Are we talking about the same thing? It looks to me like an acting class project or something similar.
I feel you have an idealistic view of things that may clash heavily with the way things really are.
3 Likes
I see, youâre a troll. Hiding behind a letter âk.â You just became irrelevant. Youâre not someone to take seriously.
Take care 
1 Like
Donnybaseball itâs not a video about cars or cookery books. Ask yourself if you would want your brand to be associated with that type of filth? Every community has core or fundamental foundation values, believe me not just Christian. The point from the beginning is that nobody did back ground checks and to tag the word Ambassador to individuals who are anonymous is courting trouble. As I said this could have been an easy fix and much of this could have been stopped if CF would have stepped up and did their work.
1 Like
Hey i sort you were doing a disappearing act. You do know you can find me anywhere on the internet right. You did email me didnât you.
Have you looked up Taxidermist yet?
Cheers
I have no idea what the context for that video is. Context is essential in making any sort of judgement. With that said it looks like an acting reel to me. I donât think an actor is actually a serial killer if they play a serial killer in a movie.
Regardless I generally tend to be very forgiving of stuff people post online especially younger people. I thank God every day that I wasnât getting filmed 24/7 when I was in college doing stupid stuff. Doing and saying stupid things is being human. We all need to be more forgiving and realize we are all guilty on some level at some point and should act with more kindness. With that said do I accept all behavior? No I do not but I generally look to the law which is governed by guarantees of free speach by the Constitution of the US as a guide.
Iâd also like to know if you are a lawyer who has familiarity with Swiss Foundation law as it pertains to background checks and general liability of volunteerâs actions outside of work done for the foundation. It might be that the act of doing background checks makes the foundation more responsible for the actions of said volunteers not less responsible. If so that would be a liability obviously.
1 Like
Itâs fine @Donnybaseball, please donât engage. Itâs better to starve people like that of attention
Donnybaseball i couldnât agree with you more. This is why an agreed back ground check should have been done. Anything that was in the past picked up that can be sorted out, should have been cleared up and everyone moves forward with signed understanding of etiquette around diplomacy and personal conduct. Or simply as suggested change the name. I agree with your philosophy and salute you.
lemme sum up something i overheard charles say⌠âat the end of the day, is that person doing the job? if so thenâŚâ the logic is pretty simple.
3 Likes
Well Cliff then i guess the answer is pretty simple.
Cliff. Yes. That is the whole point here. CF is not doing its job.
2 Likes
i have spoken to cf. before and after the reboot.
I like facts. Things that can be measured.
In this time period we have had great achievements both from IOHK and Emurgo. No doubt. I can link here a long list of great news that has come from both these companies. In the same period what has happened in CF? Fracture of the community, Minimal growth of forum (compared with say reddit that has an order of magnitude larger following) an ambassador program so painfully slow to be rolled out and with minimal information. Great talented people withdrawing (one example - Mihori) and ambassadors that participate in damaging debates. I could go on. Objectively speaking - if you do not take sides - does this look like a job well done? To be fair we have had great summaries here and some serious debates. But could we have had more? I think so. Do I think the people working are not talented? That the ambassadors are not also good? Of course not. There is good as well objectively speaking. But I want CF to match IOHK and Emurgo. Hard to do ofcourse as you guys are talented. But possible? I think so.
3 Likes
Cliff you need to speak again, their seems to be to many nice people trying not to offend sloppy work.
sure i will check into it.
1 Like
Nope it isnât. If it were I guarentee there would be considerably less infighting
1 Like
Yes and yes and yes.
1 Like
I like the structure of this.
-
I donât think engaging in personal criticism should ever really be formalized. This is a one on one scenario if anything and not be public anyway.
-
Representation of Cardano is only possible with KYC but of itself isnât a qualification obviously. However, I can imagine a case where an anonymous person or group could officially represent any crypto project.
(7). This is not as clear. Weâre in a technology space of an economy of peer to peer transactions. Contract work has value on itâs own merits. This is up to the discretion of the official entities, and there is a variable of donation.
Please consider why anonymity can be important to a contributor of valuable content or efforts.
- Conflict of interest (work at a bank, government, oppressive entity)
- Members of another project (social shame, integrity of efforts etc.)
- Politicians, lawyers, celebrities or other public figures that would bear a stigma of association of involvement with a crypto project
- Gender, race, religious obfuscation to avoid bias against content or efforts
- Just donât want to get caught during work hours
- Online identity is like a tattoo, sometimes you wish you werenât associated with actions or behavior from your past which directly influences your current or future options, contributions or perceived value.
Most people are simply not full time crypto, let alone full time Cardano. I think we have to resolve as a space that digital anonymity is a cornerstone of the trustless economy. Efforts like this are a guide for social trustless system. This is a good first draft and a good idea.
7 Likes
This is a structured debate. You have valid points on anonymity. I think the layered approach will work better. Frankly this is how all governance debates will play out we are just at the start of it 
3 Likes
To be clear I donât think that a background check is needed in this instance. Perhaps if the role of Ambassador involved working with children I would feel differently. I also feel that you unfairly singled out community members to prove your point which I do not condone.
Have not got an issue how you feel. If you really read my post you will see i did not single one person out to prove my point, their were quiet a few. I donât agree with you about the back ground check not needed and neither does millions of companies around the world. I personal donât condone the degrading and humiliation of woman in any setting.