Until the fork to hive we didn't have a free platform, it was ruled by the one I won't name with an iron fist.
Some folks act as if he was still here, and who knows, he may be.
I wouldn't have left, entirely.
Hivekings is down, I can't look up what the one's complaints were, but the first one needs thicker skin, iyam.
This is a crab bucket, getting him to quit means more for the others.
He will likely do well, if he regularly puts out 'good' content.
If anybody wants input on what happens with most flaggots, all they have to do is join the discord servers, or tag people in posts, and they can have their input.
Don't kid yourself that all the posts don't get read.
Nor that all the yellers are justified in yelling.
You have to decide for you what is right for you to do.
I can't do it for you, nor should I.
Conversely, you can't decide what is right for me to do.
You get your say on the matter, if you are involved that much, but you telling me what is right or wrong for me is not possible due to the variance in viewpoints.
It is physically impossible for me to see with your eyes, nor you mine.
Now, we can lay odds on what is politically acceptable, but that is a different topic.
For the record, the political process can't determine right from wrong for me for the same reasons.
It can decree off with my head, but that doesn't make it right to do so.
nobody is suggesting they're ALL "innocent".
i'm merely suggesting there should be, at the very least, some attempt to PRETEND each and every person "accused" is given a "fair trial".
Even the most brutal dictators in history held mock trials.
What we're facing here feels more like JUDGE-DREDD.
So, if the trial is held away from your knowledge, does that mean that there was no trial?
Any community responses to abuse are well documented.
Flaggots gonna flag.
Welcome to the current iteration of the hive.
Harsh, but mostly fair.
Anybody with specific complaints should tag me in a comment.
Oh, are you talking about my very own "trial" in secret, on discord, where I was presumed guilty and was forced to prove my innocence ?
Or are you talking about @akiroq's very own "trial" where they were blacklisted because of some other "bad actor" and they were never even told about it and were forced to beg for mercy for a "crime" they knew nothing about ?
And then, even after the blacklist was removed, after groveling on discord, they were still not given any details about how or why they were blacklisted in the first place ?
They said, "your account has been associated with another account that has been sanctioned" but they wouldn't say which account that was.
WE'VE DECIDED WHAT YOU'VE DONE QUALIFIES AS A "CRIME" AND WE'VE DECIDED YOU'RE GUILTY AND WE'VE ALREADY PUNISHED YOU BEFORE EVEN TALKING TO YOU AT ALL - - BEG FOR YOUR LIFE IN OUR SECRET KANGAROO COURT IF YOU "HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT"
And then when I ask, "why exactly is this considered a crime" they respond with "FUCK YOU TROLL".
Lol, can you link me to some of that?
https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@akiroq/my-spaminator-blacklist
Making the sausage is not something most sausage eaters want to do.
The personality types it takes to make good investigators are sometimes lacking in other desirable personality traits.
This is why it is sooo important that everybody take part.
I wasn't paying much attention during the time referenced.
I'd hope that the experience would vary today.
You got any more of those?
I can certainly coerce you if I control enough accounts and wield the requisite stake.
Doesn't make you right, just powerful.
I'm not sure there's a detectable distinction when coercion is involved.
Most people think it's "wrong" to "break the law" (even when there is no moral justification for a particular law).
So, whoever can effectively control the text of the law (and the enforcement mechanism) de facto creates "right" and "wrong" out of thin air.
Effectively, yes.
Objectively, no.
As long as force is a factor there is no right and wrong, only a struggle for survival.
Well stated.
https://billyjack.com/
POLITICS = POLITIA = POLICE
POLITICS is an argument about who controls the POLICE (enforcement mechanism)
Politics is human interactions and how to predict them.
Politics doesn't end with the end of rule by force.
It just loses its fangs.
(IFF) force is part of the equation (THEN) controlling the mechanism of force is the primary aim of politics
POLITICS = POLITIA = POLICE
No.
Not all politics is about controlling overtly.
I prefer to put better ideas out there and let folks control themselves.
Given good info, they will do better than any centralized power structure absent an armed attack.
Which they also should be hardened against individually.
Behind every blade of grass is a free thinker that refuses to obey, in a free society.
(IFF) force is part of the equation (THEN) controlling the mechanism of force is the primary aim of politics
Even in an "anarchist" or "decentralized" framework, POLITICS is about jockeying for social status in order to increase influence over "the rules" or "the code" by gatekeeping.
I'm sure that is the most common use of the art of politics, I'd suspect that it is used in far more mundane ways much more often.
When asking dad for a raise in allowance you don't choose right after he has come home in a drunken rage, eh?
Rule by force adopts politics as a means to diminish the exposure of the iron fist in the velvet glove.
In the days of the kings we wouldn't be allowed to express ourselves as we do as the penalty was likely death.
An anarchistic society still has hierarchies, they just can't control others through anything but better ideas.
Anybody seeking what could be termed power would be suspect and closely watched for rbf tendencies.