I'm still banned from steemit's github
This is the level of cooperation you should expect when trying to build on steemit if you happen to disagree with an aspect of the software, like its API.
A healthier response might be to ask what's wrong. Oh, by the way, here's my last interaction with anything steem-related on github:
Somehow, I don't think that was deserving of a ban.
Here are my commits:
My issues:
but don't take my word for it!
As you can see I was quite the steem-booster back in the day. I wonder how someone goes from steem-booster to someone who totally loves the ideas behind the site, but cannot really stand to care about it?
Hm. Maybe it's the total hostility.
And yes, I did totally mistake the baroque security setup as a security bug. I should surely be tarred and feathered for that. But since I wasn't banned at that time, well, then-- why? I contribute to a number of open source projects and I've not been banned from any of their githubs. What, pray-tell, was so offensive about asking someone how they built an API?
PS: to steemit admins
The readme I wrote for condenser is out of date, and I can't update it. The readme you wrote for steemd was never up to date, and I can't update it.
back to work on fuz's site.
Update: Please go ahead and resteem/share/what have you.
Oh, and do see my post about ingestron's 0.0.2 release!
So no one should be surprised when I fulfill my obligations here, take my keyboard, and never come back. Ingestron and the front end generator I am pairing it with should be thought of as a service to one person only. Steemit, inc has made it abundantly clear that I am not welcome in their software development process.
Oh, BUT--
I'm going to build this stuff well enough that people will be using it for years to come. And it'll be open source and I don't ban people from any of my repos ever: It completely defeats the inclusive spirit and positive purpose of open source software.
I agree and will contact @sneak in steemchat to ask him why or who was responsible for your ban, no reason was give and it's safe to assume it was not justifiable.
They banned me too, after two 'feature requests'. Let's see them ban Calibrae :)
Did you get any answers?
As always there are two sides to the story, in short he isn't welcomed on the github. I suggest he talks to someone if he wishes to get back, preferably not sneak, someone else, and discuss what he needs to do to mend what I think warranted the ban. I don't want to discuss it because I don't know the story, but suffice it to say that I agree with the reasons behind the ban.
Thanks for the message. I'm a bystander but issues of fairness affect everyone. Good advice also.
Yes, same sentiments here.
Unproductive, accusatory drama posts that fail to assume good faith like this one (and others in your history) are why you've been removed from our slack and github.
Good luck with your altcoin.
Is it policy to disallow users who criticise the platform, up to and including FUD, to contribute to the GitHub projects? Seems quite strict. I read the comments and issues raised by @faddat that were available on GitHub (i.e. any that were not delete) and apart from some somewhat unprofessional language, there was nothing objectionable there.
He's not banned for criticism, he's banned for being a jerk. We've no time for that, and anyone who saps our resources in a similarly unproductive manner is unwelcome.
This post continues the trend. I hope he goes away. I have him muted presently on Steemit and will be spending no more time on the matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule
Thanks for the reply. Well I guess that makes sense if you extend the "workplace" to Steem posts which are off GitHub (again, assuming I'm not missing anything deleted), which is reasonable I think.
As a general point on issues like this I would encourage you to have policies set out on this that you can refer to, or in lieu of a hard copy policy, you can say such and such is your policy. It would help clarify situations like this for interested but uninvolved bystanders who care about fairness, such as myself and others who have comment, and not waste our time on it.
No harm done though. Also that book looks interesting, I might get it. I agree with it as a policy.
Our staff spends time reading the blockchain, reading github, reading feedback. We discuss all meaningful feedback, positive and negative. It takes up a significant percentage of our limited time resources, as we are primarily a community-driven operation, and we take that seriously.
We don't have enough troublesome people yet to need a formal policy. Maybe one day. I hope not!
Understandable, but if you're going to scale it's worth thinking about. But as you say, hopefully down the line.
Hey you're the one calling me an asshole, ya sneaky fuck. :P
So, what say ye:
https://steemit.com/steemdev/@faddat/wall-of-text-company-chains-are-like-company-towns-aka
Ya know, Ned might not even know what a shitty thing he is doing, selling out the community and the practices that surround blockchains. You know EXACTLY what you're doing.
I KNOW WHY DAN QUIT. It's actually really simple-- morality, ya douche.
https://steemit.com/steem/@faddat/so-someone-else-sees-oddities-in-steem-s-encryption
I think he really means posts like the one above that carry substantial technical weight and point to systemic flaws.
But here is the biggest systemic flaw, which we are all watching play out right now at this moment:
Steemit.com is not decentralized. It's just something some company made and owns and therefore controls.
Please just let @sneak answer himself and stop adding oil to the fire
it's supposed to be a platform for free speech and free thought. he can answer if he'd like and until then I'm forced to speculate.
Well, you're free to do that obviously but I'm not interested in your speculations, come on
Fail to assume good faith like this one?
What kind of good faith should I be assuming, @sneak?
You're turning down help you need, and you're totally negating the anti-exclusionary features of OPEN software development. It's stupid, and harms progress here, that's all. Wouldn't you like docs that match your code?
....or are you just afraid of my altcoin? If you are, that's the height of stupidity. It's my intent to grow steem's user-base alongside Dawn's. Don't believe me?
Fine.
Watch me.
Edit: I'm really not so sure about that plan anymore.
I tend to agree with you @faddat, but I'm not surprised at all. Your being banned is just a reflection of the same attitude that caused @dantheman to depart the platform. "They" want (proprietary?) control over the platform, and apparently believe locking out contributors rather than control the process of what is chosen to be added from those contributions is the best way to achieve that control. I totally disagree with that approach. Just b/c you solicit contributions from anyone, doesn't obligate you to use every contribution. "They" don't see it that way, which reflects their lack of knowledge about the benefits of the OSS development model.
As to your point that the docs and other info is always out of date - YES, that happens a lot within startup companies who are frantically worked to evolve a product out the door, docs always lag behind. It's a common problem, especially in crypto projects, but not unique to them.
What caused him to leave the platform?
@dan answers that specifically here (hint: it's not the FUD being spread in this thread):
https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc#@pairmike/re-dan-today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc-20170315t054610221z
@sneak
I don't recall saying a word about dan. My personal assumption has always been that he is off to make another epic something or another, and that is appropriate for someone like him.
You didn't faddat I did. The link @sneak provided as to @dan's "reasons" for leaving is obviously not the whole story as anyone can see if they click that link. If any FUD is being spread it's not by me.
IMO @faddat raises an important point. His being banned for the reasons @sneak stated might be good reasons for flagging or sanctions in social media, but not for code contributions. Now if @faddat engaged in irrational, emotionally charged comments and submission of issues on github, banning might be the correct solution after being warned a time or 2. I believe it goes deeper than that, but that's only my opinion.
Agree.
Except.... sneak says I was banned for.... what you said in my post. Whole thing makes no sense and harms steemit.
Maybe I should reconsider my thoughts on growing the steemit userbase via DAWN. (Yes, @sneak, you caused me to reconsider this. And if I do it, let me tell ya, it'll work. )
I think that I will ask the steemit community in my next post.
It's not really that they're not using my contributions.
It's that I cannot submit them at all.
It's as if everything's perfect here, in the minds of those who banned me.
And surely, these are not unique problems. And if I were allowed to help solve them, well, they'd be solved. And steemit would have fewer problems.
Oh @sneak is being a dickhead again?
Whats new?
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@nettybot/introducing-nettybot-a-profitable-bid-bot-0-25-sbd-minimum-bid-100-votes-2-hour-periods-potential-profit-75