I have agreed with a lot of what you say on this matter although I'm not quite as harsh in my assessment of double-u as you are. While I pull no punches in my assessments, I don't believe that he has acted out of a belief his actions would cause harm here to the overall environment. I believe that he has believed that whatever infringements he wishes to install on others is for the greater good despite the slippery slope that brings with it.

I was bothered very much when afrog left. But as I commented just a little bit ago to another, I've grown to understand even recently that there is much taking place here I'm unaware of in the hidden corners of Discord. Which at times has made some of my speculations seem absurd to those who frequent those corners. But unfortunately when one is left to their own devices and must extrapolate the why of a thing based on what is apparent that is an unfortunate destination point at times.

So far, it appears that some of the whales are now going to be leaving, and one of the main developers for the chain has quit and has urged others to follow suit.

A foreseeable conclusion in a contest of wills where one side seeks to place limitations and are thwarted. So as a consequence then seeks a workaround to their goals while trying to undermine those who stood in their way.

All of which could have been so easily avoided if one was to respect property rights. I mentioned in that other comment I alluded to a moment ago with you this. The saddest part is by nature most would exclude voting for others who are selfish and either never voted for others, or always have weak power for voting due to such delegations. The entire campaign to stop them was so needless to begin with.

I wonder which side of the table I would sit on if that happened. You'd probably make me sit in the corner with a hat on.

I actually appreciate civil disagreement. I've made many corrections in my life in my understandings due to them, as well as received at times confirmation my position is correct. The areas where I find it impossible to continue is when the ideas I hold as truth isn't the thrust of the disagreement, and somehow quickly evolves into an attack on myself, especially if it begins using a narrative that doesn't even relate to my position. Yet will double down on such insistence even when clarified by myself that isn't part of my position.

I find you likable enough, and have enjoyed most of our interactions despite not seeing eye to eye on some things. You have a sharp mind and overall I appreciate when you weigh in, even if as even here my assessment is not quite as critical as your own. As long as your views don't seek to encroach on my space I honor your ability to hold thoughts and conduct yourself accordingly even if I think they are wrong. If enough of us would do that society would be a lot better and the poliliars and their true monied constituents wouldn't get away with half the shit they do supposedly in our names.

Do you wanna be in my gang?

I've always been more of a lone wolf kind of guy, weaving my way in and out of the gangs I encounter as the mood hits. At some point the gang usually demands to much and would nail the others to their crosses who don't conform. Safer usually to avoid them hahahaha.

I know you were jesting, as I was when I used my own voting habits to display my gang. People naturally wish to be surrounded by those who mirror them, and reward and see that pool grow. I thought by using myself as an example I could demonstrate that it need not be viewed as some nefarious connection as had been implied elsewhere.

Thanks for weighing in. I often find your candor (even when directed at myself) to be refreshing and good for invoking laughter in a good way.