It would have been better for Phil to be more transparent and refer to STAX as "my bot" and request input for decisions while stating that he has final say. As his bot, nobody should be concerned if he upvotes whomever he wills at 100%, (even himself) with his bot. But implying it was "community" orientated, using phrases such as "we" and conducting votes - all of this language and action would give the impression decisions were community determined. The reality is that once he accepted 'donations' and offered 'tiers', it wasn't really completely his bot anymore. He is beholden to those who donated to meet their expectations - which needed to be clearly defined from the beginning. @ironshield
RE: My thoughts on Friday's Meeting and the aftermath - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE VIEW -
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My thoughts on Friday's Meeting and the aftermath - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE VIEW -
Can a community bot be privately owned by one individual, but 100% community focused. If he takes up to 1 daily 100% upvote as pay for his time and effort does that negate it being a 100% community bot? You are right that a bot account can't really be a community owned account unless that is stated in the "bylaws" and the work to run, maintain, manage and host it is equally shared by all owners. Did all these butthurt individuals ever have the expertise or offer their time and energy to help manage it before now??
Seems it was and still is a community supporting bot.
But what do I know!? I'm a stacker....but I dont Post. So I have never been a member of the SSG bot community.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit