You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Betting Scandal - Crowdfund to pay @Walden our internet detective.
Don't bother raising $150 for an investigation
Will work with the community to offer a simple solution.
Will work with the community to offer a simple solution.
I think the community want to know what went on, whether you want an investigation or not.
Okay okay....let's stop calling foul for the sake of calling foul. This is not needed. If he's willing to work with you and you're still calling foul, the issue becomes a pointless witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt.
I think you can see that I did my best to make this post as neutral as possible. As my threads have shown, a lot of people were not paid and the explanation given does not make sense for all of these cases. Previously it was agreed that an audit was the best way to resolve this. An audit would resolve the issue of whether @virtualgrowth's explanation for what happened makes sense. I can see no reason for people to get angry or defensive about an investigation into statistics. That's really all this is...
I have to say, I don't think you did make it as neutral as possible. You did include a lot of facts - so kudos for that, but it's very obvious that you're upset. You're not just presenting an issue that you think needs addressing, you've including a lot of fingerpointing at the individual you believe is responsible. You're DEMANDING an investigation the same as a disgruntled customer DEMANDS a refund.
The person your finger at is tell you - point blank - that he is willing to work with you and you're declining that offer because it's not the action you want taken. That's called being a director - you're directing those who are talking to you into doing something specific to your interests.
Keep in mind I'm not choosing sides. Just stating how this comes across.
I'm not upset, I'm just defending myself against quite harsh criticism.
If you look at my previous threads you'll see there was a lot of community support for an audit. I still think there is from the smaller and newer Steemians who didn't get paid. The fact that a few others are vocally against the idea of the truth being sought doesn't surprise me.
Sadly the 'fingerpointing' is mostly stating facts that have already been established.
I'm surprised some people seem to be treating this as an issue of who has been here longer, who has 'done' more for Steemit. When I have a lot of support from Steemians who haven't been paid that's a non argument for me.
So I'll seek and audit, because it is important. And without it the betting scene will become more and more 'wild'.
Will you accept the outcome of an audit should it rule against your favor?
Well it wouldn't be against my favour. I'd be happy if @virtualgrowth's explanation for what went on held water. It would restore a little bit of my faith in Steemit and I would tell him I was sorry I doubted him on this issue though I'd still ask that he were careful with details when setting up his future games.
As you can probably tell I'm someone who doesn't like injustice very much. As an example I once placed a policeman under citizens arrest. He was bullying someone. It got messy... ;)
I can't reply to other other comment - already nested too deep.
That's what I'm talking about - it seems you've already labeled this as an injustice, and I think that's where a lot of the misconception and criticism is coming from. This is where my comment about reserving judgement comes in.
You have to remember that I know a lot more about what went on than the third parties commenting. I'm certain of some things, fairly sure about a lot of things and have suspicions about a few more.
With the information I have this is a valid position for me to hold. Saying I should disregard what I've found out is to ask me to throw occams razor out of the window.
Sadly I see the future of Steemit as going more towards this passivity. There seems to be great merit attached to 'not making a judgement'.
If we don't struggle to make accurate judgements and act on them, Steemit will degrade into clickbait and scams.
People think they're getting enlightened anarchism and what they're really getting is chaos.
I didn't say don't be accurate. I didn't say be passive. I said don't pass judgement until facts can be examined. I know you say you're trying to remain neutral, but I think many of us can agree that we still hear the grinder sharpening the pitchfork.
In any regard, I must move on. I hope it works out.
At what point did you think I hadn't examined facts?
I don't mean you. I mean peer review - you know, that investigation that you're demanding. But like I said, I'm going to step away from this topic, as I'm not one of those people who can help with an investigation.
Fair enough. And I don't know where you're getting 'demanding' from. I thought the little guys wanted it.