I don’t know about banning @MrBean. I’ve always enjoyed his posts. 
Even though I agree with the points MaVo is trying to make, I agree that he’s going about it the wrong way. Calling people names and being hostile instead of arguing constructively is not acceptable forum behavior.
ConfusedObserver however is making logical arguments about the sustainability of the operation in my opinion. Yes, he could very well be MoD, but there is no direct proof of that and as long as he’s not calling people names and being hostile like MaVo, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I could just as well say that Jordan Lee/Phoenix stole $200k from B&C, but I have no direct proof. I simply ask him to answer questions about that and point to the obvious reason why we get no response from him.
Either way, I’m not getting involved in this. I’ve asked @Ben to remove me from the moderation team before, so I will ask him again. What happens in this forum is not my responsibility anymore, as I have no stake in it.
1 Like
To Bean, or not to Bean? May the moderators of this forum decide the verdict!
Should I really get banned, then that is the ultimate prove that this forum is full of carnivores!
@Phoenix is working for Nu. You’re actively working against Nu. I don’t personally care about your insults, but that you’re creating a toxic atmosphere that gives visitors an incorrect perception of Nu.
When you disagree with how things are going you may:
- Discuss on a respectable level.
- Ask shareholders to put you in control.
- Leave or stay silent.
You’ve chosen to cause disruption only. Being a shareholder is not an excuse for your conduct.
If someone is majority shareholder, that’s the way things are and you need to accept that. Future investors are responsible for themselves.
2 Likes
List those suggestions for revenue, please. Again, you don’t acknowledge the revenue to be had from fees and trading volume at scale.
The economics are largely sorted out, you simply don’t understand or believe in them.
No, you’re not an “inconvenient” revealer of a scam. You can’t even explain how the scam works, or the scam is in what you believe to be flawed economics. You just keep talking about what everyone is already aware of. Investors are responsible for themselves. Customers should understand what they’re buying, and I’m trying to improve our marketing to give them that information.
I call moving disruptive posts to a deletion thread transparent, yes. I’m not calling for deletion of critical posts formulated with substantiated arguments in a respectful manner.
1 Like
Do you agree with the rest?
Who decides what is critical and what is not? You?
Of course there are difficulties in fair moderation. I can’t provide the ultimate answer to that question. Is there anyone who can? Where do you set the limit for disruptive people? How much do you consider reasonable to accept?
We could argue with morals, but I guess we all agree that ( sadly) almost nobody cares about morals in crypto. You could take me to court? But that is probably going to be as successful as trying to take @Phoenix to court. While you are sad about being called scammer and baby bird, others have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And when they ask for accounting numbers, they get completely ignored. May I ask you to ignore me? Or take me to court? The insult is clear, I call you a scammer and that damages your reputation. Make me pay for that! It’s that easy. No moderators needed.
And you are afraid that our posts make Nu being presented in a non-transparent or wrong way? Why? Investors are responsible for themselves. They can detect my posts as utter bullshit and yours and @Phoenix’ posts as the holy truth. Where is your problem? Your problem is that we are making valid points. The numbers prove it. The analysis by @mhps proves it. You taking a bonus of 25 mio NSR at the cost of all other shareholders proves it. @phoenix ignoring requests for accounting numbers proves it. @Phoenix introducing weird people like Angela proves it. @Phoenix calling @henry highly reliable and @henry cashing in big time and then running off proves it. @Phoenix frequently getting hacked proves it. FLOT wasn’t reliable? Where is @Phoenix more reliable? He has proven to be incapable of managing any amount of funds. Development funds for B&C gone missing proves it. This list is endless, with you being part of that list as a little baby bird corrupted scammer.
Maybe we should call the moderators for forcing @Phoenix to provide accounting numbers!
@staff could you please force @JordanLee /@IAmJordanLee /@Phoenix / @xxx to provide accounting numbers?
1 Like
Seems you have no interest in having a conversation beyond being upset about your investment and continuing to make us who work for Nu appear corrupt.
Proves what?
Where is the problem with the accounting in Nu? The B&C Exchange fund accounting situation is well summarized by @Cybnate’s post. @henry left all BTC in NuLagoon Tube and we retreived them after locking the NuBit address. It seems @henry stole a couple hundred NuBits, though he was to be paid some of that sum. Has he moved the BlockShares off the exchange address?
Investors being responsible for themselves is an argument concerning those who get past the repulsion of your presence. FLOT indeed wasn’t reliable. @Phoenix screwed up holding funds. Investors may choose not to continue supporting him.
What do you want? Money will not suddenly reappear. Look at what is before you. Take it or leave it. Destroying what other people believe in makes you an asshole.
2 Likes
I’d like some active moderation to keep posts on point & constructive.
It’s frustrating that forward looking discussion gets derailed by trolls who whinge about Nu being a scam.
I have no problem with people arguing that Nu is a scam - it sounds like scrutiny is warranted with some unanswered issues remaining, but that should be a separate issue to forward looking discussion about how Nu, or a similar system, could work.
If someone thinks the current model is Ponzi like, they should suggest changes to the model that would alter this (e.g. full reserve, alternative revenue models etc), but discussion will be more productive if allegations of fraud are kept separate from forward looking discussion.
2 Likes
Henry stole almost 1,000 BKS I had for sale on NuLagoon.
Henry cashed in 3,600 shareholder NBT for building a ridiculous exchange because @Phoenix deemed him a highly reliable community member.
This forum has always had very liberal views on the freedom of participants to air their views and, for me, that has been one of it’s major draws.
As someone who has a staff account and has the ability to moderate posts I have tried to keep the original, free feel even through the turbulence of the last year and the influx of new accounts, novelty or otherwise.
That said, there has been a marked increase in hostile or spammy posts of late. I have removed a couple of posts that offered nothing but abuse or had been flagged by other community members as spam or abusive. I have to say that the majority of those removed posts came from @Mavo.
I’ve left other posts by @Mavo (and others) in place even though they contain abusive sentiments because they also contain views. If anyone has felt hurt by those posts I apologise. I left them in place unedited as the language used around any argument presented is useful for newcomers and onlookers to gauge the user who is making the argument.
Personally I feel that @Mavo seriously damages their argument by using the language they do but I can also see that it could be coming from a place of hurt.
I would respectfully ask @Mavo and others to tone the language down a bit as well as the personal attacks. I will continue to respect the right to air your views by leaving constructed arguments in place but will also continue to remove posts that are just abusive.
I am happy to ignore many of the novelty accounts as their activity is bizarre enough to be claimed and discredited by each side of the current disagreements around Nu.
"Are they sock puppet accounts run by Jordan/Phoenix to prop up the Ponzi or are they alter egos of Master-of-Disaster/Confused Observer used to discredit the Nu forum as a sham???"
Who cares! As long as those who believe in Nu have a place to discuss the operations they need to and those who think Nu needs some work/needs some revenue/is a scam have a place to air their grievances, I think we should all be able to get along cordially, without any name calling. I really do hope whoever it is who posts with all the novelty accounts at least gets a laugh from it otherwise it’s even more disappointing.
I like to think that the average visitor to this forum has enough intelligence to see whats going on and what has gone on and make their own opinion of Nu and not be swayed by some pretty basic trolling.
My personal opinion (as stated before) is that Nu could become successful as it was before. Evidence shows that the underlying mechanism seems to work but I, like others here can see a cliff approaching in that Nu needs to have some source of revenue to sustain long term. I for one would rather go headlong over the cliff still trying to solve that problem rather than sitting by and watching so that I could say ‘told you so’. There’s a lot of work done but still a huge amount to do which is why I get a bit disheartened seeing how much effort goes into posting abuse or nonsense here. If a fraction of that effort went into Nu, we’d be in a much better place when the next catastrophe hits.
I believe there is a contingent of posters who do just want to see Nu fail, there is also a contingent who is Angry and yet another contingent who are supportive. I would count myself in the last group but understand the viewpoints of the other two.
3 Likes
Don’t forget attacking people with propaganda instead of attacking arguments as well as creating new identities so he doesn’t have to answer questions about suspicious things his previous identity did. I will just repeat here what I said in the other thread…
For a bunch of us all the above are too many coincidences for his narrative to be believable anymore. For others though, it seems they’re unable to see the writing on the wall and refuse to draw conclusions until direct proof comes out, which as I mentioned we will most likely never see. I’ve seen enough to make my decision. Others apparently require more evidence. I know I’m never going to see that direct proof though, so I’m taking the risk of drawing an early conclusion to protect myself from potentially being further taken advantage of financially.
These people say “there’s a problem”. They keep perpetuating “we have a problem”. What is the problem?
- It’s that @JordanLee/@Phoenix might be majority shareholder, which would mean he’s been placing a lot of extra money into Nu. Alternatively, he’s only majority voting shareholder.
- It’s that @JordanLee could have dishonestly acquired 20% of B&C Exchange and stolen money from the development fund. Alternatively.
- It’s that @Phoenix interpreted B&C Law to mean he was allowed to trade with the B&C Exchange development fund.
- It’s that
@Phoenix isshareholders are printing NuShares according to Nu’s liquidity model and having @Phoenix carry out the mission. - It’s that …?
What is it? What is the narrative of @Phoenix’ reign of terror?
When a viewpoint is repeated in every relevant thread (which is arguably almost all), it disrupts the ability for us to progress our ideas and visitors’ ease of following them rather than wondering what’s going on here. I think few are mentally organized and unbiased enough to entirely separate the discussion from the flooding.
I appreciate that, a lot actually. Unfortunately, these people exploit the margin of lenience we tend to apply in order to avoid overstepping in our protection of that freedom.
They must need to express themselves acceptably in order to be heard or they won’t change.
Those criteria are extremely difficult to fulfill, I realize.
Can we collaborate on an action plan for how to handle offending posts? Offending, not offensive. Posts are allowed to be offensive. Offensive posts without any relevant viewpoint expressed should just be deleted, however. Agreed? There may be nuances I haven’t imagined.
Offending posts are any posts off topic. I will begin flagging any such posts I come across. Shall we have a deletion thread we move those to? Optimally, we’d move them to a relevant thread, but we can’t expect moderators to take on that demanding a task and it might mess with that thread. Offenders can post in the proper thread.
What do you think?
3 Likes
It is not easy as most will naturally seek the boundaries.
As one of the moderators I agree to flag blatant offending emails. When say 3 or more moderators agree and flag, we move it into a thread with offending posts so others can review.
3 Likes