Community Directory

Re: weekly updates?

@cryptonaut As for the community roundup article.. not sure why that got missed. @rotalumis @cherapple ?

Looks like it got overlooked among the other stuff somehow. Sorry! I'll push it out now. These are usually easy edit jobs, so not sure how it got missed.

Re: Your servers seem a bit slow!

I mentioned this to @cryptonaut yesterday and he's planning to move the database to a different server.

Re: Status Update

Telling me that the article and the title wasn't in sync was good, and was addressed by changing the title.

Please re-read my original feedback, quoted above. I never told you that the article and title weren't in sync. What I did was point out the areas where you needed to expand the article, which as it happens were mentioned in your title, meaning you were aware of them in the first place. Also, I already explained above why I didn't get back to you at the time.

This sort of dead-end back and forth and misquoting what we say is where we give up and get back to the other work that's waiting for us.

Re: Status Update

@crimsonrose

I still have a copy of your original article and can share it here or privately if that will help jog your memory as to what you submitted. As I told you in the comment above, the article was very incomplete and I give you some direction about how to improve it and fix the issues.

Upon getting your remark about it I changed the title as it was then no longer suitable for the content and I rewrote the parts that I thougth you were referring to when calling it draft notes rather than an article.

I made it clear that markets/blockchain was the whole point of using tokens but, instead of putting in an effort to talk about that in some detail, you mentioned buying and selling tokens in a few places and changed the title to remove the mention of the blockchain. Your title was fine. I never asked you to change it, but that was easier than reworking the article properly.

I wonder why you say that "the lack of feedback is discouraging" when you didn't pay any attention to the feedback you got.

Re: Status Update

Hi @crimsonrose

I've just checked my notes regarding article 453, which was originally called "Gaming, Markets and the Blockchain" and I had told you:

The article you have submitted titled "Gaming, Markets and the Blockchain" is not of sufficient quality to be published on LTB and reads more like partial draft notes for a proper article. You also don't talk much about the markets/blockchain part, which would be the whole point of using tokens in the first place. The number of typos and other errors in the document confirm my suspicion that this is a halfhearted effort, written in a rush.

I am seeing a lot of low-quality posts coming in now that they are earning LTBcoin, which I think is disrespectful. I generally don't have time to respond in such cases -- I just wish I could get back the time I spent reading. However, since you've shown a strong interest in the LTB community, I thought I'd reach out this time and ask you to put in a proper effort in the future.

I remember being surprised at how quickly you resubmitted and you said:

I removed the reference to the blockchain from the title (since the blockchain itself is irrelevant to the context) and have made changes to the article to make it less inconsistent.

That was quite the easy way out, especially when I specifically told you to focus more on the markets and blockchain aspects and after reading your article, I didn't feel you had put in enough effort even though you did mention trading a bit more. I'm sure you know that the whole point of using tokens in games is the market and the blockchain, particularly the markets on the blockchain (decentralized exchanges) that make it possible for players to trade tokens even if your game is not big enough to get listed on a centralized exchange. I don't know why you passed on my advice to improve your article, but your apparent lack of interest in your own work is why I didn't get back to you.

Re article 510 "How bitcoin empowers renting and lending", @cherapple says that at the time you had submitted several "how Bitcoin empowers" articles that were repetitive and not very interesting and that when she wrote to you about this, you replied defensively with "that's just what I want to write about."

In the end, another article of yours submitted the same day and titled "An Overview of Applications that Could Be Empowered by Bitcoin" was published instead.

Now that time has passed, I've added 510 to Trello and we'll be considering it. You are also welcome to rewrite and resubmit 453, but if you do so, please make it worthwhile. If you have any questions about the editorial advice you were given, please ask. We're here to help you, but you need to take the initiative yourself.

Re: LTB editing should be de-centralised

@jambo (cc @cherapple @adam @dhimmel )

I'm not usually so blunt, but I want to put an end to this crap once and for all. People like you are the reason why editing gets bogged down, editors get burnt out and progress is not as fast as we all would like. Thank goodness the vast majority of contributors to LTB are professional and respectful.

We have already discussed everything you brought up here in this thread: letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/significant-finding-about-bitcoins-creation-schedule that you have just deleted so you can come back and kick up a shitstorm once again. That sort of behavior speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.

So what now? Am I expected to waste more time with you, responding to your misrepresentation of the facts and outright lies? I can be brief this time as you have already torn your credibility to shreds.

What you don't say here is that your original article was a series of weak and circumstantial arguments claiming that the mathematician John Nash is Satoshi Nakamoto. We didn't think it was responsible to publish that, especially after the whole Newsweek thing but, instead of dismissing you, editor @cherapple worked with you to help you turn your article into something acceptable and worthwhile. @dhimmel and I were also very involved in behind-the-scenes discussions that ate up precious time.

After two full rewrites and tons of back-and forth feedback in between (think of how many other writers had their work delayed just so we wouldn't turn you away) your article was close to ready for publishing when you suddenly blurt out that you didn't think LTB would publish the truth. What truth? That Nash = Satoshi? A comment like that is an insult, not a joke as you are now trying to claim, and I don't blame Cheryl for losing her patience. She tells me it wasn't your first time being disrespectful either.

And now you have the cheek to come back and lie and say that another editor (who was me) told you:

its likely NO editors will be willing to work with me in the future.

What I really told you if you remember that thread you deleted was that I won't force people to work with you if they don't want to do so, but that you could start afresh when new editors come along.

I'm all for second chances when they are earned and deserved, but no amount of sucking up and praising LTB will endear you to anyone if you continue to act in such a disingenuous manner.

For the general record, we current editors are the first people pushing for decentralized editing and the new editorial system ASAP because it will distribute the workload better and relieve a ton of pressure. I am also very keen to see a portion of LTB (maybe not the homepage - that's Adam's prerogative) have Reddit-style user curation where people can post pretty much whatever they like and have it voted upon. All that takes time to build and there are lots of other things that need doing besides.

I have nothing to add except please, for your own sake, chill out a little, let this blow over and don't continue to dig yourself into a hole.