Forum Update: New mods and new forum guidelines

Hi everyone, here’s the seventh update about how our forum is doing and what’s going on in our community (read the previous one here). First of all I would like to welcome all new members. The community is growing quite fast and the stats show we’ve gone over 2200 members compared to the 1913 in the update last month.

New Forum Guidelines
The greatest news to share with you all is the update to the Forum Guidelines. Moderation is getting more busy and we looked for a very clear set of rules. Before we made any update we checked a number of forums to see what others do when it comes to moderation and guidelines. We started with some of our neighbours. Ethereum uses the same set of rules for both their forum and Reddit. They’re not that different than the ones we have and some devs take care of moderation. StorJ and Factom have a more limited version of guidelines but all their topics seem to be on-topic and StorJ for example has a combination of devs and active members as moderators. Things are quite strict on this Battlefield 4 forum. No discussion about moderation allowed. Same for religious and political topics. Swearing isn’t allowed on that forum either. Another thing we’ve noticed is that no forum was “democratic” or had any voting for admins, rules or moderation. Seems we’re not that different from others after all. Here are some other typical rules we found on different forums (don’t be afraid, we didn’t add these ones to our new guidelines ;-)):

  • “News articles that do not contain the word “Bitcoin” are usually off-topic.” on reddit/r/bitcoin
  • “Do not post homework assignments verbatim.” on
  • “Use common sense. We want to show this website to our mums.” on
  • “Please do not use Mint Forums to promote other projects.” on linuxmint forum.
  • “Do not openly argue with a moderator.” on Steam Forum.
  • “We do not tolerate any rudeness. Any member who is intentionally unpleasant or disruptive may be banned without warning.” on webhostingtalk forum.
  • “Don’t be a pain in the ass: Or we’ll add some really embarrassing music to your profile and email all your friends.” on lastfm forum.
  • “The forums in general are not a roleplaying venue.” on Battletech forum.

So where do we stand? Well, check out the updated Forum Guidelines for yourself! We think they’re quite clear and don’t leave room for wrong interpretation. Overall we are a very open forum. We do allow almost all discussions in off-topic including religion and politics. Next to that we have a whole category called “other projects” where other crypto projects can be discussed.

Busy mods
Yes we’ve been more busy over the last few months. Remember we have people in different continents so half of the team is asleep while the other half just woke up. Next to that moderation isn’t the only thing we do. So to have 2 mods online to reach consensus is already a little miracle sometimes. We added both @smacz @chadrickm to our team over the last few days. Welcome to the team! Great to have you both on board.

That’s all for this update.


As you know we don’t allow discussions and talk about the forum and moderation on the frontpage. But as we understand some people might have questions we allow discussion in this topic (on the frontpage) for 48 hours. After that we’ll close this topic and keep the frontpage for everything SAFE related again.

1 Like

Lol…so moderators shouldn’t openly argue with community members either then? This would surely mean that Mods cannot engage in debate…(the only fair way) or is it just that dissenting opinion is not tolerated or right of reply respected?
Hurry up Decorum!.. :smile:
Can’t wait to see the thread headline:
“New Forum and new Community guidelines for Mods”


See my new thread on this matter.


@Al_Kafir . You’re the best. :relieved: :thumbsup:

1 Like

You missed the other point. When posting as moderators, mods will post in yellow staff background.

Otherwise mods are simply forum members and are fair game for all the arguments we have all been invigorated and stimulated by over the last couple years.

But if you have questions about why moderation is done or how, or disagreement about it being a guideline issue, do it in private message to @moderators, or to the specific moderator you have an issue with.

Despite your intimations to the contrary I think most people will concede that moderators almost alway treat other members with the utmost respect. Handling disagreements in private is only respecting the mods and the rest of the community.

EDIT: I don’t understand why you insist on attacking the integrity of moderators as individuals. That is the implication that you are making. Those of us who do moderation, do so to help the community and consider it an honor to be entrusted with the duty. The amount of care taken is exceptional. Try viewing it from that perspective, just as an experiment. It might give you some insight as to how it’s not just an attack on your right to say whatever you want.


That’s a rule from Steam Forum. It does not apply to our Forum. It was an example of some typical rules we found at other places.


I didn’t miss the point…you failed to address it - highlighting text “not to be argued with” is clearly not any kind of solution to the fundamental issue… As an example, you yourself, along with other mods were recently arguing with me. During these arguments, I was accused by yourself of being an offensive liar and by others of “spamming” my opinion. Now, I know I’m not an offensive, opinion spamming liar, but that aside (and the offensive nature of it) I was also suspended/banished for 3 weeks. Whether mods post in yellow, red or pink polka dot, it makes no difference - you can’t end up in a situation where mods can argue with community members about say a political issue like whether the modding should remain centralised, non-transparent, unaccountable to the community etc, or whether we should “walk the talk”, then have the ability to shut down dissenting opinion and banish members from the community - this is just 1 of the MANY bugs in your modding system that is open to corruption…
This IS a political issue and the incumbent unelected regime, have descended into authoritarianism at an alarming rate. What tends to happen when totalitarian regimes are challenged, is that the dirty politics begins…the smear campaign, the hiding the news, the propaganda, the dishonest arguments, the false accusations, the hollow claims to legitimacy etc. [quote=“fergish, post:7, topic:8241”]
Otherwise mods are simply forum members

No, they are not, they are simply forum members who have made badges for themselves, and given themselves special powers to direct conversation/debate and silence critics.[quote=“fergish, post:7, topic:8241”]
and are fair game for all the arguments we have

The playing field between mods and the community when it comes to arguments, is far from level and is about as far removed from a “fair game” as is possible. One party can shut the other party up and get the last word in…every time. I have experienced this “last word” freakery myself - threads will end with a last word from the mod and no right to reply given to whatever accusation was made

I don’t agree with this, as I’ve first hand experience, but “almost always” wouldn’t be good enough anyway…always or sod off![quote=“fergish, post:7, topic:8241”]
I don’t understand why you insist on attacking the integrity of moderators as individuals. That is the implication that you are making

It’s the implication I would make too. Anybody who takes part in this travesty of a modding system is guilty of gross hypocrisy at a bare minimum in my book. There was no community involvement in choosing mods, writing the rules etc. The one mod that was entrusted initially to act as a mod, decided to take this community granted “honour” and run with it and create a centralised fiefdom and “knighting”, whoever he deemed fit to become mods too. Basically, there was a choice to be made and the wrong one was made in my view. The choice was to ask the community how to proceed with modding, discussing ideas etc, or deciding to take over everything, not seek any consensus and then surround themselves/choose mods, mainly from the devs of all the most promising apps…lol. Clearly, these people weren’t chosen for their modding skills. All this is the main point that none of the mods get - they are illigitimate.

And who exactly entrusted you with this “duty”, that you feel so honoured to have been bestowed upon you?
Not the community, that’s for sure…you were knighted by King Happy being…nobody else…arise Sir Fergish!
No honour in that whatsoever.
You are all taking part in what was basically a coup of the forum, you have no community consensus, no legitimacy to hold the positions you do…and that’s why I question every single mods integrity.
Some have the gall to say they can defend this centralised, non transparent, unaccountable modding system - those are the hypocrites who choose not to walk the talk. :smile:

.[quote=“fergish, post:7, topic:8241”]
Handling disagreements in private is only respecting the mods and the rest of the community.

Lol…I warned every single mod, that if you choose to PM me then it will be posted publicly - that is/should be the default. You have @Tonda as party A of the PM’s and the Mods as party B.
Party A wants to make things transparent and public. What is party B’s objection to this? I mean specifically in this instance, not as a general thing - that is the thing we need to know. We can argue why your argument doesn’t work another time. :smile:


Dude, take a breath. You are talking about a community forum for an open source software project.


That statement doesn’t change the importance of fairness and accountability. You need to stop being so dismissive and consider the legitimacy of his arguments. :unamused:

1 Like

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi :smile:


I’ve missed something here and trying to follow your train of thought

Where is the that text in the forum guidelines?

One step at a time gentlemen. I can agree with some of the contentions raised here, though I have no dog in the fight, and despite being quite outspoken myself I haven’t even noticed that there ARE mods here. Of course, I will make efforts to be less outspoken because, at the end of the day, this is a forum for safenetwork. It is not the bastion of freedom that safe will become, I say, their party, their rules. I’m just here for the updates.

1 Like

It’s not their party. That’s the issue. Consume the updates then keep it movin if you wish. Others including myself are here for the various offerings that have sprung from the initial platform. This is a dynamic community that continues to evolve. Without our fuel this forum goes nowhere. Allowing unencumbered communication ensures this organism a robust framework. There are exceptions, but the new guidelines open avenues for the misuse of power. I’d rather catch it before it becomes noticeable. Things have been fine so far. There is little need for the revision. @Blindsite2k said it best. Unless invoked, mods should stop shaping this forum to suite their personal ideals. Seriously hypocritical when you consider that the senior mod himself @happybeing was the first to hit me with his distaste for top down approaches to governance. It’s no surprise that he’s fallen. Saturation is the best form of conditioning. It’s hard to maintain ones beliefs under the constant barrage from our society. I’m no stranger to conformity. It saddens me just thinking about my prior tactless acquiescence. I now question everything. :expressionless:


Doesn’t mean it’s not politics dude. Wherever people gather there will be politics.

1 Like

I see. Post must be 20 chars.

As announced here, this topic now is closed after it was open for 48 hours. It’s no longer pinned as well. For those who want to continue the conversation, feel free to use the meta category.