Apology and truce proposal

I have already apologised to those on my side of the Guardians split and to officials for the DogWatch incident. I now want to extend that to all of those affected, directly or indirectly. It should not have happened, and I take full responsibility.

But perhaps things have now come to a head, and we can turn a corner. I was pleased to see Mihori’s post in the Centralization thread, but I want to go further, seeking not just more civilised fighting, but actual peace. So I’d like to propose a truce between the factions on the following basis.

All concerned promise to stop provocations of all kinds, on all platforms. This must include disguised provocations such as statements claimed to be merely factual explanation but actually controversial, where no comment is actually necessary. (Of course not all questions need be answered.) Provocations made using anonymous or other accounts are of course also unacceptable! (Sorry again.)

Because it is very obvious that agreement on past events regarding the Guardians is impossible, both sides should stop making any but the most uncontroversial comments on these events, and existing posts, tweets, web pages and public documents that contain such comments should be edited to remove them or deleted altogether.

If that takes a lot of effort, then I’m sorry, but maybe there shouldn’t have been so many comments made. If there’s any doubt about a particular comment it could be quoted or linked in this thread for public discussion – which of course might well open the door to further fighting, but I guess there has to be some method of conflict resolution. (If there are any other ideas on this point I’d be glad to see them.)

Posts, tweets, etc, by the people concerned, but not about Guardians-related events, are of course not a problem.

So for the sake of the Cardano community’s reputation, can we please, finally, put all this behind us?


Rob, do you resign from your Cardano Ambassador role?


I can’t resign because officially there are no ambassadors yet. But I’ve requested that my name not be on the list when it does appear and said that I won’t take part in any related activities. I’m not sure what more I can do at this stage.


I understand & honestly appreciate you stay true to your word and won´t be an Ambassador (now or in the future).

From my side your public appology is fully accepted and advise the others from the Watchdogs to follow.

Regarding @werkof @Andy_Hendrikx and Rick, we will stay away from them as we always did, let´s hope they do the same this time. Nevertheless it would have been nice to see them participating in this apology and resign from their “titles” to return to be “regular members” of the Community, which would have been a powerful “peace treaty”.

Let me copy here IMO the final conclusion in the end of the other Thread:
" I think the most important thing for the Cardano Foundation would be to reach out to IOHKs HR Director for help and hire very professional, highly skilled, top talent Community Managers with proven successful career to strengthen & support the current Community Management Team and let us recognize their own identity & voice, which should drive things for the better and quickly & efficiently intervene in such situations."


Regarding deleting the past (“existing posts, tweets, web pages and public documents that contain such comments should be edited to remove them or deleted altogether” and the other thread of Mihori in your headline), I am sorry but this is something I won´t support especially considering the extremely false & misleading statements made on our history in the other thread. Neverthelss as the Watchdogs did since they were formed, we were never stuck in the past, but started initiatives for the future, looking how we may bring value to the Cardano Ecosystem as an independent “force”.

Thanks for your announcement and I am happy we may finally move on after 3 days of struggle.


Well done @RobJF.

Sorry. Not going to happen if you’ll ask me :slight_smile:

Peace all :metal:t2:

Edit: Please don’t refer us to Group B anymore. We still have some talks from time to time but we are far from a group at this moment. We’ve somehow split up/are non active and talk to each other as colleagues and/or friends.


I do not understand why any documents should be removed. The one Bertlan wrote is an accurate description he can provide documentation to back up and has not been discreditet or refuted. I feel bad for Rob even while many hurtefull things where done but it was never about persons. Appology is accepted to Rob on a personal level (and I really do Rob) and it takes integrity to offer such from him. What we do need however is to get out of this mud by having answers from community team on the playrules on these forums so my question still stand what are the consequences and lessons learned?


Not taking sides but it took a lot of balls to make this apology. Both Bertalan and Robin have immensely contributed to the community and are invaluable members. I think both would be great representatives of Cardano and both should be Ambassadors. I am glad this is over and everyone is moving on.


Don’t get me wrong I will never and have never attacked other side so that is fine to agree too as we never did in the first place. I have however commented the attacks and believe I would in the future too so only way for cycle to stop is for others to stop.


I am so happy to see this thread. Hope you guys find some common ground. Cardano has an immense potential. There is space for everyone.


I can’t actually speak for the others on my side of the split, but I believe there’s a very good chance they will agree with what I’m saying.

Negotiation requires compromise, so I suggest this:

I will drop the demand that existing media be edited or deleted.

However, I will not promise that I will never be an ambassador. But I won’t be in the first tranche, and will seriously consider the wider ramifications, and consult with both community and officials, before I ever accept a nomination.

I feel it should be absolutely clear (though already implied in my previous post), you must promise not to repeat or again link to claims that you know are contentious, such as the estimate of work done per person or group during the Parsons campaign. Similarly, no more reference to “core group”, “groups A and B”, or the like. I (almost certainly we) will also avoid making any potentially provocative comments regarding that period.

Also, I think we need to agree to no more attacks on people, as opposed to ideas. Emotions will probably continue to run high for some time – we must not give way to them. Ideally, we’d be taking that for granted, but I think it needs to be made explicit here.


So please everyone: If that happens while reading a post, just don’t answer right away but wait until the next day.


Wise words.

This thread is waaay above my pay grade, and excuse me for adding two cents with my pennies for my thoughts.

The fact that individuals are able to keep an intelligent conversation without words of ruin or expletives to bruise or feed egos shows great character. Let me just say, y’all rock.

Sometimes to be human is to err.

May you all live long and prosper, and nanu nanu.


i was ridiculed and not taken seriously when I stated my concerns about the unnecessarily covert ways that the self appointed chose to conduct their dealings. if it was done in an accountably open manner - as if the crypto way - all this would not have come head. and we all as community would all be better off having done the hard work, we’d be in a much better position to incentivise qualitative community contribution.

my efforts - instead of being commended, my subsequent contributions were somehow coincidentally censored in what appeared to be a coordinated effort - all in ways that lacked accountability. those which did, were swiftly done away with - for instance when a moderator chose to censor a post on no valid grounds then notified me post censoring - then coincidentally my subsequent post were apparently automatically taken down because they were flagged. by who? not disclosed. by how many? no disclosed. for what reason? not disclosed.

what is easy - is seldomly, more often than not - not what is right.

nb. for those uninformed about GDPR, it is NOT based on where the server is BUT where the user/visitor is based.


When something has to be kept from one individual, it has to be kept from the public. Fact of life, sorry.

agree to disagree mate.

opinions are not facts.