If we don'e explicitly bring moderators in, we might end up making folks like @DarthCoin defacto moderators by their toxic behavior.
We're already in that situation with @k00b as our benevolent dictator. Maybe as a compromise there could be some "election" facility for moderators, with people voting on who gets the position via sats and then that's staked for the winner.
Downvotes might get us most of the way there, so maybe that's the first thing to try and bring in more complex solutions as needed.
Who are you to make rules? Who are you to decide to be toxic or not.
BTW if you are not toxic you are not bitcoiner. So STFU with your rules and shit.
Vote with your sats if you want. That's it.
I am sick of all these "smart guys" that want to make their own rules on internet. You don't like it, make your own page.
You're a troll. You revel in being toxic. You admit it outright. You purposefully antagonize people with the intent to cause them distress. You can't understand or refuse to admit that being a Bitcoin proponent can have a wide array of tactics other than being outright toxic.
I'm precisely proposing people vote with their sats. If there's a system where your voice is amplified because that's the peoples will, then that sucks from my perspective but at least I understand the community and can choose not to be part of it. If, on the other hand, your toxic behavior is condemned by the community but they have no facility to have their opinion expressed, I consider that a failure of the system.
I'm proposing a system that allows people's will to be expressed. I'm not making rules, I'm having a conversation, proposing ideas with the end goal of enabling peoples will to be expressed. I suspect your toxic behavior will be "downvoted" were such a system to be in place, but that's just a guess of mine.
Without any facility to push back on your toxic behavior, we run the risk of poisoning the community by championing your voice, even though the SN community might not want it, and sending a clear signal that toxic behavior is allowed, opening the community up to even more toxic people.
Personally, I 100% disagree with this approach,
I don't need a nanny and the system doesn't need gatekeepers.
That's one of the reasons Reddit sucks so hard.
Are you joking?
Can you tone it down? Having this type of toxic, dismissive attitude is really outputting.
We should be welcoming and assume positive intent, not be gatekeepers.
This is the type of comment I would like to downvote.
downvote with your sats if you like But I will continue to be a toxic maximalist
There is no facility to downvote on this site, using sats or no.
Your comments are precisely why we need downvotes, the ability to flag comments/posts and why we need moderation.
Don't bring moderation on my account. I can take it. I've been on the Internet a long time Plus, who watches the Watchmen?
I think downvotes would be cool, though. Those would bring another level of complexity to the site.
If we don'e explicitly bring moderators in, we might end up making folks like @DarthCoin defacto moderators by their toxic behavior.
We're already in that situation with @k00b as our benevolent dictator. Maybe as a compromise there could be some "election" facility for moderators, with people voting on who gets the position via sats and then that's staked for the winner.
Downvotes might get us most of the way there, so maybe that's the first thing to try and bring in more complex solutions as needed.
Who are you to make rules? Who are you to decide to be toxic or not. BTW if you are not toxic you are not bitcoiner. So STFU with your rules and shit. Vote with your sats if you want. That's it. I am sick of all these "smart guys" that want to make their own rules on internet. You don't like it, make your own page.
You're a troll. You revel in being toxic. You admit it outright. You purposefully antagonize people with the intent to cause them distress. You can't understand or refuse to admit that being a Bitcoin proponent can have a wide array of tactics other than being outright toxic.
I'm precisely proposing people vote with their sats. If there's a system where your voice is amplified because that's the peoples will, then that sucks from my perspective but at least I understand the community and can choose not to be part of it. If, on the other hand, your toxic behavior is condemned by the community but they have no facility to have their opinion expressed, I consider that a failure of the system.
I'm proposing a system that allows people's will to be expressed. I'm not making rules, I'm having a conversation, proposing ideas with the end goal of enabling peoples will to be expressed. I suspect your toxic behavior will be "downvoted" were such a system to be in place, but that's just a guess of mine.
Without any facility to push back on your toxic behavior, we run the risk of poisoning the community by championing your voice, even though the SN community might not want it, and sending a clear signal that toxic behavior is allowed, opening the community up to even more toxic people.
Personally, I 100% disagree with this approach, I don't need a nanny and the system doesn't need gatekeepers. That's one of the reasons Reddit sucks so hard.
Downvotes, though, I think those would be useful.
there we go, censorship...
I agree.
i thought the only purpose of creating altcoins is to get more btc?
I'm an immigrant making a living by writing, sir. Not everyone has the privilege of working for people you're 100% aligned with philosophically.
I'm a maximalist because I think Bitcoin is humanity's only hope and the only thing that matters.
There's no alternative to Bitcoin, I agree.
have my sat. I hope you understand the difference between "altcoins" and "shitcoins". That's all.
Welcome aboard!