I’m grateful for their efforts as I believe they have the best interests of the community at heart. To me that is what matters most. I look forward to a response from Mr. Parsons to hear his side of the story.
I agree wholeheartedly. That is why we all must remain vigilant. I like the original plan of having a foundation as a check and balance on the other arms of the Cardano ecosystem. However it seems as there is dysfunction that needs to be addressed. That process has begun.
Have you ever noticed the efforts being made to review this forum and rid it of spam, fraud and unethical content? Did you know that some guardians have been working on this for over a year and continue to do so?
Do not hesitate to express your theories and, if possible, to prove them.
hmmm… interesting that you conveniently respond after falling into the bucket of those guilty being called out publicly.
let’s then talk about the particular case with you. there’s a post (on a thread not created by me) which i was respectfully engaging in expressing my deeply held opinions (on the threads main topic) which were then undermined (by being irrelevant) by another poster. naturally as anyone trying to be and do things seriously, a person who then engages in nuisance behaviour becomes aggravating. so i sternly responsed - without insults - all the while trying to get them to contribute productively to the matter at hand. on further inspection of their posts - i realised that this person is a mercenary not missionary, they care about the money not the mission. which is a point of contention for many projects within the crypto space, and interactions like these are important to have and learn from collectively.
i’m having to retell this in an abridged form to give context as chances are majority if not one of you ever read this exchange as it was censored shortly after. why? did it contain “spam, fraud and unethical content” ? No. was i asked ahead of time, if i minded or consented? No. it’s was only after the fact that i was notified as “clarity” was the reason given. so was it ever reinstated after i expressed that i didn’t consent? No.
now, this is just one instance - what’s worrisome about this is that it possibly respresents further hidden cases of abuse of power, and set a deadly precedent.
a precedent where an abuser can do so with impunity without the victim being able to prove their case cause… that’s rights, they are now censored so the evidence doesn’t exist!
so who watches the watchmen, or rather the self appointed “guardians”. what oversight is their for your actions?
@misteraxyz Glad to see you are bringing such issues to light. I share your concerns.
I am afraid we are witnessing (more and more) the phenomenon of Groupthink take hold of this community. It’s quite unfortunate, but it’s best to fight this any way we can than to let it rot us from within.
They are no more self appointed than you are. Share your concerns and discuss but be prepaired to see if others agree with you or not. The guardians signed with full names and are just community members that are concerned. So are the roughly 2000 other members of the public who signed the petition so far.
Hi @Eystein_Hansen, Thanks for your note, but I’m not sure whose post you are referring to. Either way, the issue I was referring to in response to the post by @misteraxyz has nothing to do with petitions or willingness to sign with full names. It’s about censorship of unfavorable/non-conforming ideas and individual POV to set a desired narrative by those that have the power to do so… That’s all.
thanks for speaking up @canopus - the irony here is i’m fighting for those who have a differing view from mine, getting opposition from people who have a differing view from me who it seems would rather i didn’t voice mine or had no voice at all.
the worst kind of censorship is the kind one’s not even aware of. from stealthy silencing and covering up to making the individual psychologically paralysed that they self-censor without even being aware.
we learn and grow most from the difficult dissenting differences, not the familiar secure similarities.
cardano is an infant, and needs to be inoculated - but it would appear that these people are the kind of parent who lack the foresight to see beyond the cries from the needle/vaccine to see the death that awaits on the other end. they’re are deadset on creating a utopia world without healthy well meaning dissent.
Are you asking transparency just for transparency sake or have you given it careful consideration when it is good with transparency and when it is not. Do you think IOHK reports every single technical detail and consideration? No they pick the right forum and the right crowd for each message. Github repositories shares codes. Research reports share theories and are discussed in conferences. Videos and meetups are used to share community concerns. Now to your question where you mock people of the community by calling them “guardians” - first of all what exactly have you contributed to the community?
“transparency for transparency sake”? care to actually explain yourself?
as for your second point, yes i have created threads and contributed posts to a number of threads created by others including the one you mention. your intent to insinuate that somehow my participation and contribution don’t measure up to some imagined rubric doesn’t make sense as there is no objective measure.
from what you have said it gives the strong impression that you don’t understand the fundamental purpose of key things like the transparent accountability that a blockchain enables - or incentivisation and how that makes the game theory mechanics work.
word of advice, if you’re going to attempt to make a point or an attempt to insult guised as criticism - keep it focused, clear and come from an informed place. otherwise it’s like firing a gun in the opposite direction.