You two don't have that card to play.
You two have for a long time been beelining any chance to spread your view of Nu being a scam.
Your posts are often summarized by (while not all applying to both of you):
- “Phoenix is majority shareholder at least counting voting or maybe even circulating NuShares.”
- “A majority-owned project is failed.”
- “Phoenix obviously stole the ‘lost’ NuShares.”
- “Phoenix, jooize, and everyone working for Nu are corrupt scammers because …!”
- “The Nu liquidity model sucks.”
- “Why aren't you answering all of our questions after I didn't research properly, made ignorant accusations, and rarely acknowledge being wrong or strengthen my statement but move on to the next circumstance that should be criticized for the interests of those who don't have the same understanding as I do?”
- “I don't care about Nu.”
- “I know how to make Nu profitable. I've told you how. It's by not even trying to do what you're attempting. Why aren't you implementing my idea instead of what you believe in?”
- “Until you implement my ideas or other ideas this project is a scam.”
- “You will not succeed.”
- “What jooize calls for is censorship because what we post is what we think is relevant.”
This forum has seen respectable critics over the years. You are not, and do not appear wanting to be.
The forum prides itself on allowing dissent, which I absolutely agree with. However! In any fair neutral discussion group there must be a point at which exclusions are made. Otherwise it's possible to shift exposure of views to any degree.
Fair moderation takes time, energy, and understanding of the topic. When a participant continually breaches the difficult to define reasonable amount of discussion space or the discussion conduct code, moderators must act to protect the ability for the rest of the participants to discourse according to what they believe and observers to discern every position.
I don't expect opposition on those points.
That's for a neutral discussion group. Any entity (project, company, individual, …) with their own discussion group can further limit and specify terms for what they allow and act on if the owners accept the risks to credibility.
Moderators can allow repeatedly offending participants to stay, and only remove posts after they've been reported and analyzed. I suggest keeping letting them have an impact is not philosophically fair even in a neutral discussion group.