I appreciate the thought behind the post. I will have to disagree mildly with this part:
" if your post is mean-spirited or bashing on our mission, team, or implementation, just go"
The problem is, who gets to define what "bashing our mission and implementation" is? If the implementation has problems, I say go ahead and bash it. It's when projects only have "yes men" attached, do they truly go off the rails. "Bashing" is really in the eye of those who feel slighted. IMO. the project has made some funky decisions, and it's stirred things up in the community. Am I being negative feeling that way? Maybe.
I'm not suggesting people bring bad attitudes to their posts. I am suggesting that anyone who thinks they know exactly what appropriate criticism is and isn't, is probably not speaking for everybody. The problem is nobody can seem to define the edge where valid criticism becomes unproductive. There's a whole gray area between cheerleading and being slovakia. We should make sure and no alienate anyone who feels alienated, that they are heard. For those that just want to post nonsense let's just smile.
If Christianity and any of us here are so thin-skinned that we can't take some bashing, then maybe our little coin isn't ready for top 200 yet? I don't get why we get so thin-skinned among ourselves, and hope to change the world?
When people get down to "love it or leave it", it's usually a sign of some serious problems. Nobody wants baseless negativity, and nobody really wants censorship either. I'd like to see us take criticism in stride with a genuine smile and interest. Fighting negativity only gives it power. Let the mods do their cleanup, and let's press on.
Thanks, I like your points, and agree, none of us should be so thin skinned that we can't take things personally.
I do have an idea that would go miles here. I don't know if its a pet peeve of mine or not, but bear with me.
One of the biggest things that gets under my skin is a half-true post - something that the person didn't verify and they post it here (which is nefarious) because its deceptive. Its unlawfully trying to get a response from the group, and deceiving investors while we wait.
An example I saw in SX recently was a few of our banned members got together and said that I bought 25 more sancs so that I could vote on the mid-tier sanc consolidation poll and win. Whats funny is the whole thing is questionable; they dont know that I actually bought them, they dont know my correct wallet total and they should not be concerned about it to begin with (as foundation funds dont go through it), and I dont need 25 more to win anyway (as it is already above 8 anyway), then they went on to say that in the past I use to steal orphan funds from the foundation and they are now suing me for it personally. So I am saying, what kind of character is that? Derelict character, people who want to spread lies about us to damage our rep.
Even one ounce of a lie is not welcome here. The post should be syntactically correct and 100% true. If its not true, it should be a QUESTION. Then the response will be constructive.
So its not about being thin skinned in this case its about being Accurate.
The same happened a long time ago when inblue posted something that I was hiding proposals. We all know now that this rule only affected pool.biblepay.org's display characteristics for a replacement poll. It was never for the core wallet (core wallet has never pulled any proposals from an API ever). And it was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. Then I saw some kind of "proof" in the post with txid's showing that I hid the first proposal. Yes, it was proof that two proposals were in the system and both were able to be seen in the core wallet. The latter one was valid for voting.
So as an example, if inblue said "Hey Rob, could you please explain why I see this first instance and this instance"? I would have never deleted the post. It was written like "you bast***, you have now been Proven to be a Liar!". Btw, I have already forgiven him for that as can be seen in the QT thread.
So this is an example of how most character problems start here, I think we all need to hold ourselves to a higher standard before clicking send.