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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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?
Posted via D.BuzzI can pull from #HiveBlocks if needed
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