Are the mods getting paid from this forum?

[theymos]

The forum is no longer associated with MtGox in any way.

[Matthew N. Wright]

The forum is no longer associated with MtGox in any way.

Who owns it?

[greyhawk]

I do. Here's the truth: The forum is in reality a giant prank instigated by me to make fun of Bitcoiners.

I'm sorry you had to learn it this way. 

[John (John K.)]

The forum is no longer associated with MtGox in any way.

Who owns it?

Sirius owns the domain, and theymos owns the server.

At least that's what I guess I understand here...

[Matthew N. Wright]

I do. Here's the truth: The forum is in reality a giant prank instigated by me to make fun of Bitcoiners.

I'm sorry you had to learn it this way. 

Did you also make BFL?

[theymos]

Who owns it?

Depends on your definition of ownership. Different resources are controlled by different people. Private Internet Access has ultimate control of the server. Sirius owns the domain. A lot of the money is managed in accordance with the Treasury Agreements, which defines a somewhat more complex organizational structure, though these agreements don't rule the entire forum. I coordinate it all, but I have no ultimate, binding authority over anything except the bitcoins that I hold (and I'd like to reduce this). No one person can permanently shut down the forum.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Who owns it?

Depends on your definition of ownership. Different resources are controlled by different people. Private Internet Access has ultimate control of the server. Sirius owns the domain. A lot of the money is managed in accordance with the Treasury Agreements, which defines a somewhat more complex organizational structure, though these agreements don't rule the entire forum. I coordinate it all, but I have no ultimate, binding authority over anything. No one person can permanently shut down the forum.

No one said anything about shutting down, as you know that isn't the issue. The issue is operating under false pretenses. Saying it can't be shut down by one person simply means honest people will have a hard time calling out dishonesty when they see it.

[theymos]

You asked who owned the forum, and I gave you a detailed answer. Someone who can't shut down a site clearly doesn't own it, wouldn't you say? No one person can shut down the forum, so I like to say that no one owns the forum. Alternatively, you could maybe say that the forum is owned by a corporation-like entity with a very unusual structure.

[BadBear]

Edit: misinformation is the reason to release info ahead of time. This thread could have been avoided with an early release of info.

Maybe. I suspect the result would be same either way, most of the complaints are related to forum policy in general ("you're being paid, why isn't x being done"). This thread has been mostly positive, relative to this forum anyway. I appreciate that most see the value, gives me the fuzzies inside  .
 

[greyhawk]

gives me the fuzzies inside  .
 

You should see a doctor about that, it may be diabetes.

[r3wt]

gives me the fuzzies inside  .
 

You should see a doctor about that, it may be diabetes.

+1

[Matthew N. Wright]

Someone who can't shut down a site clearly doesn't own it, wouldn't you say?

So you're saying the US government owns this site? That's a pretty non-answer you've given.

Would it be fair to say that you own it, but there are others who have administrator privileges and certain steps have been taken to require other people who work for you to agree before a very select few actions can be taken, correct?

[r3wt]

Someone who can't shut down a site clearly doesn't own it, wouldn't you say?

So you're saying the US government owns this site? That's a pretty non-answer you've given.

Would it be fair to say that you own it, but there are others who have administrator privileges and certain steps have been taken to require other people who work for you to agree before a very select few actions can be taken, correct?

actually i believe he's saying its none of your fucking business, in the most polite and respectful way as possible.

[QuestionAuthority]

Edit: misinformation is the reason to release info ahead of time. This thread could have been avoided with an early release of info.

Maybe. I suspect the result would be same either way, most of the complaints are related to forum policy in general ("you're being paid, why isn't x being done"). This thread has been mostly positive, relative to this forum anyway. I appreciate that most see the value, gives me the fuzzies inside  .
 

Forum policy will always be debated. That will never stop at any forum. The problem is that distributing funds collected from the ad revenue generated by a company with a reputation that is, at the very least, tarnished and then effectively hiding it's distribution to pay people we thought worked for free looks really bad. If mgmt wants to pay for work at the forum that's fine. Good for you, most of you deserve it for doing a crappy job. But don't let us all believe this place is for the people by the people instead of just another for profit org. I now have to believe that all the complaints I've read about BFL have fallen on deaf ears because the forum is in their pocket. It could have been handled so much better than it was.

[theymos]

Someone who can't shut down a site clearly doesn't own it, wouldn't you say?

So you're saying the US government owns this site? That's a pretty non-answer you've given.

Logic fail.

Would it be fair to say that you own it, but there are others who have administrator privileges and certain steps have been taken to require other people who work for you to agree before a very select few actions can be taken, correct?

No.

[BadBear]

I dunno, not giving BFL a scammer tag is perfectly consistent with other decisions so I don't get the fuss, like Pirate, Mining United, and the various other long cons. Correlation =/= causation.

I'd be fine with stopping BFL from buying ads just to stop the complaints and any perceived bias, but I suspect we'd see just as many complaints from people who don't want to see any one person deciding what content they should or shouldn't see.

[QuestionAuthority]

I dunno, not giving BFL a scammer tag is perfectly consistent with other decisions so I don't get the fuss, like Pirate, Mining United, and the various other long cons. Correlation =/= causation.

I'd be fine with stopping BFL from buying ads just to stop the complaints and any perceived bias, but I suspect we'd see just as many complaints from people who don't want to see any one person deciding what content they should or shouldn't see.

And here we have the quandary, I no longer know that I can trust what you're saying because it may be biased.

I never said to stop BFL or anyone from posting here, running their own threads or limiting their voice. That's the one thing I really do appreciate about this forum. Their voice will have to compete with all the voices against them. I only said stop paying yourselves with their money to eliminate suspicion.

[Scott J]

Your shtick is getting old man. Like you wouldn't do the same?

No, I wouldn't do the same. I would ask for funds when I thought I needed them, use them for the intended purpose, and if that purpose were to fail, would return the funds as I always have. I understand you think I'm just barking because you don't know me or what I've accomplished in 2 years here in the community, but you're the newbie here, not me. There is no excuse for holding the funds for a year under the guise of a new forum software that has never even begun to be developed.

Haven't you heard?

When BTC goes to $10,000/coin, we'll share the bounty according to post count/sign up date/trust rating/etc.

Can't wait for 2016  

[a1phanumrc]

I only said stop paying yourselves with their money to eliminate suspicion.

Why should they? Ad money from BFL or anyone else is just ad money... Objectively auctioned to the highest bidder. This has not, from what I've seen, caused the moderators or administrator to pull threads negative to BFL. In fact, you'll notice that there are PLENTY of BFL flame threads on the forum.

Now, if they accepted ad money to censor negative threads against BFL then there might be cause for alarm... but I see no evidence of this. Saying you don't trust BadBear or others in charge here is a pretty bold statement when all they've done is be objective about who is allowed to post ads.

In the end we all need to make informed decisions on who we do business with and an ad on the forum without research into the company placing the ad is nieve and the responsibility of the purchasing party -- NOT the mods.

As we say on another forum, if you don't like this place then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[greyhawk]

Didn't Diablo3 get demodded in the custom hardware subforum specifically because he dared to moderate in a way Josh saw as detrimental towards BFL? Or is this an old man's faulty memory at work?