Meta category has now been taken off front page

It´s obviously meta, but you already know that, right? :wink: TBH I think your understanding of this forum as " a place for people to learn about and discuss SAFEnetwork" to quote @happybeing goes more into a club-house-like format. Certainly a nice and cosy place, but not at all feasible as a source that provides all sort of user (particularly readers, new users and occasional users) with relevant information.

1 Like

No that’s not even credible on its face. It was simply a retalitory, punishment oriented act against criticism. Had nothing at all to do with clutter. Also hypocritical.

If you want to have a vote about which mods to remove, that’s fine. It would belong on the front page. But some stuff is just ethically obvious stuff, and you just do the right thing.

Some tech is the furthest thing from politically neutral. That is the case with SAFE. Its utility comes from making certain types of abuse impractical. And yet we hear from some posting on the forums that politics is irrelevant noise. And some conservative mods treat political stuff as off topic because it doesn’t fit their immature world view. This is SAFE, we don’t need fear based ideology censoring stuff. We have the sponsored media already doing unlimited danage, the site that describes this radically liberating tech should not be shill based.

It may be a place to ask questions about SAFE, but its not a lawn with a housing association making sure it meets standards. Its not a pamphlet. Its not a PR effort. Its a movement and a conversation.

There are some good kinds of conservatism, but the site is now moving in the direction of stupid conservatism. Might as well rename it “friends of the mods”. The insularity has to be reversed. Its in need of some transparency. I am hoping after launch David Irvine will take notice and clean it up or just shut it down. There are Seneca(s) out there who will re-launch. Blindsite already took a shot.

1 Like

Can you hear yourself @Warren? We mods work very hard to keep this forum a useful support resource for the SAFEnetwork project and to find ways of ensuring we listen to and reflect the broad consensus of the community. And now, flying in the face of free speech, you say you want to shut the forum down.

Watching this is very hard, as someone who is very committed to the project, and works hard to ensure this forum is vibrant, inclusive, and supportive of the project. I’m part of a diverse team who “share the same attitudes” - in that respect - and who do a very difficult job well IMO.

I’m really surprised to see you and @Al_Kafir are unable to see that, as such longstanding members who must know myself and several of the mod team well by now. Maybe take a step back and take a look at the list of people you are accusing?


So I’m quite shocked to see you both show so much distrust and negativity, and cynical questioning of our values and integrity like this. Obviously I have got to know these people better than you will because I work with them most days, but I’m sure you know one or two of us well enough to wonder how can what you say be so, or even how might it affect them?

We are not perfect. We do get things wrong, we certainly infringe the guidelines ourselves (well I do as I admit it when I realise). But we are committed to the project, and we work very hard in the ways I’ve explained to create the best forum we can.

I’m very sad reading the repeated criticism from you, but the fact a small number of people want to criticise but are unwilling to put their complaints to the community and have them tested, means you are stuck with this until someone does so.

So, with respect, put up or shut up, please, for the sake of the project. I do trust that you are a supporter of the project, so am hopeful you can hear this request, and understand that, that is my motive for making it. This is not censorship, it’s a request that you make something happen because at this time we need to get behind the project. And that is what most of us here are here for.


Whoa…you culled the first part of Warren’s sentence to suggest a different intention.

@Warren clearly indicated his preferred wish for DIrvine to “clean it up”, failing this to shut it down (and start again is my reading). Warren in no way stated he wanted to shut down free speech.
This is the kind of thing I’m on about…it’s yet another straw man!

My arguments are on principle and it’s not personal - I said this when I spoke to you and all other mods. I could turn your statement around and ask why do you not trust/believe me?
It is (some) mods who keep trying to make this personal. Why not just address the arguments - my experience has been that whatever I’m arguing is “taken” as personal and often arguments are mis-represented, dishonest arguments made etc. This can be supported by evidence.
I do know you, yes…and you know me…do you think I’m just totally talking out of my arse or saying what I say for any other reason than that I have serious concerns about the structure of the forum because of the potential inherent dangers. My preference would be for mods to take my concerns seriously, address them, put measures in place in regard to mod recruitment/website ownership and address where modding is falling short ie - get on the ball with the “reasoned argument” bit - this is a potentially disastrous thing to ignore and to actually engage in it as a mod raises different concerns and leaves yourselves open to not only accusations, but will lose the mods credibility - same thing with the recruitment process.
I feel your hurt feelings and it upsets me a bit…it’s not about that. If anything it’s the opposite intention - sort it out, take me seriously and we can all move on.


1 Like

I have one simple question to ask and would like a clear answer please from the mods:

“Why was the Meta category moved?” :smiley:

1 Like

That’s done in several topics:

“On topic” citations should stop"
“Let the Users decide if something is off topic not the mods!”
“Proposal: Simplify Moderation, Accept it or Vote on it”
“Request for consistent moderation towards reasoned arguments”

You got a lot of arguments and opinion from almost all mods.

Yup, that’s already done in the topics above. You got a lot of replies to all the points you made.

This was answered before. You replied on it:

Link to the topic.

1 Like

No, I quoted the whole sentence, but just the part of the paragraph I was responding to.

My arguments are on principle and it’s not personal - I said this when I spoke to you and all other mods.

I didn’t say it was personal. I didn’t say I don’t trust you either, or disbelieve you. I said what I said. If any of it needs clarifying, let me know, because most disagreements are I think about mistrust and misunderstandings that arise out of it.

It is my understanding from things you and @Warren have posted, that you don’t trust the mods are doing what we say we are (you recently questioned my explanation of how we deliberate for example) or that we are genuinely trying to reflect the community’s wishes, with regard to how we do what we do. I don’t understand why that’s the case, as I explained.

I do know you, yes…and you know me…do you think I’m just totally talking out of my arse or saying what I say for any other reason than that I have serious concerns about the structure of the forum because of the potential inherent dangers.

As I said above, I’m very surprised, even shocked. Also, I don’t have an explanation for you not being willing to accept the existing process and yet, still not be willing to seek support from the community to make changes you believe are necessary. That’s what I would do. I accept you and I differ in this respect, but I really don’t know how to address your issues, without finding out if the community wants the changes you feel are necessary.

I’m not actually clear what you want changed - I could speculate you might want mods elected, or even no moderation, but I’m not sure, and I’m not sure if you and @Warren even want the same kind of changes. And what of others’ views?

My preference would be for mods to take my concerns seriously, address them, put measures in place in regard to mod recruitment/website ownership and address where modding is falling short ie - get on the ball with the “reasoned argument” bit - this is a potentially disastrous thing to ignore and to actually engage in it as a mod raises different concerns and leaves yourselves open to not only accusations, but will lose the mods credibility - same thing with the recruitment process.

Ok, so this is where we are. This is what you want doing, but firstly, I don’t agree with everything you say here and I don’t know how many people do agree, disagree, or don’t have a view.

So this is what I think you need to do: work out and propose - yourself or in discussion as you wish - what changes would address these issues. This needs to be specific IMO so people can ask about them, what X means, why, what might work, or not etc, and refine if necessary, and then take a vote.

I guess you have some objection or problem with doing that, because you haven’t done it, but your alternative (which I quoted above) is not sufficient for me to make those kinds of changes for the reasons I’ve given.

Not reasoned arguments in the main and I wasn’t particularly interested in the mods opinion.

It was not answered there unless the answer was because the mods thought it was “a good idea” - was that it…seriously… I’m now getting bored of this now tbh. It’s a very simple question.

So what was his statement about then in your opinion, just out of interest? I don´t think it was about shutting down free speech either, but certainly it was about addressing one person having a special authority about content, isn´t it?

And what does @dirvine think about the forum? Does he think as well that mods are hypocritical and do not provide any transparency? Does he believe that this forums needs to be “cleaned up”? I think a statement could help to put these discussions to rest?

Just one question to @moderators since I lack of knowledge about that: who pays for the forum and who is the legal host of the domain. It´s not Maidsafe, is it?

1 Like

That’s the only point that matters here - so why make out it was?

It was about re-structuring the forum, issues around Community input to mod recruitment (to avoid any potential accusations of “clique” forming behaviour and to give legitimacy to the authority given to mods). You would have to ask Warren about what his reason for accusations of hypocrisy, but in my own view it would be because mods do all the same transgressions as they are judging others on.

That’s part of it, yes and leads on to the structure aspect about website/forum ownership etc.

Is that a good idea at this point? It would be a possible distraction from important work I think. Maybe we should thrash this out some more first, then as suggested, the Community can come up with ways to address the identified issues and come up with a proposal to vote on. Nothing to do with guidelines though.

That’s one of the issues :smiley:

1 Like

Ehm, I wasn´t so why make out I was? Would you mind talking to me when i am talking to you? Thank you.

more precisely…restructuring the forum by the ideas of one man (who - as far as I see - has pretty much no increased interest in doing so).

YES, it is. Normally I wouldn´t say so, but @dirvine and his SAFE philosophy have been quoted as argumentum ad autoritatis several times, so, yes, it would be a good idea.

What does that even mean? “The Community” won´t come up with anything. Only individuals will come up with something and until now I didn´t see any concrete proposal. Unless you, @Warren or whoever thinks that stuff is handled badly by the moderators come up with some concrete proposal that either forum members can vote on (pretty problematic due to ghost accounts) or the administrators can decide about it´s just talk.

You said it was Maidsafe, may I ask you for your sources? I came late to this forum so I may have missed it.

It’s all 100% community which is great. There will be bumps in the road, I believe the mods do a huge job and yes be great to pay them for their effort if we had cash and if it was not seen as a MaidSafe takeover of a community thing :frowning:

I have tried many many things to make everyone equal in the company which is similar and I know 100% it’s excruciatingly hard to hold on sometimes and stick hard to the road to help everyone, sometimes even as they make amazing accusations. I have had investors try and take over a company, managers try and kill a company (so they get government 3 month payout for redundancy), people demand shares, people demand to be board members, staff accuse me of all sorts of things, all while I have been head down trying with all my effort to make the project work and let everyone benefit. Even in MaidSafe there have been some crazy accusations that would hurt like hell if I could not see them as a person crying for help via lashing out. These are people who did not fit and that is also cool. It all happens when you are not paying attention to peoples feelings and instead getting the job done, some folks need a lot of time and talking, others don’t so when there is a lot to do and work to be done folk feel scared and left out. Every team sees this, every single one and I think every community will, except communities sometimes attract destructive influences that only want destruction, so it’s amplified. I don’t think we have seen that here yet, but we will.

Maybe the forum will have to split at some stage to an app/developer/SAFE specific one and maybe a more general purpose one, I don’t know, but I know the software here is not sentient and needs humans right now. I think we have an amazing bunch and I don’t agree with anyone all the time either, but that is what makes it great.

I for one cannot thank the mods enough so far and having come through slashdot/reddit/bitcointalk even I fully understand how these things can get killed and I am also acutely aware there are folk employed to kill such places. Lets all be stronger than that, I am pretty sure we are and as communities evolve then who knows, we may have the first forum that breaks through.


@Al_Kafir made his points clear in another topic. Here’s the quote:

I replied to all f them. Here’s the link. Others where free to reply as well. And a number of members and mods did. So to make all these points again and again in different topics is not good for the discussion IMHO. More like posting the same opinion over and over again in different topics.

I didn’t say you did. :smiley:

No, I’m pretty clear and think I have been pretty clear too

Let’s just keep it to what I have posted, because I can’t answer for Warren and we’re not in agreement on everything…lol. Yes I questioned how much deliberation went into removing the meta category (as it appeared to be done rather quickly) I also quoted a “nope” given immediately as an answer from another mod to a request I made. These are reasonable questions with reasonable grounds for inquiring further.
Look, by framing it as “Why don’t you trust mods/individuals etc” really is missing the point. You may as well ask DIrvine who he doesn’t trust to come up with a trustless Network - it’s the same reasoning. We shouldn’t have to trust individuals insofar as that is possible. Mods need more legitimacy for the positions they hold - they can only get that from the Community, not other mods - do you get me?
I’ll ask you the same simple question I asked Polpolrene - why was the meta category moved. Be careful here…:smiley: …you know me…

I believe it is yes and no. Originally both were @David’s, but MaidSafe began paying for hosting very early, and when @David ducked out, I think the domain was taken over by @frabrunelle. The “official” position though is that it is not owned by MaidSafe, just supported, and that it belongs to the community at least in spirit though legally an individual owns the domain (maybe @frabrunelle).

To decentralise control I think @ioptio is the main admin though, along with @frabrunelle who actually does the work AFAIK.

Hopefully they will correct anything I’ve got wrong here!


This is just spamming the same question over and over again. @happybeing already gave a very long reply to this question:

And now you ask him again, why??? Just read, he already gave you the answer.


Thanks @polpolrene for the link to @Al_Kafir’s post, but that’s not what I’m asking for.

I believe it needs to be specific enough to be voted on. That can be a suggestion with a request for feedback to make it something to vote on. But what @Al_Kafir has done is said what he wants, and left it there, with the implication he thinks we mods should then do what he has proposed. Because? That’s where I’m stuck!

So I’m asking @Al_Kafir, and/or @Warren and/or anyone who wants the mods to do something, to go through that process, and not just expect us to address a shopping list, or act on a particular item in it, without demonstrating support from the community for what is to be changed, and how it is to be changed.

@Al_Kafir I explained I don’t know why you are not doing that, but you have chosen not to address that. Fair enough, but you now know I’m not going to do what you want just because you keep repeating the same points. That’s not helping anyone.

We’re going round in circles, and I explained several times now why I don’t think there’s anything I or the team can do to take this forward. The ball is in your court, and it’s time to do something different if you really want something to change. You obviously believe it’s important, so come on! I’d actually appreciate it, really, even though I disagree - you might well be right. Let’s find out.


I asked you and you linked to a different non-answer, I asked Happybeing and now see his post - hardly over and over…

There wasn’t an off-topic previously was there? I thought this came about because I lobbied long and hard to have all the topics removed that were “blotting out” discussion of the Safe Network itself - in the face of massive opposition from mods as I recall. So could you please explain how discussions about the Network forum are “blotting out” discussions about the Network more than all the ridiculous threads we used to have everywhere?
Are you saying that you had to do it there and then, not earlier and not after discussion had finished, but during it? Did you not during your deliberations think this needed community support first or that there would be any objections?
You moved an ongoing conversation concerning modding to a place where it would have a much smaller community audience - effectively shutting it off.
If by your own admission the meta category is hardly used then why not wait for the discussion to just die/end?
What exactly in that discussion was any more “blotting out” than numerous other threads?
The meta category by your own admission would not normally “blot out” conversation about the Network (as hardly used) so we can definitely 100% infer from that that it was something to do with that particular discussion why the topic was removed. Otherwise, with all the careful consideration the mods put into things, the topic category would have been removed a long time ago.
All the circumstantial evidence would point to an unconsidered and knee-jerk reaction in my view.

Lol…I’m addressing the community, not the mods…this is the major bit none of you get…lol

Actually meta issues are not at all related to the network, they are only related to the forum and that´s mostly relevant to (active) members, not to the people who are just checking in to read about SAFE.

Let´s be clear, what you are implying is that moderators were moving the topics away from the frontpage because they disliked the opinions, when moderators justify the action with the functionality of the forum. Apparently you want moderators to admit that you are right. But what if you´re not? I don´t see how further discussion will solve this conflict.

1 Like


I’m saying the circumstances and timing under which it was moved could certainly give that impression. Just that fact alone indicates to me that possible community objections and “how it looks” were not given due consideration, which suggests a knee-jerk reaction…to something.
Anyway, aren’t we now “blotting out” more Network conversation here? :smiley:
If meta is now considered to be off-topic and treated as such, then why wasn’t it placed in off-topic? Is meta off-topic or not?