Fungibility Talk

Autonomi Network Token (incl (e)MAID)
221

No backseat moderating.

I do not know of any adult who does not understand what backseat driving is and backseat moderation is in the same vein.

If anyone needs to mention the moderators they can use @moderators tag. Please do so. And if there is an issue with a post then use the flag feature.

And for goodness sake no one should tag David (@ dirvine) for moderation purposes. He is not a moderator and has repeated that he is not in charge, nor a moderator of this community forum. To tag David is an obvious appeal to authority and depriving him of precious time over petty arguments.

Do not tag @ dirvine unless there is a specific reason to. And never tag him for moderation purposes.

And please debating is for defending a side (whether one really believes it or not) for the sake of winning an argument. We are discussing things here and often the official definition is not what the commonly accepted usage is. Please try and discuss in a way that accepts that people can see definitions differently and still be valid.

2 Likes
222

Backseat driving

A backseat driver is a passenger in a vehicle who is not controlling the vehicle but who excessively comments on the driver’s actions and decisions in an attempt to control the vehicle. A backseat driver may be uncomfortable with the skills of the driver, feel out of control since they are not driving the vehicle, or want to tutor the driver while they are at the wheel.

I don’t think or agree that any of my comments could be considered backseat moderating, and its certainly not clear what the extent or intent of that term is on the guidelines page. I have probably 100+ comments in this thread, and only 2-5 reference any sort of moderation, so its quite clear that my comments are not “excessive”.

If they’re not excessive then they don’t meet the definition that I’m reading. As the term is undefined on the guidelines page, its rather curious that you can’t understand how someone wouldn’t know what that
is in the context of this forum.

Especially since I wasn’t telling you how to moderate but rather complaining at the favoritism you are showing to everyone while ignoring clearly off-topic posts, abusive behavior towards me and other violations of the forum guidelines. If that rule means you’re not ever to point out such hypocrisy it is your responsibility to clearly define that in the community guidelines. Citing me for a nebulous infraction such as that is punitive, abusive and itself would violate your own community guidelines i.e. hypocrisy. Do you disagree?

And if there is an issue with a post then use the flag feature.

I’ve flagged several posts today and the other day for abusive behavior and they remain up, unhidden and unmoderated. By the definition I cited above, complaining about this egregious favoritism, while my posts are given near immediate attention when even the slightest rule break is intimated is NOT backseat moderating, again at least by the definition I’ve cited.

And for goodness sake no one should tag David ( dirvine) for moderation purposes. … nor a moderator of this community forum. To tag David is an obvious appeal to authority and depriving him of precious time over petty arguments.

Apologies for that. I only tagged him because his username was listed on the “group moderators” page. It is no longer there; however, It was not an appeal to authority and I take offense at the insinuation. I tagged every moderator on that page because I didn’t know who was active and was unaware of the @ moderators tag doing the same thing.

I will refrain from tagging him in the future, but I strongly request that you do not impart motives to me like “appeal to authority”, unless you have actual evidence of such. I have been away from this forum for some time and I was unaware of these conventions. To assume that was my goal when I was trying to tag all the moderators is rather offensive and I reject and repudiate you for doing that.

Do not tag @ dirvine unless there is a specific reason to. And never tag him for moderation purposes.

Got it. That was my mistake, I won’t do that again.

Please try and discuss in a way that accepts that people can see definitions differently and still be valid.

I disagree. Definitions are fixed quantities at any point in time. There is no room for interpretation unless specified or commonly accepted. The definition of fungibility is quite clear and the OP is in error by this method.

Thank you for your moderation!

223

@ moderators Please rename this topic to Gibility Talk. As some one pointed out above, the fun has disappeared and we are no nearer to getting an agreed definition of fungibility that will satisfy Ego-san.

224

This is completely untrue. I already agreed with and committed to use @danda’s definition of fungibility from the first time he referenced it. Indeed, I’ve referenced it several times in my arguments. The ones who are having trouble with the definition are ironically on your side.

225

Do not attribute to me what doesn’t apply to me. 2 Moderators have been moderating this topic and not myself. The Notice was directed at everyone, but you personalised it and blamed me for perceived injustices, I gave the notice for all because the topic was going nowhere and just debating.

Moderation is not a robotic application of rules but one to allow boundaries to be pushed against when it does not wreck the flow. And if someone posts 100’s of posts in a topic over a few days then its expected there will be a few off-topic but related posts by whomever, some pointing out issues etc. You have taken them as attack, but your attacks have been left too. Yes we see the passive aggressive posts. One example is telling happybeing he cannot reply to another person with his personal evaluation of the situation. You have no right to tell him he cannot reply to others.

We are not anal retentive in moderation because that destroys people & discussions, but moderation is what its supposed to be moderating (preventing excesses etc) the topics using the guidelines as a guide to facilitate discussions (not debates).

Simple then don’t do it. Appealing to David’s authority over the moderation team.

The closest that can be true is for mathematics and even then at times there is room for variations. Do some higher level Mathematics courses and see what I mean. Even the simple definition some use of 0.999… equalling 1 is contested by professors. In engineering the definition will hold true, in pure mathematics the definition is not considered set in stone. Usage of the definition is so important.

Of course definitions of other things can be taken and used different ways. There is no “point in time” for all definitions as many have variations at the same time. There is also application of definitions that can be different.

This topic to me has turned into semantics rather than talking/discussing the issue of Fungibility. Lets get the topic back to discussing the issue rather than debating a very precise semantic definition.

EDIT: There have been a number of flags showing where you have attacked other members of the forum saying they are being dishonest and so on. Please refrain from that if you expect the moderators involved to apply the guidelines in a more strict manner. Some of the flags are under consideration at the moment.

2 Likes
226

Do not attribute to me what doesn’t apply to me. 2 Moderators have been moderating this topic and not myself.

I didn’t attribute it to you, that is the English “plural you” referring to all moderators involved. If that’s not you you do not have the right to get offended at me. Also, YOU DID moderate this topic when you first replied here. Your reply here was to criticize me for:

  1. Violating backseat moderating term

  2. Tagging Mr. Irvine

Both of those offenses occurred over two days ago. So how would you know about either if you have not been moderating and viewing this topic? If you viewed without moderating that is doubly egregious, because that means you watched abusive behavior towards me and didn’t do anything. You’re only making things look worse.

The Notice was directed at everyone

Nonsense, I’m the only one who committed those violations. Nobody else has complained about the moderation (especially since its been in their favor), and I didn’t see anyone else tagging Mr. Irvine. If you’re going to moderate me, then be a man and moderate me. I can take it. What I won’t stand for, however, is this passive aggressive “everybody was tagged” stuff and lying about it. You were talking to me and you referenced two violations that I admittedly committed. So be a man and stand by your moderation.

2 Moderators have been moderating this topic and not myself.

About that, neither moderator replied to my PMs which is why I tagged everyone else in the first place. If I go any further I’ll probably be in violation of the “backseat moderator” clause, but how can you get mad at me for that when you don’t reply to me? I Pm’ed jpl within minutes of him moving the topic and he never replied to me even now. So your response is making you look worse both personally and as a team. Just fyi.

I gave the notice for all because the topic was going nowhere and just debating.

Giving a notice for all is completely ineffective. When someone violates the community guidelines who do you moderate? That person right? Yet you guys have consistently ignored violations that were committed towards me. @southside has been allowed to troll me with inappropriate nicknames like “Ego-san” and insinuating a XMR mod slept with my wife.

And you just gave a “general notice”. That is insufficient and indicates that you agree with his behavior and are yourself violating the community guidelines by looking the other way. Which would be exactly the kind of corruption that I mentioned the XMR community loved to curry for themselves in the beginning. Do you see now why the rules must apply to everyone? You are making MaidSafe look bad because you refuse to moderate on my behalf, turning the community guidelines into a farce.

Moderation is not a robotic application of rules but one to allow boundaries to be pushed against when it does not wreck the flow.

Understood. So why was my post moved within minutes of danda’s request even though I violated no rules, and followed the “etiquette” of the thread to the T? Why were my posts moved but the responses to me left?

You have taken them as attack, but your attacks have been left too.

I have only made one attack, and that was retaliation after it was clear that the moderators were not going to afford me the same respect as other community members. I flagged that post and waited. You (all) were ready to pounce on me as proven by the fact that you mentioned both of my violations even though you admit you weren’t moderating the thread. So that means you (all) were definitely watching the thread the whole time from the beginning but allowed those violations against me to stand. You are just digging yourself deeper.

Simple then don’t do it. Appealing to David’s authority over the moderation team.

No, I didn’t do it in the first place. Your accusation was wrong and I reject and repudiate you AGAIN for refusing to apologize for your error. I am someone who clearly wins fights based on the merits of my arguments alone. Directly stating that I was appealing to authority when that wasn’t the case is YOU LYING ABOUT ME AND VIOLATING THE RULES. Not even Mr. Irvine is allowed to violate the community guidelines so you certainly aren’t either.

The closest that can be true is for mathematics

Wrong. Linguistics is the most hard set of the definitions because they require the agreement of literally millions of people in a quite stormy contextual sea. Mathematics are quite limited in scope, application and widespread usage (very few people are mathematicians relative to people who can speak, which numbers in the billions). This statement is false. You would be better off leaving your comments to moderation related matters instead of wading into a debate that several other people were unable to win.

Do some higher level Mathematics courses and see what I mean.

This is the second time you’ve made an inaccurate assumption about me. I’ve had several higher level mathematics courses for my degree. I know what I’m talking about. Language is must stricter than mathematics in terms of definitions because the room for confusion and error is much greater. Study some linguistics course if you have not to see what I mean.

There is no “point in time” for all definitions as many have variations at the same time.

Wrong. The point in time is when you look the definition up. At any one time X, there is a certain definition or set of definitions for word Y. This list is, at that time IMMUTABLE and UNCHANGEABLE. It is only when, over time and distance that different people agree that a new definition is added or an old one is changed. Mathematics by and large doesn’t have to deal with this. Nor does mathematics have to deal with the considerable ambiguity in context that solidfies linguistic complexity. Again, you are wrong here.

This topic to me has turned into semantics rather than talking/discussing the issue of Fungibility.

You think so? Well its not on my account. I agreed to use the definition provided by others and have stuck to it this entire time. If this is the case the fault lies with those who refuse to accept the definition that they themselves have offered, not me.

There have been a number of flags showing where you have attacked other members of the forum saying they are being dishonest and so on.

That is not an attack. If your argument doesn’t logically follow and you have been show as such and refuse to change it that is called being dishonest. There is no violation of the community guidelines and you should be ashamed of yourself for desperately searching for something just so you can shirk your duty to apply the rules equally to all participants. @Southside literally stated that one of the XMR devs had relations with my wife which is incredibly off topic and offensive. You are turning this into a FARCE with your onesided application of the rules while you turn a blind eye to those who attack me.

Please refrain from that if you expect the moderators involved to apply the guidelines in a more strict manner.

The answer is no. I don’t see anywhere that the community guidelines allow for “selective enforcement” so if this is your official stance then you are all but confirming the corruption and infiltration from the XMR community that I alleged earlier. For shame.

227

Taking a Notice to all as if to yourself is not a wise thing to do, some things you may have done, but others have done them in the past too.

And since you love definitions, “Guideline”, but if you want to continue moderation application then start a topic in Meta where such discussions are meant to be.

Now to reply to your response any better is only going to continue with you responding with yet another bigger response on how I am wrong.

228

To ALL

Discontinue the use of calling people dishonest and disparaging others, even if only in a minor way or risk the post being hidden.

229

I mean, the other moderator clearly cited me days ago for “backseat moderating” and you threw a jab at me saying “I don’t know how any adult can not know what that means”. If that wasn’t directed at me then who were you talking to?

but if you want to continue moderation application then start a topic in Meta where such discussions are meant to be.

All I want is for you to be fair. If I insinuated someone else slept with your significant other just because I was losing the debate, would you ignore it?

230

Do you honestly think you are the only one who has done these things? Take it to the Meta category with a topic.

1 Like
231

Do you honestly think you are the only one who has done these things? Take it to the Meta category with a topic.

In this thread? Yes, of course. Who else could be cited under that violation here? Do you honestly think your “just putting a general notice out there totally not directed at anyone at all” schtick is believable? And also nobody else tagged Mr. Irvine (once again 10 apologies for that) so just who else are you pretending did that behavior? Are you accustomed to throwing out “general warnings for behavior nobody is doing?” Do you find that fun?

You can’t cite anyone else in this thread who’s complaining about your (plural) moderation, I’m the only one. So, again, who were you talking to if not me? This question is not rhetorical. If you’re not going to answer and be honest, then please refrain from replying to me. You are a community servant, not a dictator.

Discontinue the use of calling people dishonest and disparaging others, even if only in a minor way or risk the post being hidden.

I refuse and will take that risk. As a moderator, I didn’t see anything in the community guidelines about you being allowed to make our arguments for us preemptively, limit them or preemptively limit our free speech outside of community guidelines violation.

You have NO RIGHT to tell me I can’t call someone who is being dishonest, dishonest. That’s not a violation of the guidelines. If I’m wrong, please cite for me which guideline protects dishonest people from being called out.

If someone is being dishonest that itself is against the rules, and I will call them out for it and take that punishment. You have NO RIGHT to limit my free speech outside of guidelines violations. Especially not when you allow others to violate them in response to me.

232

Moderators have every right to ask forum members to stop calling other dishonest who are giving their opinion, that is attacking them. It is you who think they are when they are giving opinions.

You are directly arguing with a generalised moderation decision by an Admin to ALL concerned.

1 Like
233

Moderators have every right to ask forum members to stop calling other dishonest who are giving their opinion, that is attacking them.

That’s not what I said and you’re responding to a strawman. I said you have no right to tell me I can’t tell someone who is actually being dishonest that they’re being dishonest. Being dishonest is a violation of the community guidelines is it not? Again, not rhetorical I request an official response to this question.

That person was not just giving their opinion they were deliberately responding with falsehood and I proved it. Which means you’re officially interferring with a debate on one side and showing favoritism.

What is the official prescribed action to reply to someone who is being dishonest if you can’t call them dishonest?

You are directly arguing with a generalised moderation decision by an Admin to ALL concerned.

If this is you officially telling me that I can’t reply further then make that clear.

234

I used the text of my warning, which you made into a strawman and now claiming I made the strawman, rich.

You are making claims that people are deliberately dishonest. I see people giving opinions and reasons for them. You are the one making the unprovable claims and applying it to my warning.

The warning is to stop attacking people with claims of dishonesty. I am sure you can handle that.

Discuss the claims they make, not the person. Others will see they are lying if you can post the proof, and if it continues then you can flag the issue. With my browsing of the topic, @jpl and @jlpell have been more involved and they can respond if they see what you claim.

I am not responding further, this is trolling now. The other moderators will decide.

1 Like
235

I used the text of my warning, which you made into a strawman and now claiming I made the strawman, rich.

Your warning was to me. You mentioned earlier that I was flagged with calling others dishonest so that was clearly what you were talking about. So I did no such thing (creating a strawman).

You are making claims that people are deliberately dishonest. I see people giving opinions and reasons for them. You are the one making the unprovable claims and applying it to my warning.

Please cite the offending post. I never call anyone dishonest without a logical proof and an opportunity to reply. If they successfully contradict my claim I retract and apologize. This is how debates function.

Your warning was written in the context of your statement that I was flagged for calling others dishonest, it was not just to “all” but me especially.

I am part of the set of “all” and the only one you cited for being flagged for that reason. There is no need to weasel, be direct with me. I cannot take any remedial action if you will not properly cite the offense.

The warning is to stop attacking people with claims of dishonesty.

Again how am I supposed to respond then to people whom I have proven are being dishonest? Are you saying that no one is ever dishonest? If you are not, then how am I supposed to respond to those who are? You are being incredibly vague.

Discuss the claims they make, not the person

I’ve done this every time.

I am not responding further, this is trolling now. The other moderators will decide.

Good evening. And I never troll.

236

Long time since I felt the need to link to this.

237

In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception.

Do you have any proof that I’m doing that? And also how do you defend against the charge that you were doing that to me earlier?

238

This thread is littered with arguing about arguing, fallacies, and accusations and barely on topic which was how the recent conversation was moved to this thread in the first place.

Please get back on topic or just stop replying. If the discourse isn’t productive don’t get emotionally invested and remove yourself.

8 Likes
239

My god what an autistic discussion this is.

Let me summarize the fungi talk with a famous quote:

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not”

~Albert E.

4 Likes
240

A man of many talents: master debater, referee AND scorekeeper.

4 Likes