Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:28 am

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

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.

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.

My own observations and feelings:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

So these are my thoughts.

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.

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.

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.

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:So far so good.This sentence sounds extremely arrogant. So he is apparently the expert whose opinion matters on this. He is saying itmore akin to a war-zone, not that itmore 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.OK. Note: what follows is subjective.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.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.Fair enough.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?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?I agree, and I think Roger has the absolute best of intentions.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.Seems fair enough to me.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.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.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.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.