OK, what you on about?


Not really. Imho he just loves to play devil’s advocate troll-ishly.


I don’t need to, and I’m immune to it, btw.

I semi-predict a “grand exit” as a last resort


“Any notion”…very interesting. Apparently you are the dictator of semantics :wink:


Lol…good on you, building up immunity to my psychological warfare… :smile:[quote=“bluebird, post:13, topic:9324”]
I semi-predict a “grand exit” as a last resort

You’d be semi-wrong then. I will remain until I am permanently banned and I will fight them on the beaches until then. Being the first person to be banned in defence of free speech, de-centralisation, accountability to the community and transparency would be the only badge worth having on here…I would wear it as a badge of honour. :smile:


Where is this info coming from? Is there a link? Please share, I’ll like to submit my bitcoin address :yum:. I never heard of anything like this.


Lol…it was in one of the “Meta” category threads when I was asking if any mods/owners had any ideas about how to improve transparency, accountability to the community and de-centralise the power structure back to the community. There weren’t any ideas suggested as far as I can recall, but I do remember Fabrunelle suggesting the idea to pay mods was being floated. I wondered at the time where the money would come from as only option seemed to be the community somehow or maybe advertising.
Really can’t remember which thread, but I’m sure Fabrunelle can recall the exchange.


Wow…“fight”…you really work hard to prove your appearance as a loudmouth ;). I find it kind of ironic you are using high values such as freedom of speech as an excuse to reject any sort of social responsibility. While all of what you say and said about the forum sounds as if you are 100% in the wrong place it´s obvious you will never move to a different place let alone run your own forum because attention is more important to you than those highly appraised moral values. Remain until banned? Pretty sure you would come back even if banned, so…


Not semantics, just reasoning. Any notion/reasoning/argument in defence of this forum being community run, that can also be used in exactly the same way by an actual dictator to describe North Korea as “community run” clearly fails. It would have been more accurate for Happybeing to describe the forum structure as “Totalitarian in spirit”.
Anyway, I won’t respond to your descent into name calling as clearly that just demonstrates you have no further argument to make,.


:wink: (20 lovely chars)


Yes, I mentioned the idea in this post:

It’s nothing more than an idea :slight_smile: I don’t think we need to do that now. But it might be something to consider once the community is significantly larger.


So, you are suggesting “we” could introduce a Democratic system but only once the community is bigger. Could I just clarify that by “we”, you mean private owners, rather than “we” the community.
Let me just outline my concerns:

  1. Introducing Democracy would not seem to be dependent on the size of the community. What is the reasoning behind this, the optimum size and why etc?

  2. If “we” are the community, then 1 above applies and I see no reason for why not sooner rather than later.

  3. If “we” are private owners, then the reason for growing the community first on the promise of some Democracy at a future date would make sense to consolidate incumbency advantage.

If 3 is true, then the argument for delaying Democracy based on size has to be a very good one, otherwise it could be seen as misleading the community potentially for ulterior motives. I’d just like to rule that out and hear the argument. :smile:


Can you please clarify who the private owners are that you keep referring to. You said previously that it is not MAIDSAFE the company.

Honestly it is making it difficult to follow your reasoning without this information.

As far as I am concerned the one paying for the forum each month and the one who asked for it (and supports it) are all the same entity which is MAIDSAFE the company.


By “we” I mean people who are active in the SAFE Network community.

for example, one way to see if a member is active is to look at his trust level. currently there are 68 users who are trust level 3 and 353 members who are trust level 2.

personally I prefer focusing my energy on the launch of the network and helping with documentation.

as @polpolrene said many times:


Some nice points here, but you failed to reply to my concerns about making a forum like this “Democratic”. I’ve pointed out several issues here but you didn’t address them. So if you want a forum to be 100% democratic, at least address the practical problem that shows up. Otherwise it’s just asking for change without a way to implement it:

As you want a democratic forum so badly, you at least have to come up with a practical way of doing so. As I’ve shown you several times, there are problems to be addressed if you want to implement that. But you never came up with a response to that. I hope you will this time.

Thank you :thumbsup:


Great…is this the definitive answer…that this forum is affiliated or owned in some way by Maidsafe? This would be the first time I’ve heard this. There has been a definite indication that all things “SafeNet” or “Community” or all the crowdfunds/apps etc are distinct from “Maidsafe” the company. So Maidsafe actually endorse the non democratic, centralised system here?
Well, that would definitely give me an answer as to whether I belong here or not - so please someone just confirm, then I’m out of here.[quote=“frabrunelle, post:24, topic:9324”]
By “we” I mean people who are active in the SAFE Network community.

Ah…so is this a different and opposite answer again to the one given by Neo?

So what you are saying is that you exclude “non-active” members by your own definition of what constitutes “active” and by your own definition of what constitutes the “Safe Network Community”. You have also apparently devised a fool proof system of how to know you can trust people which I find incredible - and all without any algorithm - congratulations. So basically the “we” is a select group of people that can be trusted, according to your criteria and your argument is that you have to wait until you can trust enough people with their Democratic vote…stunning… :smile:
Let me summarize:
The private interest/trusted members of the community (synonymous with the 1%) are saying to the 99% that only the trusted elite currently have a vote, but once they can be trusted, then the 99% may also be given the vote too?
Please acknowledge that you are not including the vast majority of even the forum users in you “we the community”, but a much smaller group.[quote=“frabrunelle, post:24, topic:9324”]
personally I prefer focusing my energy on the launch of the network and helping with documentation.

Why don’t you do that then and retire your interest in the forum?[quote=“frabrunelle, post:24, topic:9324”]
If you want us to do things different, feel free to write a proposal :thumbsup:.

Don’t worry, its coming…right after I’ve taken @happybeing up on the following things:[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:34, topic:6049”]
All I’m basically asking is is the current system the best system we can think of to make modding more accountable and transparent to the community - I say not.

Where would you like this to happen and when @happybeing? Just one thing though, firstly, if this is a private forum, then how would the result of the community decision be binding? Also, you seem to be of a different opinion to Fabrunelle regarding the desirability of Democracy and a different objection - I would like to hear this objection and the rest of your defence of the system.[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:37, topic:6049”]
I have a desire to be a mod only in as much as it is worthwhile for the project and the community, and I believe the community is the best judge of that.

Great…[quote=“happybeing, post:41, topic:6049”]
I think the community needs to have a vote to decide whether to elect mods, but at this point we first need to hear the arguments for and against, so let’s have the debate!
OK…let’s! I’m still getting very confusing info here - I need to know if Maidsafe own are are affiliated in any way to this forum - its important.[quote=“polpolrene, post:55, topic:6049”]
It means Maidsafe wants to focus on building their project and have people from the community run the forum while they provide the money to run the thing. So in a way it is community "owned’.

Yes, I fully get that Maidsafe don’t want to involve themselves with anything to do with running a community forum, so would prefer that the community organise it themselves. I am saying that the “community” have had this forum organised for them and are being dictated to by an un-elected elite that cannot possibly represent the community because the community has had no input in anything -guidelines/mods/anything!
Maybe answering this 1 question may help clarify things. Please if you answer nothing else, answer this:

“Who hired Happybeing as a volunteer mod?” - everything leads from this.


I was simply giving an example. The trust levels New, Basic, Member and Regular are granted automatically by the Discourse software as explained in this post. If we (the community) want have an election for moderators and allow users to vote, we (the community) need to agree on who should be able to vote.

I completely agree with @polpolrene :thumbsup:

I think it could be interesting to do some research on finding Discourse forums that have moderator elections and how they do it exactly. Here is what I found so far:

  1. RingPlus forum (now deprecated): https://discourse.ringplus.net/t/moderator-volunteer/10322

Everyone who would like to volunteer to be a forum moderator, please post here https://discourse.ringplus.net/t/moderator-volunteer/1032280 The body of Volunteer Moderators will be determined as follows: (1) the three Members with the most likes from other Members (therefore chosen by the Members), and two Members chosen by RingPlus.

  1. Tek Syndicate forum: https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/moderator-elections/94346

we’re in need of a couple of new moderators. we’ve selected 2 candidates from the existing leaders, Eden and Novasty. this isn’t a one or the other sorta deal, so just tell us whether or not you’d think they would be good mods.

These are definitely not the best examples, but that’s all I could find. It would be nice to find a Discourse forum that uses the poll plugin for moderator elections. If anyone is aware of other Discourse forums that have moderator elections, please let us know :slight_smile:

Also, here are some relevant discussions from Discourse Meta (the forum where Discourse is developed):

Another thing to keep in mind is that Discourse is planning to implement a feature for “category-specific moderators” in their upcoming release (version 1.6). There is no a lot of details about how they will implement it yet, but it seems like this feature could be useful to get more community members involved in moderation.


Ah so no answer, did you just make it up?

I clearly gave you what I understood, not a definite answer as you insinuate.

And the rest of your words are based on faulty reasoning.

Why conflate two separate issues to make some problem. Just so you can argue?


I don’t agree, there was full consensus on several people becoming mods and admins. It can be found here in this topic:

And look who liked the topic:

So you fully agreed @Al_Kafir that @frabrunelle was becoming an admin. At that time @David was as well. And Happybeing showed he was willing to help as well. This was the last reply from David:

This post is from november 1, 2014. So to be honest, you are a bit late with your complaints. And to now start bashing mods and volunteers here is not fair IMO.

Fist of all, “everything leads from this” is another falsehood bashing Happybeing. He was a mod, just like Francis was and he offered to be a backup admin as well. If you want the answer to your question, do your research, I think David asked several people to become mods. That’s not David from Maidsafe but a volunteer who started this forum for the community.

And like I expected, you didn’t answer any of my questions on how a democratic forum could work with votes etc. So you like to bash around, without coming up with a proposal to do things different.


@Al_Kafir s whole reasoning is based on a “no true scotsman” version of democracy and avoiding the inevitable question how “the community” can constitute itself: He can easily point at the tangible evil “elite”, but not at “the community”, so he decides not to bother discussing that trifle.

Democracy without a sufficient way to uniquely identify members of a particular group is a contradiction. But hey, let´s not discuss that and spout about high values, freedom of speech, whoohoo. #hypocrisy


Nice one :wink: (20 chars)