The Polkadot Forum exists for one reason: to move Polkadot forward. All technical debate, proposal, and disagreement here should ultimately serve that goal. It’s worth pausing now and then to remember it, because it’s easy to lose in the heat of a good argument.
Disagreement is welcome. This ecosystem is built on hard technical questions that reasonable people answer differently, and the back-and-forth between those views is how better designs get found. We want more of it, not less.
What we ask is that disagreement stays aimed at the ideas. The strongest way to settle a technical dispute is with evidence, benchmarks, and work others can reproduce and check for themselves. Questioning a contributor’s methods, tools, or motives is not a substitute for that, and it tends to turn a solvable technical question into an unsolvable personal one. When a thread drifts from “is this claim correct” to “can this person be trusted,” everyone loses the thing they came here for.
So a simple request as you post: read the other side’s argument in its strongest form before you reply. Assume the person on the other end wants Polkadot to succeed as much as you do, even when they’re wrong. Keep the emotion at the door and the focus on the work.
We have a rare thing here: an open, public space where the people building one of the most ambitious protocols in the space argue in the open. That’s worth protecting. Let’s keep it pointed forward.
The moderation team
