I gave my opinion and stated that it sounded like a ponzi scheme. I also said it had all the hallmarks of a ponzi scheme and gave my reasoning for this. In regard to Maidsafe taking a profit, my mistake was pointed out to me, I acknowledged this and even apologised for it. This all happened within minutes and was a genuine mis-apprehension I was under and not any kind of malicious claim. What is the problem with any of this?[quote=“happybeing, post:42, topic:13313”]
has provoked a necessary response
[/quote]
Sorry, the response was necessary in what way? You are implying it was a necessary response from someone acting in the capacity of moderator, otherwise it makes no sense - you realise that right?[quote=“happybeing, post:42, topic:13313”]
And to challenge you to be more precise about what you think and why when the subject is so serious
[/quote]
The issue had already been resolved, apologies made etc so not necessary whatsoever. What exactly is “so serious” about the subject?.[quote=“happybeing, post:42, topic:13313”]
until things feel personal as they appear to do for you here.
[/quote]
Things don’t just “feel” personal to me, I have given my reasoning, do you have any counter arguments to give?[quote=“happybeing, post:42, topic:13313”]
My feeling is that it’s ok for you to raise issues the way you have here
[/quote]
Well although its great to know you feel its ok for me to raise my concerns, do you have any actual response to them?
You appear to have basically just given me your opinion here that it is somehow wrong to post contentious stuff, by way of justifying polpolrene’s actions.
Like I said, the matter was resolved when polpolrene decided to raise it from the dead - I did not start on him, he started on me.[quote=“happybeing, post:42, topic:13313”]
IMO it’s not good enough when posting contentious stuff to expect casual readers or the community in general will go to the trouble of researching it themselves, but when someone does it’s fair enough for them to respond and give you their assessment of it.
[/quote]
What? So if I or anybody else posts a link, the onus is on the poster to research that everything contained within it is totally verifiable - the source itself is not enough? If I post a link and comment on it - that’s all I’m doing, just that - just like anybody else. So you are in agreement with polpolrene then.
You have not touched on the discrimination whatsoever, if this were even the case, which it clearly isn’t - then why is this not applied consistently?
The guy didn’t just respond and give me his assessment, he claimed it was not the same people without giving any evidence in support.
It is all well and good saying he wasn’t acting as a moderator, but he clearly is a moderator and I’ve been here before.
A moderator gets into an argument with me, then claims I’m talking about moderation by disagreeing with him, then uses this as an excuse to ban me. If I go on to defend myself, it will be categorized as “talking about moderation on the front page” - equivalent to “wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” type of accusation. A kangaroo court will occur behind closed doors, no evidence presented or reasoning given etc.
The problem here is that this whole “whether talking as a moderator or not” inter-changeability is highly pliable and open to abuse. If a moderator disagrees with someone, or gets into a heated debate that they are clearly losing, they always have the option of removing posts or just banning them and the community has absolutely no idea of why anybody has been banned - just the mods word - no transparency of systems whatsoever. Having what amounts to a “missing persons list” in the form of a suspended members list does nothing to address any of this.
Moderators should moderate themselves and not get into contentious debates, not expect the community not to. Moderators should moderate, not argue and should set an example of at least obeying their own guidelines if they expect others to. When I came back here the very first thing polpolrene did was launch into a personal attack and nothing is ever done about any of this type of behaviour.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion, but where it is relevant, I disagree with it and it comes across as making excuses for mods to me, without addressing the core issues.