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 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.
What do you think?