Reply to allegation/warning made by moderators

Continuing the discussion from Safe Exchange is switching gears:

Sorry, what am I being warned for here again?[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:12, topic:9370”]
The answer is that the operators of it and their “volunteers” are holding completely incompatible positions with many conflicts of interest, such as modding the forum, whilst promoting particular projects
[/quote]
That’s what I actually said, I stand by it, and it is factual.
Please remove the warning and stop mis-representing what I say.

I am now going to flag this post:

…from 3 days ago, by a main author of your guidelines, whilst in a thread mainly populated by mods, hand picked for their modding ability and objectivity…did this escape all of your attention, or does it seem all fine and dandy to you?
I would suggest that it is everything that you wrongly accuse me of.
It “blackens” my name, it is an un-substantiated claim and basically mud slinging. When asked to substantiate (in full view of mods), here: [quote=“Al_Kafir, post:10, topic:9342”]
Perhaps you’d like to correct my “inaccuracies” in order that you see them - right here…right now… :smile:
[/quote]
3 days have passed, he’s still posting so not fell off a cliff or anything,
Do you see anything wrong with you being able to make allegations that blacken my character in public, yet my “right to reply” has to be out of main public view btw?
Explain yourself Sir! :smile:

All projects related to SAFE are allowed to create a topic here on the forum. We also allow all of them to do a crowdfund as well, and looking at the likes an replies, mods support the idea of people doing a crowdfunding here on the forum, while at the same time we don’t take any responsibility for coins/money/wallets and more. We just allow them. Does that make sense? And in some cases you see mods involved a bit, like me reading the website text for Project Decorum before the crowdfund to look for typo’s and help out Seneca a bit that way. Did I had more info than the rest here on the forum? Nope, I just know as much as you do after you read his topics. Same for others helping there and then to support people. Mods are active members of this forum, that’s why we show up in projects as well. Go to the Ethereum Reddit and you’ll see the same names from that community pop up as well. That’s how projects like this work. I really don’t understand why you call that conflict of interest. You make it look as if we ban 1 project and allow another. That’s not the case. We’ve seen 4 crowdfunds so far, and all was/is open to anyone reading in on the topics.

1 Like

What you “actually said” is actually blackening the names of anyone involved with the forum, but the context whichin you said it includes so many more people.

Unsubstantiated blackening of names of people who “like” (incl David Irvine), showed support in a post, helped in any way (eg proof read), allowed topic in forum, etc etc of any of the projects/apps being developed.

That is what the FUD warning was about.

And I see that again you do not answer the question and substantiate your allegations but turn it around to appear as the underdog. This just shows you are spreading rumors of corruption without substance.

EDIT: And of course you topped off your FUD with this and this created the “warning” to substantiate

2 Likes

MOD EDIT: Split from Safe Exchange is switching gears

Lol…you only just took away my right to reply above! You “warned” me and made false allegations based on twisting my words -blackened my name here publicly. But if I want to defend myself from these allegations, then I have to go off the front page to do so.[quote=“culexevilman, post:29, topic:9370”]
but my intention was to prevent more financial losses incurred by unknowing bystanders.
[/quote]

A commendable intention, shared by myself.[quote=“culexevilman, post:26, topic:9370”]
lol tells you who owns the forum, def not the people…
[/quote]

You can say that again, but it was sold as such - “community run”.[quote=“culexevilman, post:25, topic:9370”]
I am still alive and here in SF anyone wished to know ALOT MORE of whats going on, please feel free to contact me.
[/quote]

Is a PM OK?

Cheers

Maybe in your view of things. But honestly I told people where to look for your reply when you made it. But you never did. I didn’t blacken your name as you were eager to do here to others. No more replies from me here and I am happy to reply in “off-topic” category if and when you substantiate you claims of corruption. Again I am pointing people where to look for your reply. No censoring or blocking you, that is simply misrepresenting the truth and blackening my name by innuendo

The closest was this post, but it was not substantiating anything but discussing you being the underdog again

I am not …and you’ve just done it again! Who have I claimed is corrupt? Corruption is avoided by transparency byw - something I argued endlessly for on here for - to no avail and is still sadly very lacking…

1 Like

As you say this is going around in circles. Your post that started this is all about corruption and by your statement[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:6, topic:9395”]
Corruption is avoided by transparency byw
[/quote]

you only confirm you were talking of corruption.

BTW, I did not move the posts, even though I agree they should be because they are off topic and fit in this thread of yours

Here’s just 1 example.

It’s not very helpful, not improving any discussion and not in line with the FG. You make very strong claims about people (mods in particular) without any proof and even while people are transparent in posting publicly what they do for a project. It makes your replies get flagged all over the place from community members that say you are making personal attacks. And when we act as mods it’s called North-Korea and censorship or whatever. Why not making your points without blackening the names of people? Criticizing things is okay, same for calling for transparency. Blackening people’s names is not.