I don’t think that is accurate. What did I say that was off-topic? I posted an external link to a fungibility discussion with the ZEC community and defended the point. If anything, Tyler and danda were the ones who “took things off topic” as I only responded to their replies to the ZEC thread. But the ZEC thread was on fungibility and was an external link which fulfills both conditions of the original post, the idea that OP’s are allowed to direct replies to their own threads notwithstanding (what moderators are for, and even that is limited to violations of the rules, again which there were none in my posts).
And why should I be required to start a new thread just because I disagree with their replies? That’s absurd and I’ve never seen a moderator encourage that kind of behavior before. In fact the opposite: starting new threads when there already is one has always been seen as frivolous and extraneous and gotten locked from my experience. “There’s already a thread for this” usually being the reason.
It just seems like you’re coming up with excuses to justify supporting an illegitimate request because you’re friends with the OP. What right does anyone have to demand you NOT post in their thread? I didn’t post about the weather or my latest cryptocurrency purchase, I posted clearly about fungibility in response to danda and Tyler.
My posts explained clearly that from the discussion I read, the definition of fungibility being used here by the OP was NOT correct. That’s a serious charge that is directly related to fungibility (obviously since its about the definition of the word itself) and moving that discussion to “another thread” is akin to ignoring the charge altogether and playing favorites. Which is not only misleading behavior, but it also you moderators interferring and entering a debate on behalf of one side without legitimate cause. This is not what moderators are for.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are NOT tasked with choosing victors in debates, only to make sure that they stay on topic and irrelevant, abusive and frivolous replies are not allowed. Yes? None of my replies were abusive or irrelevant. The definition of fungibility is CLEARLY related to fungibility, by definition, and therefore you saying that I was “taking things off topic”
is actually an abusive misuse of moderator power, because you’re basically lying about me to protect the ego of one of your friends. That means you shouldn’t be a moderator…If I’m wrong, please point out where.
Neither Danda nor Tyler, could reply sufficiently to defeat my arguments. Danda himself refused to specify exactly what was off-topic and you’re also saying I “took things off topic” (again basically parotting one of your friends) but where did I do so?
Which of my replies specifically do you allege was off-topic? The topic is fungibility and I posted an external link to a privacy community discussion of fungibility. How is that off topic? How can the safe community learn anything about fungibility when you declare discussions about it to be “off topic” with no reason or rationale?
If that’s off-topic, then why is this post:
Not off topic? There’s no links and it is purely discussion.
What about this post:
Or this post:
The OP posted this post and admitted it was only “tangentially related to fungibility”, yet no one is trying to forcibly remove it to another thread because of some stoic application of “the rules” (that OP came up with, violated with their own post and selectively enforced against others):
You may wonder why I seem to be so passionate about this, the truth is I’ve witnessed several times across different venues where the XMR community engages in these kinds of tactics in order to subtly slide forums towards their favor. So it doesn’t seem so big, a moved post here, a blocked topic there, a banned member over yonder. But over time this behavior amounts to censorship and sentiment manipulation in favor of a cryptocurrency that does NOT do what it says on the tin.
In this example, I allege that the XMR community is attempting to trick the Maidsafe community into adopting a FALSE NOTION of fungibility in order to increase their own clout (because they benefit from people thinking “XMR is the only fungible cryptocurrency”). This behavior is a form of corruption like bribing a Senator or paying for special treatment at university and engaging in it is always a sign of community decline.
I am not exaggerating when I state that I love the Maidsafe community. I have been here for almost 7 years waiting patiently for release. MaidSafe was THE REASON I started learning Rust. When I read @dirvine 's initial post explaining they were moving from C++ to Rust I was both awestruck and flabbergasted.
Not only because it introduced me to a new holy grail language (this is off topic but as a developer with over 20 years in the industry, I had long been searching for a replacement to C++ and C) but also at the sheer testicular fortitude required to make such a game-changing switch.
I fell in love with this community and project at that point. So it REALLY pains me to watch the XMR community attempt to manipulate and twist the arm of that same community just so that they can “corner the market” on fungibility.
Again so why are these posts allowed when they are far less relevant than any of the ones that I posted? Its hard for me to conclude that you’re doing anything other than playing favorites because one of your friends was defeated in discussion. Nobody alleged that my posts were off topic until danda waas defeated in my replies. And suddenly they’re “off-topic”. That screams of favoritism and your thin defense here does not dispel that fear.
@danda’s admission below is even more damning than I thought originally. All of the posts I quoted are several months old. The oldest going back to Nov 21’, which is roughly half a year. Yet the only time they thought to care about whether a post was “off topic or not” was when I posted correcting their view of fungibility? That is clearly evidence that they were attempting to hide my replies and slide the discussion, which is a form of corruption.