Topic: Impeachment: Is Greg Maxwell the best choice for being a mod in bitcointalk? (Read 518 times)

I'm bumping this thread up for an obvious reason: Gregory Maxwell is getting more aggressive and weighing in more on every single issue on the tech sub with harsh and bold statements and abuses his power to censor out every single voice that he finds noisy because of his pure extremism.
I've already made my case against one of his misdemeanors and I'm now insisting even more on him as being the worst option for moderation in this forum.

Hereby I'm asking him to step down and use his exemplary expertise and knowledge about bitcoin for pursuing his agenda rather than the artificial power of moderation.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54005842

Come on Greg! You don't need it, step down and show up as a strong, respected user and an honorable warrior.

Aren't insinuations that someone isn't fit for a job insulting if they aren't backed by anything solid?

Re: AnonyMint - didn't he get banned for derailing threads all the time to the point of everyone's annoyance? In such a case I don't see how theymos would want him as a mod.

Generally speaking, you are right but not in this specific situation. Greg is an extreme case, being a critical asset for bitcoin, should not be exposed to such risks considering his established ideological points of view and the harsh and confident tone.

That's an honest appraisal of your arrival

Stop telling people what to do for 5 mins and either join the debate or leave it.

Lock the thread then. You already have cryptohunter here and this can only go downhill.

You are claiming that tecshare was complaining about mods bias BEHAVIORS (therefore preventing optimal flow) and that it did not matter if what tecshare said was TRUE and was still a good thing they (mods)were not removed. Either that or you are misrepresenting that his posts are being deleted due to their bias. There is action taking place in his complaints not just theory it may take place. I don't think he would be so worried about their bias pov if he did not believe his posts are getting deleted as a direct result. Hence preventing optimal flow.

Yes, don't reply and legitimize a valuable post that would be dangerous.

Anyway the op has said he will not present clear examples of evidence to support his wider suggestions so that will likely result in the end of the thread. People if genuinely interested would need to research and form their own conclusions.

Anyway it would seem we are in agreement on the general acceptable conduct of moderators if we drill down and if you were more clear or described a scenario as it actually is in its full context.

Thank you, people, for being ALMOST calm and reasonable, it was beyond my expectation 

To be crystal clear:
I won't give any evidence neither support any such evidences to be presented here. It would be very insulting and irritating otherwise. Please forget about rehashing the same argument over and over, thanks again.

I've never argued against this particular point you're making.

I just think that even someone with strong particular views can still be a good and well-functioning forum moderator.
Obviously, if their views cause actions that infer with the somewhat "standardized" content moderation policies, eg "censoring" opposite views, action should be taken.

--
This was not what i argued in the first place, so +1 for misquoting me.. I probably shouldn't even legitimize you by responding to this, but whatever.

That's because you are low functioning. I mean the point of moderation is clearly to ensure the optimal information is retained and anything net negative is removed. So of course if they have strong political views that prevent that taking place then IT MATTERS. There will always be a small influence of bias that is impossible to avoid but the extreme moderation bias that is undeniably taking place in some areas of the forum need to be taken in hand.

Speculating on the OPs motives for creating the thread especially in such a negative light is a poor reflection on you not him.

His point has some validity and should be freely discussed without people screaming trolling and making other speculations regarding his motives.  I just don't think you can remove people like GM from the tech forums as a mod  (even if there are some clear examples of bias) nowhere near as easily as removing lower functioning mods from other less important sections of the board. This would be a complex decision and to balance things up adding someone of equal or near the same skill level with views that have previously varied from GM's.

The problem with meta is people tend to want to close down ANY discussions that challenge the status quo regardless of their REAL merit.

We voiced our counter opinion to his own, and suggested something different, and he took the time to evaluate and merit, showing he has a far more open mind (and clearly far more advanced mind) that your own.

@aliashraf

I'll admit I'm not technically savvy in the digital sense, I'm relatively new to the forum and to bitcoin, and I'm unaware of the politics behind your request.  All of those things probably make me and those like me your best chance of drumming up support for your quest.  I'v had no interaction with you or Gregory Maxwell, so I can assure you I will approach the debate without any bias.  

So please, by all means necessary do go into the details.  Provide your evidence and present your argument.  At this point I tend to agree that you've presented your request without providing any substance.

But.. But.. it is.. the only thing that matters... (andd oh so slightly)?

I think we've had this discussion in the political section as well a while ago where, i'm not sure who it was, maybe TECSHARE? accused mods of bias, mainly due to them supposedly (maybe they were, i'm not sure, it doesn't matter anyway.) being on the opposite end of his political spectrum, and thus would have some sort of bias. Nothing ever came off of it, (and perhaps, probably rightfully so, as almost everyone has their own opinion about certain things..?), so good luck with this attempt of yours where you can't even conclude *subjective* examples of bias.
--
I don't see what someone's political affiliation alone has to do with his functioning as a moderator (or any public function really..). Is he trashing all of your Bitcoin cash/contrarian topics? No, right?

---

This thread to me feels like you just want to be some sort of contrarian again for attention, but that might just be me.

I'm saying it is not a sect.
I suppose a minimum level of education is needed here, you are right tho, you better stop.

So you claim that there are no honest people and then write some unrelated blah-blah about people having divergences? Really?
I'll stop. You are definitely trolling and I won't feed the troll any longer.

I do agree. But Greg is too much of a dev and he is more usefull as a usual poster.

Where are you when we need you? Yes indeed if people refuse to drill down and have their opinions scrutinized but insist on still voicing them over and over as valid rebuttals it is TROLLING. Not that alia is a troll at all really, they are known to be quite a good poster by a few quality members. He is just painting in broad strokes right now, he likely will drill down eventually. Perhaps just testing the waters first.

In this case though, GM should likely not be removed as moderator since he seems to be only concerned with the tech based forums where his knowledge and skill is likely suitable and who else can really be in a position to moderate what is valuable and valueless noise. I mean surely that is the moderators job to ensure the valuable information (for the entire movement and all members) remains and the valueless and net negative junk removed.

Of course many mods are corrupted by their sigs, and keeping in with those that control those sigs and have influence over other rev streams and desirable positions. I don't see GM being one of those bottom feeders and requires no such back scratching.

The best thing may be to add an moderator with (equal skill level or as near too as possible) that has not such a strong incentive to push in one direction. Possibly a skilled developer that has been known to voice opposing views and pushing in a different direct to GM.  That could balance things up but could cause a few issues too.  In the tech areas ( arguably the most important area (well meta should be very important but is fucked beyond all help now)) one must tread carefully and with diplomacy. Extremely smart people can also be kind of super volatile also. I also notice super smart people tend to get super angry when confronted by other super smart people rather than your general bod who they feel are of no real threat.

I just don't see how you can sensibly moderate a forum optimally unless especially a tech specific forum without being one of the smartest and skilled people there. So how many other options do we have that are near that skill and knowledge level in the essential fields that have been known to take a different view to GM on certain things that is not instantly going to ensure both parties get upset and leave.

When you only have a very limited number of people that can push things forward in certain areas then it can be hard to replace them, so it takes a lot more consideration than replacing the drooling tourettes suffering morons that you can switch out on other boards with immediate net benefit.

To be fair, when previously a friend of ours spoke directly to him he seem pretty courteous and pretty clear minded even when in clear opposition to his point.  He seemed the sort of person that would totally explain and justify his actions. Of course that was one anecdotal experience. If you have others where you believe he is super heavy handed or the bias is net negative then you will need to present those instances for review. Specifics as always must be analysed before the correct action can be taken.

Perhaps bring anonymint back and make him a mod there with GM, he could fit the bill perfectly. I'll bring the pop corn. haha  or what about we throw craig into the mix for like the big brother celebrity edition. That should even things up. Then nobody else would need to even post, could just enjoy the tone and odd funny and clever insult here and there since the rest would be beyond the understanding of 99% of the other members.

No impeachment vote here for now. Since we carry such sway here with theymos,  that will obviously be a load off for GM.


edit - i see doomad already stolen my prime point, time travelling scoundrel.

 

If we adopted the rationale that developers can't be mods because it's a conflict of interests, we'd lose both mods of the Development and Technical sub.  Personally, I'd rather see devs in a mod position of that particular board, because they are best suited to know the difference between genuine technical discussion and "technobabble".

Even if he's biased, I don't even think that's such a bad thing for a moderator on technical boards about Bitcoin on a forum about Bitcoin to be biased in favor of Bitcoin.

I thought there was no lead dev 

Bitcoin is not a sect and there is no such thing in the universe: a sect named honest Bitcoiners.

Bitcoin is ways more decentralized in terms of culture than in technology(exclusive client software, pools, ASICs) it is because of divergence, without divergence, there would be no bitcoin ecosystem. Remember what you have been taught in high school and college, human beings and mother nature have paid enough for this lesson and it deserves to be taken as serious.

I thought Linus was the lead dev.

For Your (and other users posted above) Information:
I'm not campaigning for "moderacy" neither any "liberal" party in this site and more importantly: I have no time for such stuff. I just said what I think everybody is already aware of:
Gregory Maxwell is the lead developer of the client software that is, almost exclusively, used in bitcoin, he has enough power to follow his visions and philosophy both personally because of his expertise and socially because of his social capital. He doesn't need a moderation position in this forum to do or not to do anything about bitcoin.

On the other hand, Bitcointalk is not the official site of Gregory Maxwell neither a representative of his visions. Reserving "bitcoin" brand for the legacy/not-forked blockchain with its huge market share is best practice and has nothing to do with any biased moderation policy in this site, IMO and it is the most favor bitcointalk could and have ever done for Core devs, i.e. Nothing!

So, bitcointalk shouldn't look like being "their site" because it is not! It is what Greg understands and puts him in a bad situation: Every move he makes as a moderator in this site is considered a political move and he needs to re-think it over and over. It is not good for Maxwell neither for bitcointalk.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even get to the point? How's that different from trolling?

Hmm... Something is a bit fishy.

From what I know, Greg's interest's are basically the same as the interests of any honest Bitcoiner.
So going by your logic no honest Bitcoiner would be OK for the moderator tasks.

If you want Maxwell impeached as a forum moderator and at the same time you do not want to go into details as to why he should, neither do you want to deliberate with the community based on facts as to why he should step down.

Then I think you should send a private message to theymos, he is the only person who can act on such request, also you need to lock this thread because when you bring forth this sort of argument to the community, you need to go into details, argue on it and try to prove beyond reasonable doubts the facts you'd have presented, but obviously you've presented none.

Lemme guess, he banned franky from dev'n'tech because he talks a load of crap. He rubbished anonymint to the ground because he talks a load of crap. You are worried you'll be next because oh yes you talk a load of crap.
Instead of looking to get gmax to 'step down' why don't you take some action you can control, namely, stop talking (a load of crap) and start studying so that one day you can make a coherent argument.

Honestly, i am not even sure what the purpose of this post is. You are trying to show that you are not against Gregory Maxwell and yet you seem to be against him in other parts of the post... Basically it's just a mixture of emotions. Maybe because you are scared of a backlash or something like that.

My point is why even bother making such a post on Meta if you are not ready to produce more details about your claims?

If you are also not ready to get different reactions from people then i don't think posting in Meta was a clever idea. Maybe PMing Gregory Maxwell asking him to step down would be a much better idea... right?

Just a quick and short entry here.

It's just a forum and Theymos and Cyrus own it, they decide who will be a moderator, so basically there are no public ellections, you can't impeach anyone, the only way is to convince the admins that he is on the wrong way, but I really doubt they will bite it.

I don't want to go into details either, I don't want to come with evidence that are clearly supporting my point of view and refuting your concerns as I deem it all unnecessary, but I ask you officially to .....stop!

Without going too far into any of these pesky "details" that you're so against going into, would you care to explain what specifically you think Gregory Maxwell's professional interests are, and how they are in conflict?

Let me get this straight:

1. You won't provide any evidence of why he is a biased moderator, and

2. You refuse to explain yourself any further.

That's not really a strategy for winning over minds.

Hi,
I'm not starting this to attack Gregory Maxwell, on the contrary, it is about praising him.

Gregory Maxwell is a techno/political icon and a legend. He has full rights to be biased in favor of or against any single topic in the bitcoin ecosystem, actually, he should be biased, otherwise, who is in charge of taking care of hypes, FUDs and scams?

My point is, such a figure doesn't need any authority in this forum to do his job as a think tank, and this forum doesn't need a biased moderator on the other side.

I understand; bitcoin is money and money was born with blood on his hands but believe it or not, bitcoin needs to evolve and nobody is in charge of its evolution path, it is not Ethereum, there is no Foundation and no Vitalik neither any stupid roadmap in bitcoin because it is not a project. It needs space and opportunity for divergent ideas and out of the box thinking.

I don't want to go to the details and put forward how Greg's biased point of view is affecting his job as a forum moderator, it would be absolutely unnecessary, it is not about this or that evidence supporting or refuting my concerns, it is about a general situation we are dealing with: a conflict of interests.



Edit: I'm not and won't be campaigning for this to happen, please don't terrorize me or try to make me quite. I have no plan to argue about what I said and won't answer stupid attacks by shills.