btcdrak to moderate /r/btc.. we're screwed

[BlockStreamDirtyPlan]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3 ... _become_a/

[kerneldump]

This would be classical Simpson D'oh! moment.

[chriswilmer]

Roger, it would be great to hear your side in this...

[chriswilmer]

@rogerver

Can you "tag" users on this forum? Is the notation above correct?

[arnoudk]

@rogerver

Can you "tag" users on this forum? Is the notation above correct?

I think you can (ab)use the quote functionality. I agree that tagging users like you did is more intuitive.

[Windowly]

I would be curious to hear Roger Ver's side as well. I was a little surprised by the tone of btcdrak's post over on the /r/btc and it seems I was not alone in the concern.

[kerneldump]

First ban of the day by btcdrak

http://i.imgur.com/WyWOT9K.jpg

More to come...

Time to look for new reddit sub?

[arnoudk]

First ban of the day by btcdrak

http://i.imgur.com/WyWOT9K.jpg

More to come...

Time to look for new reddit sub?

Oh wow, I actually quite like hellobitcoinworld - he has interesting things to say and is worthwhile listening to. Very sad to see power abused, and incredible to see that happening on day 1 of btcdrak's moderation 'rights'. Guess it did not take long for power to corrupt.

[Windowly]

Wow that's really discouraging. I liked him as well. He had lots of good posts and comments.

[arnoudk]

There's a nice catch22 situation in the moderation of bitcoin spaces I guess.

I would not be surprised if many people who like bitcoin dislike authority (in varying degrees from minor nuisance to supreme hatred). I think that is healthy, you should not position yourself as someone's slave - literally or figuratively - and listening to someone because they 'have authority' is not a virtue. That's what public schools and (unfortunately) most parents teach. When an 'authority' steps into a situation where people get together who dislike authority, and announces 'his supreme powers' - he is going to get rejected. It only makes sense, and this really should be happening to all 'supreme powers'.

If /r/btc is "owned" by Roger, then he can of course do with it as he pleases. He then is the owner and everyone else is visiting his property. He then has the right and ability to give power to whoever he wants, to look after his assets. This argument is only valid if he is the owner. I am not sure if clicking on Create and Next a few times to create a reddit amounts to ownership - or whether the people who create the content are owners.

In the latter case, I really do not know how to 'crowd moderate' it. All I can think of is that everyone can moderate - and that each user can choose whose moderation input he will listen to. For example, we could do that on this forum quite easily I think: if I can somehow enable a 'enable moderation' for a user - and that user clicks on a 'moderate down' link for a post, then I will no longer see that post (but on'y because I trusted the moderator myself). Someone else will still see him. If I trust multiple moderators, and one moderates a post, and anotherone likes a post -then I am not sure what should be done (maybe a setting).

[LiteCoinGuy]

i dont know much about this user. can someone give me a summary?
i know he was involed in the Viacoin (scam?)...

but banning a user because of nothing might not be a good decision for a place like /r/btc or this forum

[BitcoinGuides]

i dont know much about this user. can someone give me a summary?
i know he was involed in the Viacoin (scam?)...

but banning a user because of nothing might not be a good decision for a place like /r/btc or this forum

Drak has been in the BTC game for awhile. Active on Twitter, BitcoinTalk, Coinmarkets & whale club team speak.

Via wasn't necessarily a scam but there has definitely been some controversy over use of the ICO funds. I think many people felt mislead by Drak's intentions for Viacoin now that price is in the gutter, but it is normal for bag holders to feel that way.

I don't know why he was chosen but to be honest he is probably more qualified than most of the btc community.

[BitcoinXio]

Hi all,

I'm one of the mods in /r/btc, this came as news to me as well today, as the other mods. However, for the reasoning on why this happened I will let Roger chime in if he wants, as it's up to him to let the general public know why he let btcdrak be a mod. But I'd just like to say, I welcome btcdrak and anyone else to be a mod in /r/btc.

The thing with reddit is they have very good tracking and moderator tools. So it's quite easy to see if a moderator is abusing power or not. I've already been speaking with btcdrak directly all morning, as well as other /r/btc mods, and we're all on the same page on moderator style and what should be and should not be moderated. We can always look at the mod log and see how a moderator is doing. If a mod is ever not performing up to standard moderator ethics and morals, then they will be removed as mod. This goes for all mods, not just btcdrak. In addition, users who are just there to troll and cause chaos, won't be users there any longer either.

The important thing is to create a place that is safe and inviting for everyone to come and discuss bitcoin. Nobody is perfect, so making the sub a place for people to come and talk about bitcoin takes time.

[chriswilmer]

I think a lot of people feel "unsafe" with btcdrak as a mod, in that they feel they might get banned for saying the wrong thing... which is really the *entire point* for moving away from /r/bitcoin in the first place.

[Windowly]

Hi all,

I'm one of the mods in /r/btc, this came as news to me as well today, as the other mods. However, for the reasoning on why this happened I will let Roger chime in if he wants, as it's up to him to let the general public know why he let btcdrak be a mod. But I'd just like to say, I welcome btcdrak and anyone else to be a mod in /r/btc.

The thing with reddit is they have very good tracking and moderator tools. So it's quite easy to see if a moderator is abusing power or not. I've already been speaking with btcdrak directly all morning, as well as other /r/btc mods, and we're all on the same page on moderator style and what should be and should not be moderated. We can always look at the mod log and see how a moderator is doing. If a mod is ever not performing up to standard moderator ethics and morals, then they will be removed as mod. This goes for all mods, not just btcdrak. In addition, users who are just there to troll and cause chaos, won't be users there any longer either.

The important thing is to create a place that is safe and inviting for everyone to come and discuss bitcoin. Nobody is perfect, so making the sub a place for people to come and talk about bitcoin takes time.

Is it possible to get hellobitcoinworld unbanned?

[BitcoinXio]

Hi all,

I'm one of the mods in /r/btc, this came as news to me as well today, as the other mods. However, for the reasoning on why this happened I will let Roger chime in if he wants, as it's up to him to let the general public know why he let btcdrak be a mod. But I'd just like to say, I welcome btcdrak and anyone else to be a mod in /r/btc.

The thing with reddit is they have very good tracking and moderator tools. So it's quite easy to see if a moderator is abusing power or not. I've already been speaking with btcdrak directly all morning, as well as other /r/btc mods, and we're all on the same page on moderator style and what should be and should not be moderated. We can always look at the mod log and see how a moderator is doing. If a mod is ever not performing up to standard moderator ethics and morals, then they will be removed as mod. This goes for all mods, not just btcdrak. In addition, users who are just there to troll and cause chaos, won't be users there any longer either.

The important thing is to create a place that is safe and inviting for everyone to come and discuss bitcoin. Nobody is perfect, so making the sub a place for people to come and talk about bitcoin takes time.

Is it possible to get hellobitcoinworld unbanned?

He has a temp ban for 7 days because his discussion went immediately to trolling by not being constructive telling btcdrak to "go away." It's this type of discourse that is bad for the community. Instead of hellobitcoinworld responding in an intelligent thoughtful manner, he became upset and emotional and didn't want to discuss the issue anymore. Again, it's a temp ban and he is welcomed back after 7 days provided that he doesn't troll others and respects everyone. We are all humans and deserve respect from one another.

[BitcoinXio]

I think a lot of people feel "unsafe" with btcdrak as a mod, in that they feel they might get banned for saying the wrong thing... which is really the *entire point* for moving away from /r/bitcoin in the first place.

People are free to speak their minds provided they are not intending to harm emotionally (or physically) or cause chaos. We've seen many people create several threads with the sole purpose of disrupting the sub.

[joel.dalais]

To be fair;

It was a 30 day ban, not a 7 day ban, yourself (bitcoinXIO) and other mods changed it to a 7 day ban.

If this is not already a red flag, then well, you guys need more slaps with red flags to be able to notice them.

I won't be posting anymore in r/btc for the same reasons I do not post in r/bitcoin anymore.

It is (or now will be) extremely censored towards small blocks, barring discussion of alternatives, disagreements, or similar.

Regardless of his views, or whether or not he his legendary among moderators, having the same moderators in the various social media outlets (of the same topic) defeats the purpose of multiple social media outlets!

You also effect the level of trust in the outlet, obviously part of the reason people joined /r/btc was because they started lacking trust in the information they were receiving from /r/bitcoin. Making mods of /r/bitcoin the mods of /r/btc does not help this trust factor.

And in my personal opinion, the 30 day ban for telling someone "go away" is stupidly harsh, the 7 day ban is also extremely harsh.

Clearly you know that moderators, especially on reddit, need to have (or develop) steel skin. If his reaction to the "go away" (and yes I read the 1 post/comment before that) is a 30 day ban, then you have one hell of a moderator ...

Edit: Correction, btcdrak is not a (or ever was) a moderator of /r/bitcoin, however my other points stand and that r/btc has just become a controlled echo chamber for r/bitcoin.

[kerneldump]

btcdrak as moderator is a BIG mistake.

In any case, you can ban me as well from here and /r/btc (make it permanent please).

Don't underestimate Network Effect


btcdrak "Go Away"

[nanarjan]

Ditto

btcdrak "Go Away"

[Melbustus]

Just unsub'ed from /r/btc. This is unacceptable, and I'm voting with my feet; just as I did with bitcointalk (where I'm a "Legendary" member who used to spend *a lot* of time there) and /r/bitcoin.

Hopefully Roger will realize that *users* of /r/btc do not want this, and that management should listen to users if they want to create demand for the product.

FWIW, there's an awful lot of not listening to users going on in Bitcoin these days, and it's one of the only things that tempers my general bullishness for Bitcoin overall right now.

[Acidyo]

i dont know much about this user. can someone give me a summary?
i know he was involed in the Viacoin (scam?)...

I am also interested actually what is up with the way people are talking about the new mod. What's the history?

[creationlayer]

Calm down folks. Nothing is permanent.

To paraphrase our team in general, if there is an issue with how /r/btc is run it will be dealt with swiftly. It's best to keep judgement within the context of /r/btc, not necessarily the past.

Drak is involved with core development, and a variety of projects and as such seemed to be knowledgeable about the space.

Please give a bit of time and I have faith in the others that any and all major issues will be dealt with regardless of who is involved.

[creationlayer]

i dont know much about this user. can someone give me a summary?
i know he was involed in the Viacoin (scam?)...

I am also interested actually what is up with the way people are talking about the new mod. What's the history?

To speak respectfully, I believe his way of expressing opinions was harsh for some, to paraphrase other comments. This doesn't mean he can't take this role seriously and act within the role. I think rather than cry wolf here, maybe providing some suggestions for the scope of moderators would be helpful.

Regardless the feedback has not fell on deaf ears, although I'm not a mod, I know a number of folks that are moderators, and I have faith they will keep /r/btc a great sub. Please understand that it takes a bit of time for mods to get acquainted and adjust and for feedback and concerns to be weighed.

I would ask don't unsubscribe just yet, users have just voiced their opinions and unlike /r/bitcoin I think feedback is not ignored in these situations.

[arnoudk]

I am also interested actually what is up with the way people are talking about the new mod. What's the history?

I'm probably not the best person to answer this specific question (I dislike reddit, so I hardly ever visit the site and I do not have an account there).

But I can tell you how, in my opinion, his first post was an unfortunate start. I'm not sure reddit (or most of the internet for that matter) is a place where people forgive very easily, regardless of how fair or unfair btcdrak is, and regardless of what he has or has not done for bitcoin (which is probably more than most of us here!)

I think btcdrak has the best of intentions and may not realize how his post - which I am sure was meant well - is interpreted. That is why I spent quite a bit of time breaking his post apart and giving feedback on how I read and interpret it.

So here are my 2 satoshis:

Greetings r/btc,
I have been in discussions with Roger Ver about the state of r/btc and how to make the subreddit a safe place for discussion that promotes Bitcoin, is a source of information for bitcoiners and helps new users.
His vision is to make the subreddit a place where Bitcoin enthusiasts can discuss and learn and for it to be a welcoming place for newcomers.

So far so good.

The current state of the subreddit however is more akin to war-zone and unless something is done to improve the atmosphere, the subreddit will not contribute to the growth and enrichment of the ecosystem.

This sentence sounds extremely arrogant. So he is apparently the expert whose opinion matters on this. He is saying it is more akin to a war-zone, not that it appears to him to be more akin to a war zone. He is making an objective statement about a subjective observation. Not off to a good start. Then, with "if something is not done" he is telling people that their favorite bitcoin place r/btc needs to change, and change fast. There is no respect for the current status quo, it is clear that the current status quo, in the eyes of btcdrak, is terrible.

My own observations and feelings:

OK. Note: what follows is subjective.

What is most apparent is there are two kinds of user here. There are people genuinely interested in Bitcoin and keen to learn and share as much as they can, and there appears to be a smaller faction who are not conducting themselves in good-faith and are intent on injecting negativity at every turn to promote their pet political interests. These people are ruining the experience for everyone else.

When talking about subjective observations, you cannot be talking about "obvious", "there are", etc. Those are objective statements. If he had used words such as "appears to be", "I am convinced that", these statements would be true (subjective statements are always considered true), but he turns them into so-called facts. Then he says "These people are ruining the experience for everyone else". This is provably false, given the number of people who are leaving or unsubscribing. Unless you arbitrarily define who is everyone else and who is "these people" - and whoever you don't like are "these people". Arbitrary boundaries are logically inconsistent. They are also dangerous.

The community has a right to ask tough questions, especially from those who may appear to have more influence, miners, developers, startups, venture capitalists. However, questions should be civil and in good faith. We can disagree with the answers, or not like things without degenerating to hatred or baseless conspiracy theories. It's important for everyone to be open when they discuss. Remember you're talking to other human beings. Remember, you may learn something new, or you might find a new avenue of thought because of an lively exchange. Healthy debate does not have to be negative debate.

Fair enough. However, I do not think anyone has a right to not be offended. People should, I agree, be kind, civil and act in good faith. But there are different kinds of people, with different cultures, and different character traits. Some may have a strong dislike for authority and anyone who acts like "the authority" is bound to have trouble fitting in. Should you be nice to someone who pretends to be superior to you? You tell me.

When it comes to the issue of facts, of course, facts are not always black and white. What is best for the Bitcoin protocol is more about a question of tradeoffs than black and white arguments, although the consequences of a or b may be much clearer, whether it's right or best is not clear. If you follow the academic discussions about the Bitcoin protocol, let's say pre "the blockwarz", you will find a particular way of engaging, and one where authors are always self critical of their own work and ideas.

Fair enough.

It's also time to show respect for people who are more technically experienced.

This is a scary statement. Why are technically experienced people in a nice little group of their own? This statement just created a class structure, very dangerous and who is btcdrak to define a class structure?

If you want to have influence, you need to spend time learning the intricacies. Many of the experts are willing to share their time to explain. When you have more knowledge you may even be the one innovating new ideas or finding problems with proposals. But it's time we all ate some humble pie and not assume we're experts in every field.

Who decides what skillset is needed? Who decides who is an expert? Who decides what intricacies are needed? Who are "the experts" and why are they in a class of their own? I can decide who is an expert TO ME, and I can decide who I want to learn from. But that is my choice. The sentence "time we all at some humble pie and ..." says absolutely nothing, but is akin to talking down to someone, like a parent to a child that is raised in the "because I am your father and because I tell you to" way. Why assume the role of a parent?

Remember, this subreddit is for everyone, it's for veterans and for newbies alike. Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to succeed. Some do not agree with all how he goes about it. However, I am convinced after many discussions that Roger is sincere in his quest to change the world in a non-violent manner with Bitcoin as his "weapon".

I agree, and I think Roger has the absolute best of intentions.

We will not succeed as a community if we are constantly attacking each-other... but we will also not succeed if we dont ask hard questions and allow people to answer. More importantly, we will not succeed if a small group of thugs are able to censor discussion with their decisive trolling.

Although I agree that bitcoin will not succeed as a single community if we attack each other - I am not convinced that this automatically leads to bitcoin not working. There could be multiple communities, all competing. That is also compatible with the original vision of Satoshi - there is a dispute resolution mechanism built into bitcoin - hard forks. I don't think they should be avoided at all costs - they are the tool to resolve conflicts between competing communities. Not the first tool of choice, but the ultimate tool, that people in my opinion should use. And I think that sidechains will allow these subgoups in bitcoin to make different choices while being part of the same bitcoin. I'm very excited about these options. And therefore not convinced that the bitcoin community must have a single voice, or reach consensus on most things. Reaching consensus is in my opinion like politics - guaranteed to fail, and people who like 'house of cards' style behavior will win.

I agree that trolling, or "thugs" can be annoying. But one persons troll is another persons hero. Who am I to say who another person should listen to? And thus, by the same standards, who is btcdrak to decide who I should listen to? So what about a "block user" function that everyone who dislikes a troll can click? And what about being able to identify friends, whose preferences for blocking these people you voluntarily also apply to your account? If I like the way btcdrak does moderation, I will select the option to apply his suggestions. If I don't, I will select the option to ignore his suggestions. Seems to me to be a better way to do moderation than banning people and thus censoring communication between me and someone *I* like, but btcdrak does not.

It is tempting to think in terms of "everyone" - but unfortunately it is naive and dangerous to think any one single person will know what is good for everyone else. Those people, who claim they can do that, are politicians. But I don't think many bitcoiners believe that politicians always make the best choice.

I also ask people not to abuse the voting system as a method of censure. Reddit administrators have already shut down vote brigading rings: use the voting system to promote informative content. Use down-votes against bad behaviour. That way both sides of a debate can be seen, and we can use some social justice to filter out those who are not contributing positively to the atmosphere.

Seems fair enough to me.

So these are my thoughts.

This is a confirmation that everything above was subjective. There should have been no objective statements of fact, or conclusions, in (or based on) that text. And there should have been no statements of action that will be taken, from an authoritative position, based on any of that. Actions should be based on facts, not opinions.

I'm in discussion with the other moderators of /r/btc to see if we can create some community guidelines as a first step to improving the atmosphere here. Trolls, you know who you are, consider yourselves on warning change is coming.

This statement creates another superior class: moderators. So we have "tech experts" that are superior. We have "moderators" that are superior. We have "regular users" that should behave, or else. And we have "trolls", who are in a low class. There is an implied threat here: do what *I*, the superior moderator, like - and I shall allow you to remain a pleb. But do something I dislike, on my "subjective" whim which I shall pretend to be objective, and thou shall be downgraded to troll status.

Overall, my own perspective is it is possible to hold one view while being balanced towards those who hold a different view. Think of it like religious tolerance which you should take into consideration when reading the disclaimer below. I have my own opinions, but I do not seek to censor others, only to encourage an environment of good faith where people can learn from each other.

This sounds like a noble goal, but in my opinion it is not easy to achieve. Be careful, "offending someone" is subjective. So you are basically saying that the ban will not be on objective grounds. I would prefer a list of "logical commandments" and downvoting or upvoting based on following truth and reason.

Disclosures: I contribute to Bitcoin Core and Viacoin. I am championing BIP68 and BIP112 at the moment which will be useful for more advanced smart contracts in Bitcoin and which are also required for Lightning Network. I have funded Peter Todd in Core Development, including work on RBF and CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. I support the Bitcoin Core developers general plan for scaling the protocol as laid out by /u/nullc and I do not support any sense of trying to change Bitcoin by force.

BTCDrak does a lot for bitcoin - and I very much appreciate all that he does. I think his intentions are good.

Then fast forward only a few hours, and hellobitcoinworld is getting banned. That is unfortunate - having the power to ban someone is one, using the power to ban someone is quite something else, and banning someone within 24 hours is just incredible. It would have been so much better if btcdrak had remained calm and explained his point of view - and then asked another moderator to chime in and perform the ban. That would have given a much more balanced impression. Now it appears (to me) as if 'the big hero' comes into an established group to 'bring order'. An authoritarian in a bitcoin group.... quite possibly not the best combination.

This post is not intended to offend btcdrak, but I can see that it might. I apologize to anyone who I may have offended - not for offending them if I have used facts and reason and evidence in a consistent manner - but for causing a feeling of discomfort. I may make logical errors and if I do please correct me and expect a genuine apology to be posted publicly.

[kingscrown]

Is this dev of Via coin ?

[freetrader]

I am also interested actually what is up with the way people are talking about the new mod. What's the history?

It seems the answer is: where to begin?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3 ... _a/cxzph0u

A recent quote by btcdrak, if you're familiar with what happened in reddit's /r/bitcoin where Theymos "owns" the subreddit and is a mod:

"I think Theymos handled things badly: he waited until too late to take action. He should have booted out troublemakers right at the beginning, with zero tolerance. That would have allowed sensible debate from all sides."

/r/btc was basically founded as a result of Theymos' censorship. The new mod seems to endorse the same policy.

[evilroot]

Take a deep breath.

Roger is not online, and has not been for over 24 hours. He will adress this accordingly as soon as he is back online.

[LiteCoinGuy]

To be fair;

It was a 30 day ban, not a 7 day ban, yourself (bitcoinXIO) and other mods changed it to a 7 day ban.

.....

And in my personal opinion, the 30 day ban for telling someone "go away" is stupidly harsh, the 7 day ban is also extremely harsh.

Clearly you know that moderators, especially on reddit, need to have (or develop) steel skin. If his reaction to the "go away" (and yes I read the 1 post/comment before that) is a 30 day ban, then you have one hell of a moderator ...

i agree on that. i would never ban someone for just posting "go away". just ignore it as a mod. what is the problem? if you act like a dictator, you can close that subreddit today.
i dont think Roger is okay with this behaviour.

what i would do now:

1: Cancel the ban
2: Make clear guidelines about free speech

btcdrak should stay but he has to change his attitude 180°.


@arnoudk
thx for the summary. BTC

[freetrader]

Roger is not online, and has not been for over 24 hours.

Guess it depends how to define "online". Here is a tweet of his from 11 h ago:

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/676972700468924416

I would expect he is informed of the events on his subreddit and it would be appropriate for him to react soon.