Mods: Keep your opinions to yourself (split from BS&T Home thread)

[drakahn]

I can think of no legitimately ethical investment that ceases to be profitable based on the number of investors.

was that a reply to me?

I meant in the case that "EVERYONE" withdrew (and got their coins, proving its not a ponzi), leaving pirate with only his own BTC and demands he can no longer fill

[1714891418]

1714891418

[1714891418]

1714891418

[1714891418]

1714891418

[1714891418]

1714891418

[1714891418]

1714891418

[repentance]

I think its important that moderators and anyone else that is meant to be trusted is very loud with their opinions, Its easier to spot a rotten apple when the worms are on the outside - and if they really do feel it is a scam they should post the same as everyone else

having said that i would appreciate a way to distinguish what is being said between personal and professional, forum mods (edit: as in modifications, not moderators, lol) being the pain they are and separate accounts being overkill, perhaps just sign 'site related' posts as '-staff' at the bottom (it wouldn't be a problem to forget to sign, as long as important posts are signed and personal opinions aren't) ... but even that could just be a treatment for a non-existent problem

It's easy to distinguish it by typing mod comments in a different colour/font or by enclosing them in [moderator hat on]/[moderator hat off] tags.  For the most part, the mods around here do mostly house-keeping stuff and don't sanction people in public.  I think the default assumption should be that they're posting their personal opinions unless otherwise indicated.

I've been part of a couple of communities which restrict mods and admins from posting as normal posters and I believe those communities are poorer for that choice.

[drakahn]

I think its important that moderators and anyone else that is meant to be trusted is very loud with their opinions, Its easier to spot a rotten apple when the worms are on the outside - and if they really do feel it is a scam they should post the same as everyone else

having said that i would appreciate a way to distinguish what is being said between personal and professional, forum mods (edit: as in modifications, not moderators, lol) being the pain they are and separate accounts being overkill, perhaps just sign 'site related' posts as '-staff' at the bottom (it wouldn't be a problem to forget to sign, as long as important posts are signed and personal opinions aren't) ... but even that could just be a treatment for a non-existent problem

It's easy to distinguish it by typing mod comments in a different colour/font or by enclosing them in [moderator hat on]/[moderator hat off] tags.  For the most part, the mods around here do mostly house-keeping stuff and don't sanction people in public.  I think the default assumption should be that they're posting their personal opinions unless otherwise indicated.

I've been part of a couple of communities which restrict mods and admins from posting as normal posters and I believe those communities are poorer for that choice.

I would be all for [moderator hat]text[/moderator hat] tags, as long as a tophat gets added to any text within

[brendio]

I can think of no legitimately ethical investment that ceases to be profitable based on the number of investors.

I can, assuming you mean amount of invested capital rather than just the number of investors:

A bank. A bank takes in at-call deposits and then loans funds out long term, for stuff like people buying houses. All their liabilities to depositors are covered by assets (loans), but if 50 % of customers suddenly withdrew their money, the bank wouldn't be able to provide it because they can't suddenly make their borrowers sell the houses they bought with the bank's money and pay it back. They would suffer a liquidity crisis, even if the bank is completely sound.

It's the same with pirate. Everyone withdrawing all at once and causing delays in pirate being able to pay out does not automatically mean he's running a Ponzi (although a Ponzi would show the same effect). It could could just be that his assets are not liquid enough.

[imsaguy]

I can think of no legitimately ethical investment that ceases to be profitable based on the number of investors.

I can, assuming you mean amount of invested capital rather than just the number of investors:

A bank. A bank takes in at-call deposits and then loans funds out long term, for stuff like people buying houses. All their liabilities to depositors are covered by assets (loans), but if 50 % of customers suddenly withdrew their money, the bank wouldn't be able to provide it because they can't suddenly make their borrowers sell the houses they bought with the bank's money and pay it back. They would suffer a liquidity crisis, even if the bank is completely sound.

It's the same with pirate. Everyone withdrawing all at once and causing delays in pirate being able to pay out does not automatically mean he's running a Ponzi (although a Ponzi would show the same effect). It could could just be that his assets are not liquid enough.

The exact same holds true for any of the mining bonds and the like.