Post #25372

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
afa1f992b5f541982e36a01697dbee3b3c767685e5096f27f7a3cb35d87c643f
Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

{"entry_date":1582389291,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"ca3063a29210cdca08f4984127a90085cb83f61a17d6beeebad3863c9c093c67fc33415cfb22d9b9e7cfcfa15691bc10baa683bd7d383ed8cd0aa35dc131bbb7","node_id":102,"post_date":1582389255,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25372"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
Sure, but knowing Tor, I don;t believe he would have voted binary for an entity like BIF or Factomize. Without the points he holds dearly, he probably would have voted both entities pretty high. If you do not vote binary it would have lowered your score, but not to the point it was no standing I believe.

But yes making sure you either provide a collection of metrics and also show how you will weigh these makes sense, as I already applauded David for. You might not necessarily agree on every single aspect of the voting, but at least it provides food for discussion and isn't as binary as what we see now.

We have also already seen people asking leading questions to all ANOs suggesting they have to take a certain direction or loose standing. That certainly isn't the way to go.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top