Given that it is not unheard of within crypto projects for individuals to seek moderator positions in order to “take over” a community and promote their own projects or projects they are associated with – can I ask what measures are currently in place to prevent this hypothetical situation and protect the community from it?
Imagine a situation where community members feel aggrieved that they have been “sold a puppy”, who would currently be held liable? Obviously the mod promoting the project would be to some degree liable, but what about the forum owners – could they be fairly held liable too?
A concern I have is that Maidsafe own the forum so this scenario would at a minimum create negative publicity – is this a legitimate concern? One way I can think of to mitigate the chances of this happening would be for the community to choose the mods themselves – that way, the responsibility is shared amongst the community – nobody else to blame. A further idea may be to not have promoters/app developers as mods in the first place as this, to me, creates a clear conflict of interest.
I wondered what others’ thoughts are on this – please be constructive and avoid arguing along the lines of “Oooo….but they are luvly and we should just trust them”. This would not be a constructive argument, particularly given that the whole idea of crypto and the aim of overcoming the “Byzantine generals problem” is specifically intended to overcome the need to “just trust”.
Thoughts anyone?
This post, addressed to the community and posted in what I believe to be the correct “community” section as it concerns the community has been moved to this “Meta” category (within seconds) away from the front page by @polpolrene, where the community can’t see it without “scouring” the forum. Given the contents of this post, you’d have to make your own minds up as to whether this action was performed with Maidsafe’s, the larger community’s or the mod’s interests at the fore. Just letting folks know……cheers

1 Like