Quote from: actmyname on December 11, 2019, 09:37:47 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on December 11, 2019, 09:10:12 PM

-snip-

This is where I will step in.

You're trying to get people to be transparent in campaign rules to ensure fairness (i.e. equal opportunity) and that's a commendable thing, kind of.

But the issue here is that we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really... and they shouldn't have to be utterly transparent in everything they do. I want you to try a simple thought experiment: start tunneling down to the intent of your transparency, start asking questions like "why do this?" and let me know how the results flow.

I need not investigate my own intentions other than I see no reason for us not to make things as transparent and provably FAIR as we possibly can and to roll back subjectivity and room to abuse where we can. I would ask you conduct your own thought experiment and start investigating your support of NON transparency and No rolling back subjectivity and room to abuse. Let me know how this goes for you.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at regarding this. Motivation should be irrelevant only the merits of the plan for the entire forum should be considered, neither my own or your own personal gain/loss.

Now it seems that nobody has presented any NEGATIVES of making things more transparent and fair. Certainly they have not debunked the positives because that would be impossible.

It seems nobody has debunked the high risk to the honest members by NOT making it more transparent and fair.

They only seem to be saying IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR.

However in saying this they are also claiming the members here have NO RIGHT to only accept projects that are not deliberately choosing to put them at higher risk and also have no right to be treated fairly.

I disagree. It would only take perhaps a handful of people that will not accept projects and campaign managers deliberately putting them at far higher risk of being scammed to ensure it was in the projects best interests to hire campaign managers who behaviors can stand up to public scrutiny and therefore NOT being deliberately putting the boards honest members at far higher risk of being scammed.

I see no rebuttals to the negatives of NOT having transparent rules. I see only people that are currently benefitting from the lack of transparent rules claiming they don't believe it is fair that they have to compete fairly against other members.

I will say this may NOT apply as strongly to actmyname as it may other members since it is quite conceivable that he could compete fairly and still retain his sig.

I see no debunking of our central points at all. I simply see a bunch of excuses to keep the status quo that benefits them in place.

This is the same for merit and trust. This is the issue with it being discussed in META. META is a concentrated bunch of people that benefit strongly from the status quo so any suggested changes to the status quo are immediately non beneficial to these members. Hence even though there is STRONG negatives for the majority of the board for it to remain as it is which they are unable to refute they will still find any excuse not to change it.

Here the only excuse is we have no right to ask for all members to be treated fairly. We have no right to order them to change. However we clearly have the right to voice our opinions en mass regarding their proclaimed right to treat the majority of members unfairly and perhaps endanger them financially deliberately.

When you start to understand that without transparent selection rules and that they can allocate positions to who they want for whatever reasons they make up, then you start to realize that they are saying they clearly set you up to be manipulated and scammed.

That's fine but if you want to deliberately set people up to be scammed through market manipulations then your project can clearly be classed as dangerous and tainted. Else why not choose to go transparent and be scrutinized.

I have no idea why you are asking me to present my own intentions. It really has no bearing on things. Things are either transparent and fair and open to public scrutiny or else they are private, backroom, gamed, abused, and unfair and perhaps deliberately deceptive and scamming. They will be what they will be regardless of the person suggesting or seeking to prevent.

think every member here has the right to prefer and state preference for fair treatment and more security against getting scammed. The key is transparency. Scams thrive behind the curtain, pull the curtain away and let in the day light and those sucking the blood of honest members soon scream out with excuses and indignation.

I mean do you have the right to NOT be scammed?? if you say no we do not have that right then why punish scammers? why not reward scammers? why take any action at all to prevent ? why have default trust? Do we have the intrinsic right to read valuable posts??

This is larger than having the right to be paid 2 post. There are many other implications.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree on the ALTs part. I see you feel alts should be allowed. Again though there I think you are not considering all implications of this.

It is a shame we so often find ourselves on opposite sides of things actmyname, still makes for better debating that if we have to suffer those that are clearly lacking in the capacity for reason. At least a worthy challenge and some effort at presenting a thought process that can be followed.

There is nothing snide there for your personally actmyname. I believe you are a fan of playing what they may call devils advocate, this is not a bad thing I suppose. It is good that you seek to help us close any holes in our proposals or points.

Some of what this thread seeks to discuss seems to have been touched upon here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205864.0

for further reading.