Monetized content was decided to be too controversial to post.

By a closed group, to the detriment of Gridcoin content creators, finally revoked by the will of the people on the blockchain for Steemit and Whaleshares content.

Our current standard is to have half of the active participants give the okay before a given post is considered approved.

That 'standard' broke down completely after a proposed Tweet which had 2 upvotes & hadn't been posted due to inactivity was then downvoted and rejected.

This broke down to back and forth arguments and made for an overwhelmingly toxic work environment, especially given the time zone difference, hence why after getting authorization from the blockchain to post Steemit and Whaleshares content I did so without the unappealing 2 vote system & none of the content was that of my own.

You were free to ask Quez to post on your behalf & now if these new volunteers are approved you'll be free to ask them to post on your behalf too, but it'll be in the public instead of private channels.

Credibility of being 'Official'

Technically since there is no legal Gridcoin entity there's not one 'Official' representative for Gridcoin, it may be appropriate for all parties to drop the use of 'Official' terminology.

The only 'official' representatives really are those in control of keys and those who communicate on behalf of the community with exchanges/services regarding maintenance, IMO.

Are the doors closed?

Not anymore, the social media discussions are taking place in the public channels instead of closed groups on Slack now.

Why remain private?

It's scheduled to be deleted on Slack, move over to the public marketing (or related) channels, interact with the Twitter volunteers if/when they're approved. Involving 130+ people in the discussion than less than 10, much healthier for debate.

The proposed method of voting is not democratic, in the sense that 1 person does not equal 1 vote [...] fate (is) decided by only a few whales (Balance and magnitude). This means that the poll can be easily swayed by just one or two people.

Anyone can buy GRC at these really low prices and become as large a voter as the recent voting participants. Regarding the recent polls, their fate wasn't decided by a few whales - there was support of these 'monetized' platforms by many smaller users.

1 Vote per person will never work in a decentralized environment. Accounting for balance+mag is better than a gameable tally on centralized platforms, far better than closed group decisions.

The whitelist would probably look much different if closed groups imposed their own rulings instead of using the voting mechanism to involve the community.

The proposed method of increasing inclusiveness not only opens a door to risk, but brings an unexpected form of unfairness.

It's far more preferable than being outnumbered in arguments at 3-5am without public witnesses.

This was effectively the final nail in the coffin, as he was the last remaining active admin with posting abilities.

Nobody is preventing your continued maintenance of the alternative platforms, Twitter is not the only social media platform you can still post to them with effectively admin/owner rights.

This is the exact thing that happened when Peppernrino used his former Twitter access to promote his other “Official” Gridcoin Twitter account.

This wasn't why his Twitter access was revoked, don't rewrite history with false narratives.

A single Twitter admin who unilaterally decides to abandon the agreed upon consensus process and starts posting content without discussion will immediately derail the entire group and undermine the trust the group depends on.

I left because of continuous abuse/harrassment from yourself at very inappropriate times of the night for weeks on end which was just unacceptable behaviour.

You were free to ask Quez to post on your behalf, and you're free to ask the new volunteers to post (if approved), you're free to post whatever you want on the many social media channels I have zero influence over - nothing stopping you at all there.

I'm not interested in enabling your behavioural micromanaging.

this is essentially reads as seeking a blank cheque to post whatever one feels like

Someone created a poll for that, and it passed, lol! Why didn't you vote agaist it?

I didn't create this one 😂

Tweeting one’s own monetized content is what most people would describe as a conflict of interest.

I haven't tweeted my own Steemit content on the Gridcoin Twitter for at least a year if not longer, this is a non-issue IMO.

There is a general lack of interest of people from the community to be the sole contributors of Twitter content.

Why didn't you volunteer? You've got the time to write this all, but no time to volunteer? There's not going to just be 1 sole contributor.

The wallet voting process is not an accurate representation of overall community approval. In this case, votes = money. See section 3.

I disagree, It's how we chose how to populate the whitelist, would you prefer for a private closed group to control this instead of giving GRC value by allowing all users to vote on what projects to support?

Don't disregard the will of the people as interpreted from the Gridcoin blockchain, closed groups are not superior.

This proposal was posted without considering the feedback from the other active members of the official-social-media channel.

It's a dead channel.

A significant issue we faced on a number of occasions in the official-social-media channel was being unable to post critical security or network issues in a timely manner.

And this justified your behaviour?

The in-wallet voting system is particularly unbalanced

These values were decided from votes on the blockchain:

• https://gridcoinstats.eu/poll/vote_weight_rebalancing_cruncher_poll
• https://gridcoinstats.eu/poll/vote_weight_rebalancing_investor_poll

If you feel that the current ratios are unbalanced, then make that case and put it to a poll.

Mag has less vote weight than balance because there's a larger sum of GRC in the total supply than there will be emitted from magnitude in the reward mechanism.

That plus major DPOR whales appeared in the form of pools, they don't generatlly vote but there were concerns raised that they were assigned a dangerously high vote weight.

We already have open doors for people to participate.

They can now do so publicly in the marketing channel. No need to close doors just because others are open.

More people should have posting abilities, not less.

That's why there was a call to volunteers.

This proposal ignores the very obvious issues that we had been experiencing.

Then encourage others to volunteers so that more time zones are covered, but don't expect people to put up with demands at all hours of the night again.

Based on my experience, I do believe that this is the best system available.

I disagree, the more the merrier with open channels.

The future of the private official-social-media Slack channel should definitely be discussed.

It's scheduled for deletion. Move to the public channels.

I think it’s important to have a private channel for the admins of various platforms and significant endeavours to speak with each other and alert each other of important content that should be delivered.

You've got multiple direct/private/public messaging platforms to talk between yourselves regarding sensitive topics, otherwise there's the public channels.

In spite of recent hiccups, I believe the current content vetting system that had been working effectively can continue to be effective, if it undergoes some minor adjustments and fine tuning.

I disagree, you can continue vetting your own content on these public channels and take their advice at your own discretion.

Subjecting the Twitter admin candidacy to a demonstrably imbalanced voting process is arguably less democratic and secure than internal votes of existing reputable OPs

I fundamentally disagree, closed group polls exclude the majority of the Gridcoin community who aught to have an input given that your actions affect their holdings.

What exactly is the community supposed to be holding them accountable to?

Probably the social media terms and conditions & Gridcoin code of conduct/practice.

The very aspects that were found to be the most problematic and controversial

I found the most problematic/controversial part was being harassed for weeks in the middle of the night over Tweets of all things, had this been a real job/company then I'd have complained to HR for harassment. Future code of conduct amendments should include a clause on reasonable working hours.