although this thread is asking for simplifications - here a complementary thought:

when counting the number of posts by members - would it make sense to distinguish the posts by their significance?
E.g. posts count by member would include three numbers: "total posts", of that "significant posts" versus "unhelpful posts"...

For instance, I could go through the forum and simply post  multiple times, or even troll, thus increasing my count and making me appearing serious to newbies... On the other extreme, there are members who put time and effort into writing and designing their entries, which then have serious impact on the community and devs. So, similar to reddit, any post may be up or downvoted, and certain tresholds of net up- and downvotes would put it into "significant" or "unhelpful" counts. If a post gets lots of both up and downvotes, it could perhaps be counted into additional "controversial" category.

If such distinction is implemented, then members' hierarchy and badges would be measured more accurately going forward and so provide better orientation especially for newbies...

I guess this is upto Dan really, but bytemaster.com is up for grabs yet.

Quote from: kisa0145 on October 25, 2014, 09:12:37 am

Quote from: House on October 25, 2014, 08:33:04 am

ED: What's your moral of the story?

i only did arrive at that one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rUySWE8Ats

I loved that song... long lost, thank you

I am relieved you didn't take this as an offence.
To be honest, for me it was somewhat difficult to follow what analogy you were pursuing...

ED: What's your moral of the story?

i only did arrive at that one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rUySWE8Ats

@amencoin & Bitshatking

please stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.
this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.

@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. diversity of opinions and perspectives among community is crucial in finding the best way forward for a decentralised company! perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.

In that sense, Bitshares United!

Thanks Rune, great thesis!

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on October 23, 2014, 12:45:02 pm

Is it just me, or is a lot of the hatred for these changes coming directly from the Chinese community? The majority on this board seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed changes, but we keep getting these random attacks from Chinese board members who are absolutely against it...

Is there some kind of miscommunication going on here? These changes are necessary and will greatly benefit the ecosystem as a whole...I'm struggling to see how anyone can't see that.

I think that a lot more of them went and bought DNS on one of the chinese exchanges, and then got screwed by the unfairly low DNS allocation.

Probably right...

BM in the meantime please be assured of utmost respect from majority of the community for all your talent, leadership, dedication, fairness, endurance and hard work! Naturally in a diverse crowd people often deviate from your perspective, and its impossible to please everyone. Still, any personal offence is misplaced and should be attributed to different communication culture, emotional reactions, incoherent expectations, and possibly disrespectful character. Wish you to overcome disappointments from such personal remarks quickly!

support you

Please consider the possibility that 3i proposals are aimed at defending PTS, AGS, and DNS interests medium-and long-term. In this case, holders of each DAC have to agree on some balanced compromise, any resolution would be impossible without re-distribution of DAC tokens properties.

At almost any stage, as a leader 3i has advanced private information compared to all other investors. Not all of this can be made public instanteniously. If 3i, for example, sees a strong possibility that without merger most other DACs' prospects would be threatened by VOTE soon, then we should be glad that they propose the merger. Then everyone is strengthened and gets a great chance of multiplying your returns, without conflict of interest for 3i.

Making investment decisions which are not based on trust in 3i is currently very difficult, unfortunately. So please ask  them questions, evaluate their track record, make your proposals, and decide whether you trust them or not finding balance in defending your medium- and long-term interests.