pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 8 May \ on: Looking for Bitcoin Games bitcoin
https://satoshi-strike.com/
Yes., But...
Feedback on that moderation is inevitable. It's somewhat important for Moderators to be open to that feedback, since some of it may be valid to consider.
The reddit thread on this topic where nullc weighs in:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/bitcoin_cores_github_mods_have_been_banning_users/
I'm not sure either party in this case is guiltless.
Another comment on the situation from a Bitcoin Discord community member:
"The moderation rules are fucking ridiculous. They explicitly don't allow " not general criticism, or criticism of individuals or groups. Even the smartest people can have ideas that don't work out, and people with good intentions can make decisions that backfire. It does not add a lot of value generally to speculate about peoples motives or capabilities when discussing the merits of their ideas, and doing so will be considered off-topic in technical discussions."
You can't be critical of an idea that is self serving for a company, you can't be critical of an idea because someones only interest is in using it to scam
you apparently can't be critical of chaincode labs at all
Fucking. Useless.
Delving Bitcoin has already banned me for commenting that a specific proposal to bundle a LNHANCE type set of BIPs together was an inappropriate bundling for a litany of explicit reasons.
That apparently isn't technical enough. They will only accept positive constructive feedback about the proposal, not feedback that the proposal is inehrently inappropriate.
The trouble is, those with control over the github community and delving bitcoin are the same small group of tight knit devs in a club. They don't want to hear dissenting oppinions from anyone, they aren't interested in having their biases illustrated for them. They frequently take this out on any dissenter, regardless of merit. A common example being Luke. For example as relates to taking over his own repo and translations from him.
They use broad moderation policies like those cited above as an excuse to silence any criticism at all.
It's just about getting a handful of people in their little club to assent that Luke is a troll, or I am a troll, or whoever is telling them that we need a flag day fork is a troll - and they can dismiss them. Including and regardless of active development activity as we see in both the Luke and Ariard examples.
Ideas aren't discussed on merit, as the moderation policy pretends to enshrine - what happens is if you hurt someones feelings or you propose an idea the club doesn't like, you're removed.
We see it time and again.
the LOT true debate being another prime example.
Or the blocksize wars debate over UASF
All of that discussion was entirely silenced by Core.
all code and technical discussion, silenced.
once the IRC meeting was had and the idea shot down by the little club in spite of active and reasoned opposition, that's that.
in every. single. instance.
Core devs even use it, as noted, to impact consensus decisions!
It's totally inappropriate. A power grab by a development community that by design has none. These policies should be revoked. The core dev team need look no further than its own practices for why engagement is faltering. I don't feel welcome to engage there"
"Honestly though this whole situation just reminds me of and reinforces how cooked the core org is. Removing all discussion from the repos and pushing Delving Bitcoin, a forum with even worse moderation, or an email list which is anything but reliable these days isn't exactly a great look." ~ a Bitcoin Discord user
it appears you're banned for 30 days for getting that bip "off track"
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/16#issuecomment-2822278376
and you've responded by threatening litigation
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/16#issuecomment-2822446541
From a user on Bitcoindiscord.com
It appears they "Broke their own moderation policy. Not obvious spam, banned, and no meta issue."
"Second to last bulletpoint here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/blob/main/MODERATION-GUIDELINES.md#moderation-transparency. If ariard is banned, given there is no issue in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues, the moderator who banned him has broken the moderation transparency policy.
There are a string of hidden comments in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/16 relating to it."
I'd appreciate way more step by step screenshots of what has happened please. this is interesting stuff...
more details on this and other choices by Satoshi for Bitcoin here: https://medium.com/@Fiach_dubh/1-99-billion-bitcoin-not-21-million-fad9f5550659