Vote Tor Paulsen Gave Standing for Factomize

[Chappie]

@Factomize

Tor Paulsen Gave Standing. At the time of this vote, your Standing is 84%.

Their reasoning for this vote is:

Factomize is moving back to 30%+ standing and thus above my minimum support level.

I am very happy to extend standing to Factomize again.

You can see how Tor Paulsen has historically voted for Factomize by going here.

You are welcome to reply to this thread or contact Tor Paulsen privately. And please remember to keep your ANO Contributions area updated.

 

[David Chapman]

Hey, thanks. Be proud that one of the best devs in this ecosystem will now be looking for work elsewhere thanks to your brilliant system.

 

[Quintilian]

Hey, thanks. Be proud that one of the best devs in this ecosystem will now be looking for work elsewhere thanks to your brilliant system.

After I removed standing you still had 81% left; well above the 40% cutoff. Putting your decision of firing your dev on me is not exactly fair is it?

 

[David Chapman]

After I removed standing you still had 81% left; well above the 40% cutoff. Putting your decision of firing your dev on me is not exactly fair is it?

When it was just one Standing Party setting an arbitrary number for efficiency it was no big deal. Two makes a trend and we're not going to risk others piling on board once we've begun these projects.

An arbitrary number like this rather than evaluating on case by case basis is lazy and stupid.

 

[Miguel Proulx]

Not sure what you were expecting with this system.

It was clear from the start that anyone could vote as they could see fit. 65 ANO = 65 different type of vote. Some decide to remove standing for a picture on a forum, some remove standing for efficiency. It was all written in the sky.

 

[David Chapman]

Not sure what you were expecting with this system.

It was clear from the start that anyone could vote as they could see fit. 65 ANO = 65 different type of vote. Some decide to remove standing for a picture on a forum, some remove standing for efficiency. It was all written in the sky.

I was expecting exactly this.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Oh, nobody involved in thinking this through were that naive. It just happens to be an interesting twist of fate that actually the people involved in thinking the system through are also involved in seeing the first cracks in the system. I am pretty confident we will evolve though.

This is all social consensus seeking at this point if you ask me

 

[David Chapman]

This is all social consensus seeking at this point if you ask me

Exactly. I expected we'd have such issues. There's a reason I put the amount of work I did into devising Factomize's scoring methodology and tried to push through other initiatives before this system went live.

The question is, do we have what it takes to overcome these issues.

 

[Niels Klomp]

I think we will, because systems like these tent to go both ways. People can be really rigid about their principles. Either the other party moves into your direction, or it moves against you. It will set things in motion. I certainly don't hope we get into a negative feedback cycle as it does have that potential.

I do hope that people think really hard about some of the examples we have seen and whether they believe the whole federated system is maintainable if people vote on principle alone without looking at the bigger picture or letting them know what these principles are. Determining standing outside of context is just stupid if you ask me.