TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
I can see why you have a man-servant.
Wheew! You sure know how to whip things into shape...I'm glad you're on our side. Dash Nation became stronger today, thanks to you. 
A Call for tungfa to Heed the Masternodes' Vote
- Thread starter amanda_b_johnson
- Start date
Wheew! You sure know how to whip things into shape...I'm glad you're on our side. Dash Nation became stronger today, thanks to you. 
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
Alright, all. Here is the clarification proposal: https://www.dashwhale.org/p/DarkcointvDeactivate. Thank you to all who contributed feedback.
https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkcoinTV/ currently has:
-- 953 subscribers and has produced
-- 124,559 views
It would be a shame to lose these people. While I am not sure if the DarkcoinTV has Creator Studio / YT partners status but if so, there's a way of re-directing an old channel to a new channel. "You can have the shortened version of your custom URL redirect your audience to another channel. Just put the URL you'd like to have your shortened URL redirect to in the Redirect URL field."
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2976814?hl=en
An alternative, if DarkcoinTV channels does not have the Redirect URL option and if Tungfa is inclined to torture himself, would be this:
-- go to setting / Annotations;
-- create a BIG speech bubble annotations, 20 or so seconds with a LINK to a new channel / duplicate video;
-- click on a Link;
-- ADD a new channel (or, better, video) link;
-- do NOT click on "Open Link in a new window";
-- Apply changes.This way or another it might not be a bad idea to find a way to preserve the value old channel represents, instead of just abruptly deleting it because, ATM, we love Amanda more than we love Tungfa
EDIT: buster (on slack) posted a valid question about the "bad name" Darkcoin associated with the channel in question. Here's is the reply to his concerns:
The name of the DarkcoinTV channel can be changed also.
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657964?hl=en
A bit of PINA, to make these changes, but the process would be a win-win. You save the channel, replace the "bad name" and re-direct users to a new channel that is new and has comparatively much smaller number of subscribers / views. (178 subscribers & 3,877 views vs. 953 subscribers & 124,559 views)
-- 953 subscribers and has produced
-- 124,559 views
It would be a shame to lose these people. While I am not sure if the DarkcoinTV has Creator Studio / YT partners status but if so, there's a way of re-directing an old channel to a new channel. "You can have the shortened version of your custom URL redirect your audience to another channel. Just put the URL you'd like to have your shortened URL redirect to in the Redirect URL field."
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2976814?hl=en
An alternative, if DarkcoinTV channels does not have the Redirect URL option and if Tungfa is inclined to torture himself, would be this:
-- go to setting / Annotations;
-- create a BIG speech bubble annotations, 20 or so seconds with a LINK to a new channel / duplicate video;
-- click on a Link;
-- ADD a new channel (or, better, video) link;
-- do NOT click on "Open Link in a new window";
-- Apply changes.This way or another it might not be a bad idea to find a way to preserve the value old channel represents, instead of just abruptly deleting it because, ATM, we love Amanda more than we love Tungfa
EDIT: buster (on slack) posted a valid question about the "bad name" Darkcoin associated with the channel in question. Here's is the reply to his concerns:
The name of the DarkcoinTV channel can be changed also.
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657964?hl=en
A bit of PINA, to make these changes, but the process would be a win-win. You save the channel, replace the "bad name" and re-direct users to a new channel that is new and has comparatively much smaller number of subscribers / views. (178 subscribers & 3,877 views vs. 953 subscribers & 124,559 views)
Last edited:
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkcoinTV/ currently has:
-- 953 subscribers and has produced
-- 124,559 views
It would be a shame to lose these people. While I am not sure if the DarkcoinTV has Creator Studio / YT partners status but if so, there's a way of re-directing an old channel to a new channel. "You can have the shortened version of your custom URL redirect your audience to another channel. Just put the URL you'd like to have your shortened URL redirect to in the Redirect URL field."
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2976814?hl=en
An alternative, if DarkcoinTV channels does not have the Redirect URL option and if Tungfa is inclined to torture himself, would be this:
-- go to setting / Annotations;
-- create a BIG speech bubble annotations, 20 or so seconds with a LINK to a new channel / duplicate video;
-- click on a Link;
-- ADD a new channel (or, better, video) link;
-- do NOT click on "Open Link in a new window";
-- Apply changes.This way or another it might not be a bad idea to find a way to preserve the value old channel represents, instead of just abruptly deleting it because, ATM, we love Amanda more than we love Tungfa
BINGO.
Back to your homes everyone, movie is over.
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkcoinTV/ currently has:
-- 953 subscribers and has produced
-- 124,559 views
It would be a shame to lose these people. While I am not sure if the DarkcoinTV has Creator Studio / YT partners status but if so, there's a way of re-directing an old channel to a new channel. "You can have the shortened version of your custom URL redirect your audience to another channel. Just put the URL you'd like to have your shortened URL redirect to in the Redirect URL field."
source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2976814?hl=en
An alternative, if DarkcoinTV channels does not have the Redirect URL option and if Tungfa is inclined to torture himself, would be this:
-- go to setting / Annotations;
-- create a BIG speech bubble annotations, 20 or so seconds with a LINK to a new channel / duplicate video;
-- click on a Link;
-- ADD a new channel (or, better, video) link;
-- do NOT click on "Open Link in a new window";
-- Apply changes.This way or another it might not be a bad idea to find a way to preserve the value old channel represents, instead of just abruptly deleting it because, ATM, we love Amanda more than we love Tungfa
Clever thought, GreyGhost. Unfortunately, a redirected URL has no bearing on any of the three points listed in the new proposal at http://dashwhale.org/budget. Good thought, but no dice.
953 subscribers is wonderful, and it can be re-achieved in not that much time, I imagine.
I'm going offline now to retire to my faraday crypt.
Your own 8,200 subscribers & 551,206 views on The Daily Decrypt certainly support your optimism. Only that 953 existing subscribers to the "old" channel in question, IMHO, also deserve to be informed why is the channel they subscribed to suddenly gone.
hey there
ok, 1st of all, we were having (starting) a discussion about this on slack, but it seems that you are set in your ways and do not want to discuss this in person and prefer to do it in public ? well, lets do it here then
the budget is voted in, but not paid out. Meaning in a month time a lot can happen and as far as i see it this 'contract' is not confirmed = hence not paid out.
saying that means to me we have time to "talk this through", (what is the best approach, discuss with the people who run the YT's, and such,...)
i gave you guys access to the New YT channel already, as requested.
I was trying to have a talk with you and pete about the old YT channel,
in my believe , erasing it would be a big mistake as the links associated with that channel have been shared far far around on the internet (english, but specially in Russian and multiple other languages). We are still having a ton of new comments and views on the old "Dash: What is Dash? = P15E10 " + other videos
Erasing the old YT channel will kill all links (obviously) with it, we worked very hard to share these links all over the internet, they are used in 'old' publications and articles, OP's of threads, webpages, forums and all over the shop. We have no idea where (obviously) so we will not be able to change them. The idea always was to keep the old YT open (or even better hidden) that the links stay live, even though we migrated to another channel.
Why kill them, if we can just simply hide the channel and keep the links alive ?
(alex-ru pointed the hiding option out here https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-dashs-very-own-youtube-show.9107/#post-96294 )
Shouldn't we use that old YT to "migrate" people to the New Channel ? (that is what we are trying now with the migrate video)
Killing it and starting new is definitely easier, but would be a huge loss, as we have 950 subscribers already (i know in the YT world that is not much/ but for us it is).
The old channel now has "We migrated / Please follow us to..." video posted all over (Tx to alex ru), we had the idea of changing all descriptions of videos to "We migrated / Please follow us to...", i am answering since weeks to all comments with "We migrated / Please follow us to..."
(i would suggest to set all videos to private except the "Please Migrate' one- that still watched people from old links but tells them in channel and description where to find us now)
I am NOT ignoring any Masternote vote, i am trying to have a discussion with you guys what is the best approach
that is all, if i broke some kind of network law here, sorry i am not aware, happy to fix whatever is broken
you have to understand that i am a bit protective of that old channel as a lot of work went into it,
proposals voted in are great, but at the same time somebody has to step up and 'protect' our infrastructure, erasing is erasing, if that is done , it is done.
Proposals come and go, Dash will still be here (if the proposal idea was good or not)
that is all i am saying, and was trying to talk though with you guys on slack
Last edited:
halso
Active member
Hi Amanda, i love your work. You will be a great asset to Dash. I used all my masternodes to vote for your proposal.
It would be great if you could come to a compromise with tungfa. To be honest, i didnt fully understand the issues with the old channel when i voted.
I think a compromise would be the best way forward for Dash.
Thansk
My thoughts:
1) I completely disagree with @amanda_b_johnson that this proposal has even passed yet. We are still at the very beginning of the July proposal cycle and I can tell you that those individuals that have not voted yet are probably the MOST LIKELY to have doubts or concerns about her original proposal (thus haven't voted yet). In my mind, a proposal doesn't pass until the voting deadline. Otherwise, we risk situations in which a proposal owner lobbies two whales, submits their proposal, gets the two whales to vote immediately, and "boom!" you have a "passed" proposal. I haven't even fully read the comments on your first proposal, let alone made a decision or voted. What about my vote? And the votes of everyone else that is taking the time to carefully consider your proposal? Are there not enough votes "in the wild" that could swing the voting the other way? What about competing proposals that might otherwise de-fund yours that aren't even submitted yet?
2) I agree with the comments here that most people probably voted FOR the content you intend to create, rather than to DEACTIVATE the old account (which is a very minor component).
3) It seems incredibly unlikely that in less than 48 hours or whatever since the proposal "passed", Amanda and Pete have exhausted all other options with @tungfa or fully considered the implications of an issue that was debated NOT just by tungfa, but by many other volunteers / community members as to the pros/cons... the fact that he is forced to respond to her above and that Amanda is already responding positively toward many other options proposed by other community members indicates to me that there was a rush to vilify him and pit the community on him to instantly produce the outcome she wanted, rather than through good old-fashioned dialogue, problem-solving, and compromise. I would encourage everyone to take a deep breath, realize we are all on the same team here and that this deactivation is a complex issue, and put down the pitchforks... there is a better way forward!
4) I don't actually think this issue should be this explosive, nor is resolving it urgent, so I don't understand the rush to resolve it instantly and without dialogue. If Amanda feels that she can attract many times more subscribers than the old channel - and I don't doubt her abilities to do so - that would be great! Rather than counting our chickens before they hatch, why don't we wait to see her produce those viewers and THEN do what we need to do to shutter the old channel. The fact remains that as of this moment, we have more subscribers in the old channel. If she can change that for us, let's all agree to make changes after we have say doubled our old channel's viewership or whatever the right viewership number is.
5) Even in cases where the network votes for something, that doesn't make it gospel, especially in cases where it was a sub-part of another proposal, where we might need to tease out the intent of the network. Also, the masses are not always as informed as the person responsible for that aspect of the project, who has lived and breathed a workstream for months or years. We need to provide those workstream owners the opportunity and respect for the work that they do here to come forward with their judgment and rationale in response before we allow the network to make an ill-informed unintended mistake. In my mind, that is part of that expert's JOB... to defend the network from making a mistake. I'm NOT saying that deactivating the old YouTube channel is a mistake... I'm not well informed enough either way at this point. But I am commenting on the process that is taking place here. Tungfa shouldn't be called out as "disregarding" the network when all he is trying to do is ensure everyone is as informed as possible BEFORE taking action, which is absolutely appropriate and should be expected of him. It is clear to me that this is a complex issue that many people have thought long and hard about... even if we end up (as a network) reaching a different conclusion than tungfa and others reached on their own, to expect him to blindly implement - without protest or debate - literally ANYTHING the network asks for no matter how "stupid" for lack of a better word, is not in anyone's best interest. It's simply a fact that in all human endeavors, you need leadership, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions or taking the time to persuade others of your point of view if you believe in it. We should expect nothing less of our core team. I would be far more concerned if tungfa followed the vote blindly and didn't defend what he thought was right.
1) I completely disagree with @amanda_b_johnson that this proposal has even passed yet. We are still at the very beginning of the July proposal cycle and I can tell you that those individuals that have not voted yet are probably the MOST LIKELY to have doubts or concerns about her original proposal (thus haven't voted yet). In my mind, a proposal doesn't pass until the voting deadline. Otherwise, we risk situations in which a proposal owner lobbies two whales, submits their proposal, gets the two whales to vote immediately, and "boom!" you have a "passed" proposal. I haven't even fully read the comments on your first proposal, let alone made a decision or voted. What about my vote? And the votes of everyone else that is taking the time to carefully consider your proposal? Are there not enough votes "in the wild" that could swing the voting the other way? What about competing proposals that might otherwise de-fund yours that aren't even submitted yet?
2) I agree with the comments here that most people probably voted FOR the content you intend to create, rather than to DEACTIVATE the old account (which is a very minor component).
3) It seems incredibly unlikely that in less than 48 hours or whatever since the proposal "passed", Amanda and Pete have exhausted all other options with @tungfa or fully considered the implications of an issue that was debated NOT just by tungfa, but by many other volunteers / community members as to the pros/cons... the fact that he is forced to respond to her above and that Amanda is already responding positively toward many other options proposed by other community members indicates to me that there was a rush to vilify him and pit the community on him to instantly produce the outcome she wanted, rather than through good old-fashioned dialogue, problem-solving, and compromise. I would encourage everyone to take a deep breath, realize we are all on the same team here and that this deactivation is a complex issue, and put down the pitchforks... there is a better way forward!
4) I don't actually think this issue should be this explosive, nor is resolving it urgent, so I don't understand the rush to resolve it instantly and without dialogue. If Amanda feels that she can attract many times more subscribers than the old channel - and I don't doubt her abilities to do so - that would be great! Rather than counting our chickens before they hatch, why don't we wait to see her produce those viewers and THEN do what we need to do to shutter the old channel. The fact remains that as of this moment, we have more subscribers in the old channel. If she can change that for us, let's all agree to make changes after we have say doubled our old channel's viewership or whatever the right viewership number is.
5) Even in cases where the network votes for something, that doesn't make it gospel, especially in cases where it was a sub-part of another proposal, where we might need to tease out the intent of the network. Also, the masses are not always as informed as the person responsible for that aspect of the project, who has lived and breathed a workstream for months or years. We need to provide those workstream owners the opportunity and respect for the work that they do here to come forward with their judgment and rationale in response before we allow the network to make an ill-informed unintended mistake. In my mind, that is part of that expert's JOB... to defend the network from making a mistake. I'm NOT saying that deactivating the old YouTube channel is a mistake... I'm not well informed enough either way at this point. But I am commenting on the process that is taking place here. Tungfa shouldn't be called out as "disregarding" the network when all he is trying to do is ensure everyone is as informed as possible BEFORE taking action, which is absolutely appropriate and should be expected of him. It is clear to me that this is a complex issue that many people have thought long and hard about... even if we end up (as a network) reaching a different conclusion than tungfa and others reached on their own, to expect him to blindly implement - without protest or debate - literally ANYTHING the network asks for no matter how "stupid" for lack of a better word, is not in anyone's best interest. It's simply a fact that in all human endeavors, you need leadership, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions or taking the time to persuade others of your point of view if you believe in it. We should expect nothing less of our core team. I would be far more concerned if tungfa followed the vote blindly and didn't defend what he thought was right.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Well I agree that it's not absolutely urgent, but I do think it was important enough to warrant a vote. MN ops can always change their vote as well, so it's not like anyone is trying to (or is able to) ram something through quickly. Let's look at this as a test of how our DGBB influences things like this. As I mentioned in the other thread, this is only the first of many such things which are bound to happen. Let's start learning how to work through these now while the stakes are still low.
Also a note about those subs. Look at the view counts on all the videos that were uploaded over the last month. It's like 20 views apiece. Very few people are watching those videos because they are subbed. And anyone who was subbed and actually watched the videos would have seen the video about the new YT channel so at least that part of it I really don't see as a big deal.
Also a note about those subs. Look at the view counts on all the videos that were uploaded over the last month. It's like 20 views apiece. Very few people are watching those videos because they are subbed. And anyone who was subbed and actually watched the videos would have seen the video about the new YT channel so at least that part of it I really don't see as a big deal.
Last edited:
No, no, no. It's scheduled to pass. Until the actual superblock, people can change their votes, or MN operators can theoretically decide to vote "no" and shoot it down at the last minute. It's not yet "passed" though.
Spot-on.
Votes aren't set in stone until the cycle ends. They can be changed, and proposals can be down-voted by others who haven't voted yet.
rustycase
Active member
Oops !
This information certainly shines another flashlight out into the DRK !
If so, we shall see.
Wonderful thread ! The community discussing issues concerning future of the de-centralized organization ! I am almost sure MN voters are watching this discussion and will act accordingly.
Best
rc
demo
Well-known member
This is stupid.
You should ignore their vote, if you believe this is the correct thing to be done.
At least ignore them until they are about to decide to fire you or reduce your salary.
Only in that case , if you are in this danger, you have to obey them.
Obeying without being in danger is a stupid act, an act of slave.
This is a cross-post from Dash Whale. I love the formatting here
"I do feel it is time to leave the old YouTube DarkcoinTV behind us and focus solely on YouTube DashOrg and possibly other Dash YT channels to complete and unify our rebranding to Dash," statement raises two interesting questions somehow hidden beneath the noise this perceived confrontation (@amanda_b_johnson vs. @tungfa) has created:
Now ponder this, these two channels, as Amanda wrote:
NOTE: if the "old" DarkcoinTV is renamed and re-directed we keep the benefits of it and support the "new" one. Some of you might not know, but even the https://www.dash.org website uses re-direction from dashpay.io for the same reasons Tungfa proposes to keep the DarkcoinTV, links, subscribers...)
So the conceptual question ensues. Where's the focus? At the same time as this discussion is raging, our official website (a focal point for all branding & marketing efforts that should also embed all our videos) and its development is being delayed for months and months and months...
But a notion of that ... nation... is being pushed, a new website design is being developed in a hurry and it would be up and running shortly while the official website development will have kept on lagging. Don't you think that "nation" website would not also:
"I do feel it is time to leave the old YouTube DarkcoinTV behind us and focus solely on YouTube DashOrg and possibly other Dash YT channels to complete and unify our rebranding to Dash," statement raises two interesting questions somehow hidden beneath the noise this perceived confrontation (@amanda_b_johnson vs. @tungfa) has created:
Now ponder this, these two channels, as Amanda wrote:
- B) Split view counts (making less for each);
- C) Split subscribership (making less for each).
NOTE: if the "old" DarkcoinTV is renamed and re-directed we keep the benefits of it and support the "new" one. Some of you might not know, but even the https://www.dash.org website uses re-direction from dashpay.io for the same reasons Tungfa proposes to keep the DarkcoinTV, links, subscribers...)
So the conceptual question ensues. Where's the focus? At the same time as this discussion is raging, our official website (a focal point for all branding & marketing efforts that should also embed all our videos) and its development is being delayed for months and months and months...
But a notion of that ... nation... is being pushed, a new website design is being developed in a hurry and it would be up and running shortly while the official website development will have kept on lagging. Don't you think that "nation" website would not also:
- split visitors counts (making less for each);
- split subscribership (making less for each) and at the same time;
- cause confusion for new visitors who might be searching for us.
Last edited:
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
About the budget system.
It's a beautiful feature which gives Evan, his team and masternode owners the means to know what masternode owners think about stuff.
It is not a political system which give people the 'right' to take stuff from, or tell other people what to do or not.
It gives you a voice in this project, not ownership or control.
@eduffield, @tungfa and the rest of the team are free to do what they want or not. Period.
Funny how people talking about 'freedom' and 'liberty' often only want to take from and tell people what they can or cannot do.
It's a beautiful feature which gives Evan, his team and masternode owners the means to know what masternode owners think about stuff.
It is not a political system which give people the 'right' to take stuff from, or tell other people what to do or not.
It gives you a voice in this project, not ownership or control.
@eduffield, @tungfa and the rest of the team are free to do what they want or not. Period.
Funny how people talking about 'freedom' and 'liberty' often only want to take from and tell people what they can or cannot do.
halso
Active member
Hey guys,
It seems a shame that this wasn't thrashed out behind the scenes.
However, there is a silver lining here. There is an opportunity to resolve this issue using the voting mechanism.
I accept that some members believe the voting system was only intended to fund projects. But we could set a valuable precedent here for solving disputes if everyone agrees to respect the outcome.
For the record i voted YES for the new you tube channel, but NO to de-activating the old account (i would prefer some sort of redirect solution).
However, I think it would be great if everyone respected the final vote.
Cheers.
It seems a shame that this wasn't thrashed out behind the scenes.
However, there is a silver lining here. There is an opportunity to resolve this issue using the voting mechanism.
I accept that some members believe the voting system was only intended to fund projects. But we could set a valuable precedent here for solving disputes if everyone agrees to respect the outcome.
For the record i voted YES for the new you tube channel, but NO to de-activating the old account (i would prefer some sort of redirect solution).
However, I think it would be great if everyone respected the final vote.
Cheers.
Most of what I think have already been said by other before in this thread, but I'll repeat anyway:
-The proposal has not passed yet.
-Proposals are about budgets. If we make them about actions many contradictory proposals can get approved at the same time and things don't make sense anymore.
-Before trying to lynch @tungfa, @amanda_b_johnson should have discussed with him more. The fact that her an Pete were granted access to the channel before the proposal had passed proves that he was open to working together.
-Deletions in general need to be done carefully. In this case it is obvious that there are different views and ideas. @GreyGhost has some great points there. Let's consider everything before doing anything that can't be undone.
-Our governance model is young and it is still changing. We are all learning and I'm sure that what we will have in a couple years will look nothing like what we have now. And this doesn't look like what we had two years ago. Please, take things with a little more calm and enjoy the ride.
-Very few people around the project have contributed more that @tungfa. The eagerness to attack him is something I can't understand.
-The proposal has not passed yet.
-Proposals are about budgets. If we make them about actions many contradictory proposals can get approved at the same time and things don't make sense anymore.
-Before trying to lynch @tungfa, @amanda_b_johnson should have discussed with him more. The fact that her an Pete were granted access to the channel before the proposal had passed proves that he was open to working together.
-Deletions in general need to be done carefully. In this case it is obvious that there are different views and ideas. @GreyGhost has some great points there. Let's consider everything before doing anything that can't be undone.
-Our governance model is young and it is still changing. We are all learning and I'm sure that what we will have in a couple years will look nothing like what we have now. And this doesn't look like what we had two years ago. Please, take things with a little more calm and enjoy the ride.
-Very few people around the project have contributed more that @tungfa. The eagerness to attack him is something I can't understand.
halso
Active member
I agree @fernando, the standard of debate could have been a lot better.
I would take issue with on one point you made though; the voting mechanism is only for funding projects. That maybe true, but it would still be an extra-ordinary position if a vote was taken and the core development team decided to ignore the result.
I agree that this could lead to competing or contradictory votes. But isn't that democracy?
If we have contradictory votes, shouldn't the most recent vote take precedence?
Yes, it would be messy. But probably better than the alternative.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” (W. Churchill)
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
It is not a political system.