Recent examples of poor moderation

Meta
1

It’s not like this didn’t happen before, but it’s getting more frequent so I’ll highlight two examples from this week:

##Ideological Policing

A commenter claims it is “very important that we develop strong counter arguments against the offensive usage of anonymous networks.” Of course he is known for making insulting comments on this forum (both before and as recently as two days after that comment), but that’s not a problem per se - it’s just a detail that reveals his nature.

Here’s what I wrote back (and I haven’t edited the comment since):

What do you mean by “offensive usage”? To use the network for cyber attacks?
The network can’t offend me, and even those who can be offended by the network can’t do anything about it whatever their arguments may be.

Of course the questions were making fun of the ludicrous idea, but the next sentence explained why. The network can’t be censored and a “campaign” can’t do anything to change that. Then instead of focusing on that pointless suggestion , I get a flurry of comments about “nitpicking” and making pointless comments (fair enough), as well as a warning from a mod for making non-constructive comments (weird).

Someone who is proposing to make a futile and unnecessary task “very important” is making a constructive argument, and another person who is suggesting to not waste time & energy of that is not. (And all those who commented to the triviality of my comment aren’t any better). Cluelessness at work in the name of a perfect PR appearance!

##Incompetent Censorship

In my experience this problem manifests itself about once every week. This week a post about the possibility of issuing another token to MAID holders appeared. I commented on it asking (if I remember correctly) why would that coin be issued, to whom and why. After that question I added that I’m not asking for an answer but rather pointing out why it wouldn’t work.

Guess what - that comment got deleted by Happy Being. So I am not sure if reproduced it correctly. I also got a reminder to not post useless comments but rather read the OPs more carefully.

Let’s see the OP in this case:

My thinking is that when Maidsafe are Burnt for Safecoin – an equal amount of the new coin are sent back – this would seem to be the optimum and only feasible time to do this as far as I can see. This way we know an equal amount of sistercoin has been spread out amongst the original investors.

Anyone who actually read and understood the OP could have told why my question was on the spot: the moment Safecoin comes out, farming and spending starts as well, so it makes absolutely no sense to distribute to MAID owners a token they could use to vote or whatever. At the moment the network goes live, the connection between MAID and Safecoin becomes one way (MAID to Safecoin).

Anyone who had owned MAID before he or she converted it to Safecoin may or may not still own some Safecoins after that. But even if he did, what about the farmers and all others who have earned, spent and sold Safecoin? The idea is full of holes and unworkable.

##Official Warning

For my negative contributions I also received an “official warning” which I haven’t read yet.

I don’t mind if I get banned from the forum (and no, I won’t rejoin under a different name) so safe the warnings and just ban me.

##Conclusion

It’s a privately owned forum so I don’t have any “suggestions”, either for the mods or for group-think zombie members of this forum. Do as you please.

1 Like
2

Lol…I too have had issues with the modding as you know and I have experienced similar frustrations. What I would suggest is stick to the guidelines and expect the mods to as well. What was the reasoning and guideline quoted for removal of post?
In regard to my thread about a sistercoin, I asked in OP for what others may see as either downsides or upsides to the proposal.

I not only did those things, but wrote it too and have no idea why your question was on the spot. You haven’t explained anything, or given any clear downside:

Yes…and?

Why?

Again, I’m not getting any explanation ot downside that I requested in OP…just “It won’t work”

Nice conclusion…based on what though?

Are you just saying it’s technically not feasible to send a sistercoin back for every maidsafe at the same time as the masafe burning/conversion to Safecoin point?
I’d have preferred a clear explanation of your objections and for your post to not have been removed, then we could have discussed and maybe made some progress. :smile:

1 Like
3

You’re right. It was a bumpy start. I’ve since settled my differences with everyone with the exception of you and to a much lesser degree, one other. Seems your personality type is one I have to learn not to be perturbed by. It’s hard though. Your rudeness is interchangeably subtle and overt. Almost as if there is some overcompensation happening. I’ve come across at least one person like you that didn’t feel a sense of superiority unless she belittled people (especially her teenage daughter). Let’s just say that after a heated debate ending with an unpleasant deconstruction of her false persona, she poured cold coffee on some expensive and very sensitive machinery before storming out. I lost about 3k on equipment, but she gained an ass woopin from my wife :blush: You my friend are just a tad more irritating. I’ll thank you now though. Because in the long run I’ll have gained a greater degree of patience from these experiences. Life is full of lessons, and you’re one of them. :smile:

Either you genuinely didn’t understand what I meant by that given the context, or you’re blatantly ignoring it to suite your argument. At this point I don’t know if it would be worth it to explain it further.

Are you okay with that contradiction?

:weary: Janitor please…This ties into the original meaning that I and others have been trying to convey. Look at it from a marketing and PR perspective. Yes, ultimately their is nothing people can do about the network and its future operations. My suggestion was simply to have strong counter arguments against those who would wield inflammatory claims to slowly demonize SAFE into obscurity by means of public stigmatization. Rapid wide spread adoption is IMHO very important. SAFE in its entirety will likely be unlike anything that has ever been previously deployed. Careful planning and outreach would mean the difference between the combined adoption rate of all of the current solutions (arguably sluggish), and the quick longstanding societal integration of Facebook or apple devices. The rest has already been said.

I’m not attempting to defend happybeing (cuz I don’t know of the incident in greater detail), but my observations of your posts reflect a sarcastic troll like engagement characteristic in about half what you write. Has it become pathological? In such a case you’d likely not even be aware of it…Just sayin :neutral_face:

Whatcha ya waintin fo!!! Bounce, scoot, skedaddle, get the f^ck…na I’m just playin. I personally believe you’re a highly valued member of this forum. Your level of participation and density of thought provoking posts eclipses a great number of us. I say this sincerely but please don’t allow for over-inflation. :no_mouth: If you were to just internalize a little deeper and exhibit a bit more grace, I see very little limit to how far we can all take each other. We all have issues we could benefit from eliminating. First step is to acknowledge them.

Might be privately owned but wouldn’t be much without us. Keep in mind that while the mods have similar goals, they are unpaid associates with each their own minds. Privately owned, community moderated. Not too shabby :wink:

1 Like
4

Agreed…even though we get on each other’s tits…

Nail on head…I’ve been in the same position on this forum, it’s painful to acknowledge, but necessary to convey what you want to say and be listened to. My social skills have improved a lot over my time on the forum…from an uncouth caterpillar, to the magnificent butterfly of decorum that I am today. :smiley:
Edit:

Correction…“Cabal moderated”…lol

1 Like
5

I’m sorry bro’s, all I could come up with is this:

Let’s keep in mind that something good is coming our way. Thinking about how we can drive this, is way more important then driving each other crazy.

So enjoy the last miles on this train (government controlled internet), even if sometimes I lose my train of thought…

2 Likes
6

Lol…You’re awesome! I can vouch for your growth. :smile: I kinda miss your antics though. :frowning: I try my best to fill that void with dry humor. Please forgive my deficiencies prime jester. I grasp at what comes so naturally to you (que the somber music). :cry:

1 Like
7

Damn!!! That’s throwback my dude! Adding to playlist…Good looks! :grinning:

1 Like
8

That triggered this!

1 Like
9

Sorry for the sudden change of genre but I feel this fits fairly well. Enter phoenix 1901.

10

About the second topic:

My thinking is that when Maidsafe are Burnt for Safecoin – an equal amount of the new coin are sent back – this would seem to be the optimum and only feasible time to do this as far as I can see. This way we know an equal amount of sistercoin has been spread out amongst the original investors.

So when someone replies with the questions:

Who would be this coin given to and how many per?
(I’m not asking for answers, just showing where the problem is)

It looks like the poster didn’t read the OP. Because the answers to these questions are given in the OP. An equal amount of the new coins are sent back. So when you convert 5000 MAID to Safecoin, you’ll get 5000 of these new coins back. That way the original investors who bought MAID might have the opportunity to use these new coins to vote or whatever.

This point was quite clear to the mods when we discussed the reply. So when someone seems to be asking the obvious it looks like trolling. In a way that one didn’t fully read the OP and just tries to take an idea down a bit. It seems you posted these questions with a complete different intention. That’s fine. We’ll talk about it again.

And for the other topic. You’re always free to appeal against a decision made through @moderators Things aren’t always clear and we don’t make right decisions 100% of the time. When we hear someone’s point of view in a PM we always read and reply.

4 Likes
11

Thanks @polpolrene for explaining why I deleted @janitor’s post and asked him to read the OP before asking questions about it - again.

This was the second such instance in the same day, the preceding issue being his reply to @Tonda which he is also complaining about being moderated. There I warned him on the thread, to read and understand before responding, and explained exactly why I was doing that. He made no dispute at the time. Soon after he responded to @Al_kafir’s post in exactly the same king of trolling way - asking something that clearly looks as if he’s not read what the other person has written.

The reason @janitor is now getting these warnings and posts deleted is that this is a habit that he’s been warned about many times, because it devalues the discussions and the forum. And he does this in several ways. For example, he also has a similar trolling like habit of posting things which are factually incorrect, or not yet decided upon, as if they are true, which he’s also been warned about and which is even more disruptive and causes a lot of work for others - moderators and community members - clarifying or correcting the misinformation he so often presents.

For reference, here is @janitor’s response (quoted in full) to @Al_kafir’s post, which I deleted:

Who would be this coin given to and how many per?
(I’m not asking for answers, just showing where the problem is)

And here’s the OP which has already said how this would be done:

It would be fine to challenge the basis that @Al_kafir suggested should be used to distribute these coins, but it makes no sense to just ask how it would be done and then say this illustrates “where the problem is”.

4 Likes