinions diverge in certain areas of numismatics. Furthermore, he is a very good moderator and I have never seen him use heavy handed tactics.

 

If I thought badly of the CT administration team, I would not have even attempted to get my banning lifted or reduced in time. The fact is that one moderator's actions has put them in a very difficult an unenviable position.

 

You know, I never said I demonized the "entire" CT administration group but the fact of the matter is that even if Doug was not on at the time, the poor judgment of a "mod" should not have happened. For a forum to be running for as long as it has, it should be well taken care of, including when making the decision of promoting someone as a moderator. I still won't change my thoughts on what I think about CT and its mods though.

 

I'm surprised though that you only "quoted" me because of what I said. And I am one who has always stood, admired not only your knowledge but I'm also a member who loves to read the debates you and Doug have had in the past. If anything I said while supporting you and being on your side upset you, I am really sorry and I will not say no more. I guess with your quote you meant that you are begging to go back and all I can do is wish you good luck and guarantee you that I won't say anything next time something is involving you my friend..

 

 

 

[lehigh96]

I'm thinking it's also my last time participating over at CT as well. Admins and mods have shown their true colors. If I do post, it will be to add my listings, nothing more! Even the threads started were removed as if they don't care about you Paul. They fear people are more on your side than the forum itself, and we are.

 

Sorry our support has hurt you Paul but you might just be better off without CT.

 

Ya know, it surprises me a little that you guys have demonized the entire CT administration group. This entire mess was caused by the actions of one moderator.

 

Doug only posts during the day and wasn't even on line when all of this went down. If he had been online, I strongly believe I would not have been banned. I have a long history of getting into heated debates with Doug, and he can be very infuriating at times. However, I still respect his knowledge and experience even if our opinions diverge in certain areas of numismatics. Furthermore, he is a very good moderator and I have never seen him use heavy handed tactics.

 

If I thought badly of the CT administration team, I would not have even attempted to get my banning lifted or reduced in time. The fact is that one moderator's actions has put them in a very difficult an unenviable position.

 

You know, I never said I demonized the "entire" CT administration group but the fact of the matter is that even if Doug was not on at the time, the poor judgment of a "mod" should not have happened. For a forum to be running for as long as it has, it should be well taken care of, including when making the decision of promoting someone as a moderator. I still won't change my thoughts on what I think about CT and its mods though.

 

I'm surprised though that you only "quoted" me because of what I said. And I am one who has always stood, admired not only your knowledge but I'm also a member who loves to read the debates you and Doug have had in the past. If anything I said while supporting you and being on your side upset you, I am really sorry and I will not say no more. I guess with your quote you meant that you are begging to go back and all I can do is wish you good luck and guarantee you that I won't say anything next time something is involving you my friend..

 

 

 

Rigo,

 

Please don't misunderstand. I appreciate the support that you and others showed both here and on Cointalk. I certainly did not mean to single you out. My only point was that I don't hold either Peter or Doug at all responsible for what happened. I know that you guys are angry, but I wish you would direct your anger at the person responsible for this mess, the moderator who banned me.

 

And BTW, I don't even know how to beg. However, I do want justice to prevail. I did not deserve to be banned and I would like to see it reversed.

 

Thanks again!

 

Paul

[desertgem]

Since I am a member of this board also, and since I am being portrayed here as a villain, I wish to present the other side. Those of you that have closed minds, don't believe in fairness on issues, and feel that you are better than other because you are you, may as well go on down to start another post. I am hoping that few or none fit that description. Weeks ago, I would have bet on open minds, fairness, and such.

 

Since my ID has been used several times directly or in reference as "mod", I feel I can take the same liberties here. I will not discuss infractions or actions as personally I feel that is a privacy issue, but here is the rest. I thank you for reading.

 

Most of you know that all forums have a "rules" section. Some are more stringent than others, or in case of commercially owned ones, rules that most do not have.

 

CT rules are here

rules

 

Mods have to enforce these rules as they are written by the owner and administrator. Many that post either have not read them or think they don't apply to them.

 

The administrator has stated that No one is above the rules , no exceptions.

 

Now look at the Thread on AT This subject may be distasteful to most, but it is not one prohibited by the rules. so I could not legitimately remove it. You can read the postings, but here are the posts#, I want to refer to:

 

#22 First mod notice of rules and guidance ( could be counted as a warning, but I won't)

 

#30 Edited members name out of post, noted reason

 

#32 again same as #30

 

#34 A threat made to try and close a legal thread

 

#35 First post by Lehigh96, I edited out the name of a member in his quote.

 

#36 Warning of rule #2, which I quoted from section verbatim.

 

#39 One poster recognized he didn't know the rule and stopped violations.

 

#53 Edited to remove members ID

 

#63 Another warning from me on Rule #2

 

#66 Warning and specifically warned that further such posts would result in a ban.

 

#67 Advice from me describing in simple terms what could and could not be posted.

 

#68 another warning

 

By then I couldn't keep up my typing to catch the repeated violations after that so I took actions and deleted all of the rest of the posts that mentioned CT IDs. The OP claimed that action was taken because he was defending a CT member, a rather weak one as it was not heeding the warnings and specific actions that would be taken.

 

Some of you are enforcement profession. If you warned multiple times and they continued, would you take action or continue to warn ?? And if you did take action, would you expect to be called "heavyhanded" after multiple warnings? I refuse to treat members on the forum as if some have more privileges than others. If I violated the rules, Doug would have my tail! he expects us to toe the same line on the rules. He even expects himself to similarly toe the same line. Rigo and I have had some run ins on a different coin forum before I became a mod, and I feel I have treated him as others on CT. I was running ragged trying to put out a flame war and protect CT members, and not able to type long detailed warnings.

 

Anyway, that is what I have. I hope you at least can see that it was not a rash unthoughtful , or unexpected result by any means. I hope those of you that are CT members continue to participate, but I intend to still be a mod , and enforce the rules as emphasized by the CT administration and owner, and treat all members the same.

The pay is great $0.00 and the perks are also ( This is a perk?

 

I do not intend to post here on this thread again. I have presented all the info that is still public and available on CT for all to see. AT is a bad subject to some, but it is not illegal in law, nor banned from the forum. I don't know if it is banned here or not as this is a company site.

 

You don't have to like me, nor I you, but I do feel we should be civil, fair, and respectful of each other.I have no personal problem with Lehigh96, and hopes he chooses to stay, but I think he is not standing up as I would have expected him to do.

 

 

Desertgem.

[MJ]

Wow. I've never had any inclination of joining CT. After reading the last post I remain resolute in my conviction. Bush leagues with little hope of improving. Best of luck though. MJ

[lehigh96]

Since I am a member of this board also, and since I am being portrayed here as a villain, I wish to present the other side. Those of you that have closed minds, don't believe in fairness on issues, and feel that you are better than other because you are you, may as well go on down to start another post. I am hoping that few or none fit that description. Weeks ago, I would have bet on open minds, fairness, and such.

 

Since my ID has been used several times directly or in reference as "mod", I feel I can take the same liberties here. I will not discuss infractions or actions as personally I feel that is a privacy issue, but here is the rest. I thank you for reading.

 

Most of you know that all forums have a "rules" section. Some are more stringent than others, or in case of commercially owned ones, rules that most do not have.

 

CT rules are here

rules

 

Mods have to enforce these rules as they are written by the owner and administrator. Many that post either have not read them or think they don't apply to them.

 

The administrator has stated that No one is above the rules , no exceptions.

 

Now look at the Thread on AT This subject may be distasteful to most, but it is not one prohibited by the rules. so I could not legitimately remove it. You can read the postings, but here are the posts#, I want to refer to:

 

#22 First mod notice of rules and guidance ( could be counted as a warning, but I won't)

 

#30 Edited members name out of post, noted reason

 

#32 again same as #30

 

#34 A threat made to try and close a legal thread

 

#35 First post by Lehigh96, I edited out the name of a member in his quote.

 

#36 Warning of rule #2, which I quoted from section verbatim.

 

#39 One poster recognized he didn't know the rule and stopped violations.

 

#53 Edited to remove members ID

 

#63 Another warning from me on Rule #2

 

#66 Warning and specifically warned that further such posts would result in a ban.

 

#67 Advice from me describing in simple terms what could and could not be posted.

 

#68 another warning

 

By then I couldn't keep up my typing to catch the repeated violations after that so I took actions and deleted all of the rest of the posts that mentioned CT IDs. The OP claimed that action was taken because he was defending a CT member, a rather weak one as it was not heeding the warnings and specific actions that would be taken.

 

Some of you are enforcement profession. If you warned multiple times and they continued, would you take action or continue to warn ?? And if you did take action, would you expect to be called "heavyhanded" after multiple warnings? I refuse to treat members on the forum as if some have more privileges than others. If I violated the rules, Doug would have my tail! he expects us to toe the same line on the rules. He even expects himself to similarly toe the same line. Rigo and I have had some run ins on a different coin forum before I became a mod, and I feel I have treated him as others on CT. I was running ragged trying to put out a flame war and protect CT members, and not able to type long detailed warnings.

 

Anyway, that is what I have. I hope you at least can see that it was not a rash unthoughtful , or unexpected result by any means. I hope those of you that are CT members continue to participate, but I intend to still be a mod , and enforce the rules as emphasized by the CT administration and owner, and treat all members the same.

The pay is great $0.00 and the perks are also ( This is a perk?

 

I do not intend to post here on this thread again. I have presented all the info that is still public and available on CT for all to see. AT is a bad subject to some, but it is not illegal in law, nor banned from the forum. I don't know if it is banned here or not as this is a company site.

 

You don't have to like me, nor I you, but I do feel we should be civil, fair, and respectful of each other.I have no personal problem with Lehigh96, and hopes he chooses to stay, but I think he is not standing up as I would have expected him to do.

 

 

Desertgem.

 

Jim,

 

If you count signing up last year and never posting being a member of this forum, then I guess you are correct, you are a member here. But make no mistake, you are the villian in this scenario, and everybody knows it.

 

I started that day as one of the most respected core members on Cointalk. You decided that my actions in within a 3 hour span in a thread that you publicly admitted knew was going to be a problem was worthy of a lifetime ban.

 

Never once did you give me a specific warning about anything.

 

Never once did you give me the courtesy of sending me a PM asking me to stop posting in the thread.

 

When I left to eat dinner at 8PM, I had no warnings or infractions and no posts had been deleted.

 

When I returned to the thread a little after 9PM, I had a warning for insulting other members in my PM and there were three consecutive posts in the thread from you about the rules. I accepted that warning because I did infact call and insinuate that other members were clowns.

 

I also read your three posts inside the thread. In your post here you specfically state the post #67 provides "in simple terms what could and could not be posted." So let's take a look at that post shall we.

 

I knew when I saw this thread this morning that it would be at this point sooner or later. You can hate it. You can like the discussion of it. You can ignore it. What you can't do is to call each other names, be uncivil in comments on each others abilities, or suggest that they join a "list". You can disagree, just do it right!

 

Jim

 

 

After this point, I made three posts in the thread. We can't see them because you deleted them. I have recreated those posts to the best of my recollection and have posted them previously in this thread. Are you claiming that the recreated posts here are inaccurate? I think everyone would like to know how any of those three posts violated any of the Cointalk rules or you simple guidelines provided in post #67. No profanity was used, no name calling took place, and I was not uncivil even though the other member called be an knuckle dragging neanderthal in one post and libeled me in another.

 

You have stated here that you couldn't catch up with all of the infractions and deleted all of the posts that mentioned a CT ID. What does mentioning a CT ID have to do with anything?

 

At approximately 9:45PM, you issued an infraction to me. The reason for infraction stated "inappropriate language". I responded to you in a PM asking you what that was about because I had not used inappropiate language at all. Keep in mind that you never sent a PM to explain this infraction or any other. I was left guessing what it was supposed to mean. A mere 15 minutes later, I was banned from Cointalk permanently.

 

You claim that you deleted the posts for some incomprehensible reason dealing with user ID's. The truth is that you knew that banning me was wrong and you deleted my posts so that you could later claim that I violated the rules in such an aggregious manner that you had no choice but to ban me from the forum and remove the posts. Isn't that why you made the infraction about "inappropriate language?"

 

Then you go on to state that you had to take action but your were running ragged tyring to end a flame war and didn't have the time to give detailed warnings. So your solution because you didn't have time to explain your warnings to me was to permanently ban me from the forum. Every other moderator in the world would have simply just closed thread. By doing that, you would have given yourself all the time you needed to give two core members of the forum the opportunity to avoid being banned from the forum.

 

Do you think for one minute that I ever thought you would ban me? Had you sent a simple PM at any point asking me to stop, I would have. Heck, had you simply told me in the thread to stop posting, I would have. In one sentence you claim you were running ragged and in the next you claim your actions were not rash and unthoughtful. That only leaves one option: you purposefully left the thread open with the full intention of allowing infractions to pile up so that you could ban me. Then you covered up your actions by deleting all of the relevant posts that would have shown what actually happened.

 

Furthermore, you keep claiming that my motives were something to do with silencing talk about the AT subject. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Take a look at this sentence included in post #40 in that thread.

 

I am also glad this thread was started, it will show how bad most AT coin doctors really are.

 

My dispute in that thead had everthing to do with another member libelling Shane (post #53) and nothing to do with silencing speech about AT. That claim is ludicrous!

 

And if that didn't take the cake, you have the audacity to come over here and claim that I am not standing up like you would have expected. From the moment you banned me, my restraint on this forum has been evident. If you want to talk about justice and what should happen, let me lay it out for you.

 

I should be reinstated immediately on Cointalk. The infraction about "inappropriate language" should be removed and infraction for insulting other members should remain. You should admit that your judgement was horrendous, and for the good of the forum step down as moderator.

 

 

 

 

 

[lehigh96]

I think it is worth mentioning that based on his actions towards me on Cointalk, it is entirely possible that Desertgem's post on this forum might be a baiting post with the sole intention to get me to post something inappropriate which would result in my banning from this forum as well.

 

He has nothing vested here as that was in first post here, so he could care less if he gets banned.

[MarkFeld]

I think it is worth mentioning that based on his actions towards me on Cointalk, it is entirely possible that Desertgem's post on this forum might be a baiting post with the sole intention to get me to post something inappropriate which would result in my banning from this forum as well.

 

He has nothing vested here as that was in first post here, so he could care less if he gets banned.

Paul, you already know that, without discussing it with you first, I had contacted Cointalk, suggesting that you be reinstated there.

 

But I think your above post is unfair. While you obviously strongly disagree with what was done and with what was posted here by Jim, his post was nothing that should get him banned. And I don't see it as baiting, but instead, an effort to tell his side of the story.,

[lehigh96]

I think it is worth mentioning that based on his actions towards me on Cointalk, it is entirely possible that Desertgem's post on this forum might be a baiting post with the sole intention to get me to post something inappropriate which would result in my banning from this forum as well.

 

He has nothing vested here as that was in first post here, so he could care less if he gets banned.

Paul, you already know that, without discussing it with you first, I had contacted Cointalk, suggesting that you be reinstated there.

 

But I think your above post is unfair. While you obviously strongly disagree with what was done and with what was posted here by Jim, his post was nothing that should get him banned. And I don't see it as baiting, but instead, an effort to tell his side of the story.,

 

Mark,

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I know he didn't violate any forum rules with his post. But there is a possibility that his post was intended to anger me and start a flame war between the two of us on this forum. If that were to happen and we were both banned, I would be the only loser as he has nothing invested in this forum.

 

You may think I am being paranoid, but based on his actions towards me, that paranoia is to be expected. In fact, I hope I am just being paranoid and that you are right about his intentions.

 

Paul

[desertgem]

 

Paul, this is truly my last post on this as I can't say anything that isn't public on CT. But I do want to assure you in public here, that while my post was the 1st one, I read the forum regularly, along with almost all others.

 

If your answers to the above post by me were ever used by CT to make changes in your case, I would resign from CT myself. You may consider me many things, but I have a strong sense of fairness, and what you suggest ~that it might be a "baiting post" would be a cowardly act by myself and CT and I wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Jim

[lehigh96]

Paul, this is truly my last post on this as I can't say anything that isn't public on CT. But I do want to assure you in public here, that while my post was the 1st one, I read the forum regularly, along with almost all others.

 

If your answers to the above post by me were ever used by CT to make changes in your case, I would resign from CT myself. You may consider me many things, but I have a strong sense of fairness, and what you suggest ~that it might be a "baiting post" would be a cowardly act by myself and CT and I wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Jim

 

If you have a strong sense of fairness, admit that banning me permanently from Cointalk was a mistake and a severe overreaction. Furthermore, stop posting that each post here will be your last on the subject. You have opened a dialog here, now stay until we get this resolved.

 

And in case you hadn't noticed, there was a change made in my case. Once Peter and Doug found out you banned me and read the thread, they reduced the ban from a lifetime ban to a 30 days. They did this because they recognize you made a mistake. The can't admit that in the public forum and they had to keep the length to the ban substantial in order to preserve your authority as a moderator. Like I stated, earlier in this thread, your actions have put them in a very unenviable position. They can't just reinstate me because it would render you impotent as a moderator.

 

They want the best of both worlds. They want to be able to keep me as a member and you as a moderator. I have made it clear that I am not happy with that solution as I am sure you are aware.

 

If you want to resolve this situation where everybody wins, here it is. The only reason I can't return to Cointalk after 30 days like nothing happens is because currently, I don't trust you. Without a peace offering from you, I would feel like I was walking on eggshells with every post. If Doug & Peter change my "sentence" your authority as a moderator would be permanently compromised. However, if you were to admit that you over-reacted, promise to PM with your instructions in the event of a future situation, and ask Peter and Doug to end my suspension with time served, not only would you gain the respect of every one watching this mess, but you would also preserve your authority as a moderator. Everyone respects a man who can admit when he was wrong.

 

I have admitted that my actions in that thead were wrong. If you do the same, we can all end this episode and move on with our forum lives.

 

Paul

[Schatzy]

[TonerGuy]

 

 

Cant we all just get along ?

[Dudley the 1st]

Sounds as if there is more than enough unfairness , over-reacting and bitterness being flailed about . Let it go, and move on . The action taken by CT administration would be completely laughable , if there were no serious issues with the same.

 

My suggestion , turn the channel and move onto another program.

[MikeInFL]

Wow, I go on the road for three days, and cointalk implodes.

 

Paul, You were in the wrong here with the name calling -- but I don't think you should have been banned. However, neither do I believe that Jim had the malicious intent you implied he did.

 

You are both good guys and I hope this will be resolved soon and looked back on as a series of misunderstandings and overreactions to what has always been a very heated topic.

[lehigh96]

Well said Mike.

[JStull]

Paul, this is truly my last post on this as I can't say anything that isn't public on CT. But I do want to assure you in public here, that while my post was the 1st one, I read the forum regularly, along with almost all others.

 

If your answers to the above post by me were ever used by CT to make changes in your case, I would resign from CT myself. You may consider me many things, but I have a strong sense of fairness, and what you suggest ~that it might be a "baiting post" would be a cowardly act by myself and CT and I wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Jim

 

Just my two cents worth.

 

If you felt the thread in questions was getting to a negative point, and you're a mod over there, why not lock the thread up so no more posts could be made on it?

 

Simple solution.

[Rigo-migration]

I believe it was all a bad judgment and maybe Jim should admit he jumped the gun too quickly in banning Paul. Maybe an admission would make things run better and we can all move on.

 

Like Jim said before, we have had our bad run ins in the past but he has respected me at CT and I too have respect for him and his knowledge, just don't agree with the decision made with Paul's banning while others were allowed to not only teach how to AT a coin (which we all know that harms the hobby) but also start flames to rise by trying to defame other members. I didn't see anything done to Jessie (who's banned from here) for trying to start bad mouthing me and my business (again). He is actually still there and every opportunity he gets, he jumps in with his uneducated mind and tries to do the same thing over and over again but Paul gets the boot?

 

Doug and Peter should honor Paul's demand by reinstating him immediately. The infraction about "inappropriate language" should be removed and infraction for insulting other members should remain as stated by Paul.

[cpm9ball]

I believe it was all a bad judgment and maybe Jim should admit he jumped the gun too quickly in banning Paul. Maybe an admission would make things run better and we can all move on.

 

Like Jim said before, we have had our bad run ins in the past but he has respected me at CT and I too have respect for him and his knowledge, just don't agree with the decision made with Paul's banning while others were allowed to not only teach how to AT a coin (which we all know that harms the hobby) but also start flames to rise by trying to defame other members. I didn't see anything done to Jessie (who's banned from here) for trying to start bad mouthing me and my business (again). He is actually still there and every opportunity he gets, he jumps in with his uneducated mind and tries to do the same thing over and over again but Paul gets the boot?

 

Doug and Peter should honor Paul's demand by reinstating him immediately. The infraction about "inappropriate language" should be removed and infraction for insulting other members should remain as stated by Paul.

 

They have had more than enough time to make a decision. It appears that they are taking the cowardly way out by simply ignoring Paul's appeal and hoping that it all just goes away.

 

Chris

[Dudley the 1st]

Way to much drama , and I'm out of popcorn till I get back to the video store .

[jom]

Way to much drama , and I'm out of popcorn till I get back to the video store .

 

Ain't internet forum politics great?...oh...wait...no it isn't.

 

jom

[leeg]

 

This thread is a perfect fit for ATS.

 

Don't like it on this forum.

[lehigh96]

Paul,

 

Sorry to hear what happened on CT. Internet trolls can be vicious. Doug posted that the message sent to you only indicated a 30 day ban, so hopefully you can come back then.

 

Chris

 

I really don't think my banning had much to do with trolls but that is not important. As you stated, Doug has advised me that my ban is only a 30 day ban even though when I login it still indicates the ban is permanent. I believe Doug, but whether or not I return to Cointalk at that time is contingent upon a great many variables. I will not make the decision now. Rather, I will wait for the their response to my appeal to have the ban lifted and if it is not, reevaluate the whole situation when the 30 days have expired.

 

Paul

 

It appears there is no reason for me to reevaluate. It has been well over 30 days and I am still banned.

[Rigo-migration]

Paul,

 

Sorry to hear what happened on CT. Internet trolls can be vicious. Doug posted that the message sent to you only indicated a 30 day ban, so hopefully you can come back then.

 

Chris

 

I really don't think my banning had much to do with trolls but that is not important. As you stated, Doug has advised me that my ban is only a 30 day ban even though when I login it still indicates the ban is permanent. I believe Doug, but whether or not I return to Cointalk at that time is contingent upon a great many variables. I will not make the decision now. Rather, I will wait for the their response to my appeal to have the ban lifted and if it is not, reevaluate the whole situation when the 30 days have expired.

 

Paul

 

It appears there is no reason for me to reevaluate. It has been well over 30 days and I am still banned.

 

There are many nice places out there Paul. You're in one now and just wait till I'm done with mine.

[Catbert]

It appears there is no reason for me to reevaluate. It has been well over 30 days and I am still banned.

 

Paul - you are welcome to take my membership

[ldhair]

It's probably all up to Peter to lift the ban. I'm on thin ice there myself.

[MikeInFL]

Sorry to hear that, Paul. I'll poke around to see what I can find out. I miss you over there.