Someone points out to you that someone in your community published someone else's content and got some rewards for it, then after being warned they go on and again publish a dubious painting. I point out that they are still doing it because it's a professional painting including a signature, and you kept defending him. That's why I assumed you were just willing to defend your users without being objective.
I guess that's true (unless they just coordinate to vote each other - no one would notice since they are only shared in your community and muted for everyone)
I said "lies again", I posted proof in the other thread. Weren't they lies at the end?
Yeah, but if they coordinated to vote one another, it wouldn't pass the $0.02 HBD threshold (And if they mustered up the stake & sophistication to breach the $0.02 HBD delegating to @dlease or using @dbuzz as inteneded would be easier)
Again, you are not speaking professional here and are assuming that I playing dumb.
Posted via D.Buzz
Someone points out to you that someone in your community published someone else's content and got some rewards for it, then after being warned they go on and again publish a dubious painting. I point out that they are still doing it because it's a professional painting including a signature, and you kept defending him. That's why I assumed you were just willing to defend your users without being objective.
No, I didnt still defend him after that.
I also told you that, but it may have got lost in the threads.. again, it's not necessarily the rulings I disagree with but the language you use.
Posted via D.Buzz
I agree it seems like he lied and that he shouldn't he curated.
It might also be good to make a specific Mutelist for people who plagerise content like that.
But replying:
It's unprofessional and gives the appearance of a school yard fight vs. Moderating.
Posted via D.Buzz
covering our eyes does not solve the issue, they still milk the pool
That's not what I said. I said "lies again":
How can they milk the pool if no one sees it? Most of the people you are referring to have 0 to no HP to selfvote.
Do you remember using the word "Liar!" to the person in question, after he said the image was his?
I can pull from #HiveBlocks if needed
Posted via D.Buzz
I guess that's true (unless they just coordinate to vote each other - no one would notice since they are only shared in your community and muted for everyone)
I said "lies again", I posted proof in the other thread. Weren't they lies at the end?
Yeah, but if they coordinated to vote one another, it wouldn't pass the $0.02 HBD threshold
(And if they mustered up the stake & sophistication to breach the $0.02 HBD delegating to @dlease or using @dbuzz as inteneded would be easier)
From what I can tell, yes.
Posted via D.Buzz
#2b Okay, I remember something different but I do misread things sometimes.
If #Logic is so far to the left, assuming guilt even before their proven guilty, I am the opposite.
Posted via D.Buzz