Discussion on reducing the trust level requirements of the Price & Trading topic

My thinking was that it is less biased by allowing those who can use this thread to vote (I agree that can be flawed).
But I am all for it being done in a manner that nobody can call bias.
So if you think a new poll is required then we should do that.

2 Likes

Yep, just in this thread, I really think it would be for the best, or at least testing and seeing if there was consensus that it should be brought back. I can see only win in that myself.

But there’s very little going on there, no dialogue to join in, no enthusiastic and vibrant community chatting away about cool and engaging stuff. Likewise reading is not engaging/interactive. If they have assumptions they can’t immediately see the response to they walk away with them if they don’t voice them. It’s good for noobs to voice stupid stuff, they and other readers will learn even though we’ll all have to repeat ourselves over and over again. We’ll also swell the ranks of those willing to repeat and re-link the same tired old questions and criticisms. It’s not good if someone’s first impression/experience of this forum is to be denied to post their thoughts… imho.

Indeed… freedom of choice, it’s just a thread. Most of the tech-focused people don’t read it much and can avoid it if they like.

7 Likes

So if discussing the Price & trading is going to liven things up here then why would it not do it there?

We have already tried no restrictions on the previous P&T topic and it was a major issue. All the traders whose only wish is manipulate. Echos of poloniex troll box, or other exchanges chat boxes. There is a reason exchanges shut down their chat boxes.

/sigh

As one of the smartest people I know likes to repeat to me regularly… the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I guess that’s it then, as always, modarchy rules.

/hmph

/sticks out bottom lip and folds arms in a sulk

3 Likes

Where would a new unbiased poll be held? In meta where no one will see it?

2 Likes

No that was my opinion. Nothing has been decided.

I’d say the best place is where all matters for forum changes are discussed, in #meta and anyone can discuss it there.

I disagree that it was a major issue. All Alt channels are full of FUD. People brush it off or explain why it’s wrong over and over again until people start to understand it. If you just block and move the FUD it looks weak and like the project can’t defend itself. I would be happy enough to have it as an unmoderated thread if the mods don’t like it and don’t want to moderate it. No one moderates most of the other speculator channels I’ve been on. If something awful appears we’ll flag it for you guys.

2 Likes

Ah ok, sorry, I took it as policy decision, my mistake. Good, glad to hear it is still up for discussion :slight_smile:

gahh, nooo. that just means not discussed or seen by enough people. I hate that there’s option to move anything ‘off the front page’. I would love to see it banned! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

3 Likes

exactly - it include the ones who read here and affected by the decision (and care and therefore voted)
…the limitation for trust level 2 can always be enabled again - can’t it?

4 Likes

:joy:. And apparently that’s better than being biased.

1 Like

yep, if it’s not that then it’s just modarchy and dominion, the paternal carer, ‘for your own good but without your say’. It was railing against that which led me to crypto in the first place. I am pro-freedom anti-state and anti-centralisation to the bone. Power must always have a feedback loop to those affected by it or it does great harm. The only way to stop people making mistakes with the power they have is to have them treading carefully because all of their decisions are directly accountable.

Some people say that’s not an efficient way to get things done and sometimes centralised works better. I say good that it’s not an efficient way to get things done. ‘Getting things done’ usually means just moulding things according to the interest or biases of those holding the reins. I would like the govt to get much less done too, like nothing at all, i know not everyone here is a voluntarist/anarchist though and that’s fine :wink: (even though SAFE is basically a voluntarist’s wet dream :eggplant: so the irony of this battle has been striking for the 2-3 years it has festered) . If there’s real groundswell for anything it ends up getting done, that should be the only driver for action imho.

7 Likes

I voted in the poll for lowering to Trust Level 1 but my real choice would be to put some restrictions on Level 1 (limit number of characters per day, number of replies per day, etc.). A wrinkle for this solution would be increasing Level 1 privileges based on number of Likes from Level 2+ users, similar to the “infant, adult, elder, hero, superhero” scheme discussed in another thread. You could even do the reverse: Have a “Dislike” icon for Level 2+ users and enough unique Dislikes would cause the user to revert back to the Level 2 requirement.

I don’t even know if any of this is possible with the software but you get my drift: Require Level 1 users to ease into the category, not jump in with both feet.

1 Like

I hear you, but to a certain extent this boils down to a matter of personality and aims. I am not nor do I think like a trader. However, my hunch is many traders are not the sort who would like to sit silent in the back of the class just because they have not completed all of the assigned reading. When being corrected on mouthing off on something they may not fully understand, they have the opportunity to learn real-time and in context. To do that, they must first be able to engage. In other words, one of the best ways to ensure a student learns is to let them engage in the topic through an avenue about which they are most passionate—for a trader that is likely price performance.

Closed systems, more often than not, flounder and fail to flourish because they don’t effectively leverage external resources. Tech learnt and implemented this lesson from biology in the overwhelming shift to open source development. Being open, I think, necessitates a willingness to engage with a wide set of people, within which different aims will naturally occur. On the scale of pure altruism to a love of being on the cutting edge of innovation to strict profit-seeking, we are all here for different reasons. While I do not necessarily agree with each person’s motives, I will not judge them for it so long as we are all working towards a common goal: the viability and successful launch of the SAFEnetwork.

4 Likes

That’s like saying that any political election is biased due to low voter turnout. While low turnout can be due to intimidation, it sometimes results from mere (though inadvisable) lack of interest. Anyone on this forum above level 2 can/could vote, so I don’t think the poll was biased. So long as all pricing talk remains sequestered in this (or another single) thread, people who only want to engage on tech, or on marketing, or whatever else brings them to this forum, don’t have to read it. My two cents.

2 Likes

It is really interesting. And hopefully reinforces my point.

If I’m a noob and I want to make that my first post because I come at this from a crypto pov and I think it’s an interesting thing to share, then what happens to my (valuable?) content and the potential for me to join the community dialogue, forge relationships and develop trust for people here? Let’s run through what happens to a lot of people. … I try to post in the appropriate topic. I get denied. I don’t like that, it feels like this project is censoring stuff because they’re scared of something. Ok, I’ll try to post in the lounge then. Hmm, what happened. Oh my post has been moved to off-topic. Now I really don’t like this place. No one views the post, no one comments. How many people get to the next stage from there?

Shutting doors is great for keeping trolls out, it keeps a lot of others out too though, in all kinds of subtle ways.

7 Likes

You should start your own anarchic SAFE forum - it could be a lot of fun without dragging this forum to a place most of the community don’t want it to go.

Having different kinds of communication forum is completely valid. One size never fits all :slight_smile:

If most of the community don’t want it to go there then I’m fine with that. I object to the community not getting any say at all though. And really we’re just asking for one thread to be opened up, not ‘dragging the community’ anywhere. If people don’t like the general vibe in one thread they can check it less. That seems better than excluding folks, especially if it were to turn out that the majority of the forum don’t want us to censor the thread?!

8 Likes

I think this forum is great cause valorises concrete facts of the project. Speaking about price is less important but could be at the same time funny. However, I think it should stay as a margin topic for 2 reasons:

1• in order to avoid both emotional-insignificant posts and growth of number of people who write about price without knowing anything about project. That’s why this forum needs level 2 to write here (and I agree with this option)
2• You don’t need infinite time to reach level to write here. So it’s not so hard. Moreover this will let you know something of Safe Network and write “responsibly” about price.
(If you want to speak free about price, you can post on Reddit where messaging is faster)

You know, speculation is the worst thing for a good project and is even capable of killing a project in a medium-long term.

Thus, I agree to keep this forum as it’s working now.
Level 2 and just this topic about price

1 Like

Examples, please. I do believe there are many to the contrary, however.

1 Like

First I have in mind is Einsteinium