PART 2
How in the world can you get support from the community if you first have to raise it here, then write some ‘detailed proposal’, then have it approved by the moderators before you are allowed to show the community, and only then they can see it? PM EVERYONE? And I, as well as @Jabba, if I’m not mistaken, are not claiming to advocate on behalf of anyone. We’d like them all to hear it, though. That’s all. Like, let everyone know about the ideas? Why is that so hard to achieve? Why is that even an issue? Can you explain to me why mod discussion is restricted to meta, and barred from the front page, in the first place? What’s the rationale?
What on earth was complicated about this thread? (NOTE: Previously referenced thread on trust level/price topic) Do we have to specify the buttons necessary to be pressed in order to reduce the trust level requirements? How exactly can one write a ‘detailed proposal’ to reduce the trust levels in the Price and Trading topic? Or are you referring to the argumentation for the proposal itself? And if you are, then it just needs to have input from the community, so people can present their viewpoints. Furthermore, even if the ‘community’ weighs in, most of them may not even use the Price and Trading topic. Shouldn’t it matter more what the people who actually read and post there think? Given that nobody asked to change any other part of the forum. Which is why the darn poll belonged in the original thread…
Not necessarily against the idea myself, but on the other hand, this is a great example of why I made the comment above about ‘systems-thinking’. It has a bureaucratic feel to it; it’s too rigid. Not everybody either reads or writes technical papers. Why require that the average user on this forum jump through your systems-thinking hoops in order to even begin to debate an idea? It’s another roadblock. I’d be mostly fine doing this, but really, it sounds like having to do your tax returns or something. It, once again, makes it more like having to deal with a city council, or a government agency, in the sense that we have to ‘fill out forms’, in order to even share the ideas with the community. On the other hand, if I want to manipulate price, I can start a thread making absurd claims about the tech and bringing up illogical ‘flaws’ that don’t exist, and then a moderator will spend hours debating me on it. As long as I’m clever enough to make it sound like it could be a real problem.
I’ll give this current topic a (non-formalised) crack. Here’s my proposal:
“The trust level requirements of the price and trading topic should be lowered to include new users, because it is a great gateway for new users whose interest was piqued by the token. Once here, they are more likely to get more involved and interested in the specifics of the tech itself, which will hopefully result in them being very enthusiastic about the project, which will result in them talking about it elsewhere, and will potentially bring new talent, users and interest in general to the project itself, and the forum, and help to make SAFE more successful. If people start to spread FUD in other topics, whether by price discussion or ridiculous technical criticism that doesn’t make sense, they can be moderated as they are right now.” - Everything written here has already been said in the Price and Trading Topic anyway, before the thread was even moved. How do we formalise such a simple suggestion?
Formalised proposal:
- Lower the trust level in the Price & Trading Topic. Debate, please.
What else do we need to say, in order to constitute a ‘Detailed Proposal’ that would satisfy the mods?
But when the mods define what ‘serious proposals’ means, then it is not misleading at all. Again, one does not need to write a technical paper on the proposals to lower the trust levels in the Price and Trading topic. It just needs to go straight to debate. This particular thread is a perfect example of exactly what @Jabba was saying. No ‘proposal’ is necessary, the idea just needs to be debated on it’s merits, by the community. Mods need not weigh in beforehand; it’s simple enough.
When it comes to banning, I agree. People aren’t banned here lightly. Just politely censored, effectively, or put another way, have their topics pushed into a corner of the site, barely to be seen by anyone. Why belong to a forum that restricts topic so harshly, despite it’s main subject being something so darn wide-ranging, though it was created to support a project that will create permanent and uncontrollable freedom of speech online? This place is active, yes, and it will continue to grow, even if it was the most boring (to non-techies), technical forum around, simply because the idea would grow. But if this place fitted my personal vision more closely, rather than the current manifestation, then I believe it would explode with growth, and you wouldn’t lose the good that is already here.
Ask yourself: How many topics do you see on the front page discussing the exciting implications of the SAFE NETWORK? I count only one right now: "Further proof of why MAIDSAFE is the answer to blockchain. What does this show a newcomer?
Despite the attempts to downplay the trading aspect of MAID, we have a total of 4 threads addressing either selling safecoin, the price and trading topic, getting listed on Binance, and getting maid out of a paper wallet. Most are technical-involved. This is fine. The rest are either social “Introduce yourself” or “What country are you guys from”, or technical, like farming hardware, ERC-20 transition and the necessary Dev Updates and such.
I remember this forum before moderation; there were tons of topics on what SAFE could actually do for the world, as well as the tech stuff, which I love, but many will want to know what the damn software actually does. I believe that the excitement and energy has bled out of this community, and ironically, except for people like ME (technically trained and literate, highly logical and interested in the nuts and bolts). And even I don’t want to bother here, cos I’m not only a techie, and the amazing tech is not the only reason I support this project, it’s what it can actually achieve. Why can’t we discuss that stuff without being relegated to a corner of the website? What’s the sense in it?
It’s not like the forum is dying; it’s not. It’s just no darn fun, man. It’s lost it’s spirit, relative to what it used to be. And I saw this coming long ago, back when I was complaining before. Just sayin’. Peace out, folks, that’s me, you probably (probably) won’t see me again.
Proposals:
- Remove all restrictions on trust level in the Price and Trading topic, but come down heavily on trollbox tactics like “SELL SELL SELL!”.
- Continue to be vigilant about non-price-related misinformation on other threads, to ensure people don’t try to drive price via doubt about the tech.
- Allow people to speak their mind as, where and how they wish, as long as they are not threatening and abusive to others.
- Allow a looser policy on subject-related secondary subjects within a thread, to allow people to more deeply explore the pros and cons of a proposed idea about some aspect of SAFE, without splitting the topic off and putting it in Off-Topic, where lack of views leads to lack of engagement, and thus lack of discussion, and thus lack of solutions, and finally a narrowing of viewpoints, if the discussion ever takes off in the first place.
- Keep the Meta category, but allow all Meta threads to be listed on the front page, for transparency reasons, and to allow the community to actually be aware of what is being said here, so they can weigh in.
- Now and forever, remove the requirement that the mods have to approve of a ‘serious’ or ‘detailed’ ‘proposal’ before the rest of the people on this forum are even made aware of a complaint about moderation. Whether the intent is pure or not, it is a serious conflict of interest to be the judges of complaints against your own behaviour and policies.
