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 @Phoenixinterpreted B&C Law to mean he was allowed to trade with the B&C Exchange development fund.
It’s that @Phoenix is shareholders 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.
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.
I think I would disagree. I wouldn’t ban users like @ConfusedObserver or @MaVo who express their opinions, though too aggressively.
The Bitshares forums also went through a very tough time with a few insistent trolls who would continuously post negative and bearish comments, as the network token (BTS) crashed to lower and lower levels. The attacks stopped when the network started succeeding.
I recommend to ignore the attacks, succeed in your goals, and detractors will silence themselves. That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
I’m content with these results, for now. I think some of you underestimate how damaging their posts can be, and I disagree with many of their posts even providing a viewpoint. Having an opinion shouldn’t entitle anyone to unlimited space for announcing it within other people’s discussions.
Success appears to reduce the issue, but that’s not a solution. Especially not for the problem I’m concerned about, which this week is our chances to get listed at desirable exchanges. Generally, it’s getting our viewpoint to visitors before they turn away. Updating the website will help with that.
I really don’t want to silence critics, I want them to have me understand their valid points so I can try to fix them where applicable. Anyone going into a thread discussing criticism against Nu and posting “Nope” without an argument should be subject to the same moderation I call for.
Use the flag button.
These respectable values are attractive in our community, and I agree with persisting them.
