On Anonymity, Accountability, and Respectful Debate

1

I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that there are a couple of very resentful people controlling a cluster of alt accounts, apparently with the sole purpose of pursuing personal vendettas against whoever they’ve decided to put on their blacklist.

This isn’t just about “drama”; it’s about how anonymity is being abused in a way that undermines accountability and any possibility of respectful debate.

Anonymity vs. Accountability

I don’t have a problem with anonymous or pseudonymous accounts in general. In many cases they are necessary and valuable.

What I do have a problem with is coordinated use of alts to:

  • Manufacture fake “consensus”
  • Run false-flag attacks
  • Intimidate people who simply disagree

That’s not “more voices in the discussion”; that’s the same people gaming the system from behind multiple masks.

Example 1: The @Mark65 / @ButteryBolognaise Setup

I’m almost certain that the following pattern is not organic:

  • @Mark65 posts something that touches on a legitimately interesting point…
    but instead of approaching it in a nuanced and careful way, the post uses a simplistic, superficial analysis and unnecessarily over-the-top language.

  • Almost immediately after that post appears, a brand new account, @ButteryBolognaise, is created.
    Its only purpose seems to be to reply to that post with an obviously pre-prepared response.

  • That reply is then promptly liked by one of the people I strongly suspect is behind these accounts.

The post in question was thankfully removed by the moderators, but the whole sequence is quite revealing. It looks less like genuine debate and more like a staged interaction designed to trigger a particular reaction.

Also, if you’re going to create an alt to run these false-flag attacks while mocking me, at least get your facts straight. I would never refer to myself as a Spanish speaker. I’m a Catalan speaker :wink:.

Example 2: The @salty_carbonara Intimidation Style

Another account I’m pretty sure is part of the same cluster is @salty_carbonara.

I could recognize that language and rhetoric from a mile away, and I’m confident I’m not the only one. Just ask yourself:

When was the last time you saw someone trying to intimidate and point fingers like this at people who simply disagree with them?

In this small ecosystem of ours, there is basically one person whose communication style consistently follows this “either you’re with me or you’re against me” pattern, along with the same entitlement and aggressiveness we see in these posts.

Again, my point here is not to turn this into a guessing game about identities, but to highlight a recognizable pattern of behaviour that is hostile to good-faith discussion.

Why This Matters

To me, it’s obvious these accounts are not acting in good faith.

They’re not here to contribute, but to:

  • Poison the atmosphere
  • Intimidate dissenting voices
  • Create a toxic, destructive climate through coordination and alts

If people want to express themselves in such an aggressive, bad-faith way, that’s already a problem. Doing so while hiding behind disposable alt accounts and manufactured interactions is even worse.

Request to Moderation

@Remy_Parity @mister_cole @erin, could you please review and consider banning these accounts?

If the individuals behind them want to continue to participate and express these views, they should do so under identities they are willing to stand behind and be accountable for, not behind a rotating cast of throwaway alts. :folded_hands:

7 Likes
2

Hi there,

you raise several important points.

A lot of people in this forum are involved with WF3, Parity, or are working on treasury-funded initiatives. Many of them genuinely put a huge amount of effort into the ecosystem, and it’s understandable that being hit by anonymous drive-by criticism—especially when it’s completely unfounded—feels demoralizing.

But it also raises a deeper question: why do people feel the need to create alt accounts in the first place?

My suspicion is that more than a few of these anonymous voices are actually very involved in the ecosystem — and very dependent on treasury funding. In a system where proposals rely on support from powerful voters like DVs or ChaosDAO, speaking openly is risky. There’s a kind of… let’s call it a self-reinforcing circle of mutual back-scratching. anyone perceived as a “nest polluter” can pretty much forget about being funded.

Sadly the post from @Mark65 which addressed accountability although in a blunt direct way, just vanished.

3

Personhood will fix that soon, coming real soon now.

10 Likes
4

Look, it seems like what’s really going on here is an attempt to silence legitimate discussion, not to protect it.

You’re telling me that we shouldn’t be able to express our concerns, whether directly or indirectly, about anything related to Polkadot and the ecosystem?

The new approach seems more like a push to censor people than to encourage open, honest debate.

I understand that some topics can be uncomfortable. I get that people are frustrated when they’re called out for the lack of progress over the last 5 years, and I can even understand why my post about the 30% allocation of DOT tokens to W3F, tokens that were given out for free at the TGE, was taken down. These tokens are now being used to vote on community initiatives, even though they were never purchased, just sold. That’s a big deal, and it deserves attention.

But here’s the thing: don’t come at me preaching decentralization, privacy, and all the nice things about Web3 when it feels like these very principles are being trampled. If we can’t discuss these important issues without facing this kind of silencing, then we’re not actually practicing the values we claim to uphold.

It’s about open discussion and accountability, not hiding behind anonymity or using “alt” accounts to manipulate the narrative. If the goal is to foster a healthy environment, then let’s have a fair debate, not one where people are shamed into silence.

1 Like
5

You do realize that I’m one of those people, right?

Do you see me going around scared of criticizing either Parity or the W3F?

This is exactly my point: if you add value, real value, you’ve earned the right to speak your mind. You should still be accountable for your words, of course. But you don’t need to hide behind a bunch of disposable alt accounts.

It’s obvious the people behind those alts have been around this ecosystem for a while. It’s also obvious, at least to me, that they’re a bunch of parasites trying to earn points with the new OpenGov rulers by running coordinated smear campaigns. They don’t use alts because they’re “afraid of consequences”; they use alts because wasting everyone’s time and energy is the only thing they know how to do with their pathetic lives.

Here’s the thing: if you add value then you shouldn’t be afraid of speaking your mind, even if you’re wrong sometimes. The work you’ve done should give you enough backbone to stand behind your own name.

If, on the other hand, this ecosystem has become so rotten that it punishes people who speak their minds despite them adding real value (which I fear it’s starting to happen), then we’re doomed anyway. So the least we can do is try and not cower behind sock puppets.

“Sadly” nothing. The actual motivation of that post was not to “address accountability”. It was to engineer exactly what happened: people like you publicly speculating that the author was @tien, which is obviously false.

That was the real goal. And you either fell for it, or you’re part of this little organized cluster. I’m honestly not sure which is worse.

Nah, you coward. What’s really going on here is me telling you: own your words.

No. I’m saying something much simpler: people should know that your account is controlled by the same parasites behind @salty_carbonara and @ButteryBolognaise.

That’s it. As long as that point is clear, I’m good.

5 Likes
6

I stopped reading here.
Quite ironic that your thread is titled “respectful debate”

7

I hadn’t even seen that post, thanks for tagging. Well, also for clearing my name, I would have completely missed it otherwise :slightly_frowning_face:

I’m genuinely at a loss for words at this point, the amount of effort going into counterproductive behaviour is honestly baffling. Imagine if people channelled this level of energy into doing something productive instead…

And just to be absolutely clear, I’m not trying to be smug, sarcastic, or clever with my wording. I’m also speaking about this specific instance only, not making any broader statement about anything or anyone else. It really is just genuinely sad to see.

3 Likes
8

This is your personal opinion, and it’s as wrong as some of the other ideas you’ve shared in your comments above. Polkadot isn’t as open or as decentralized as people like to think. And if you don’t agree with that, then you’re simply part of the problem.

Also, the whole “education” and calling people “cowards” or whatever else you wrote only shows that you’re part of the issue here. What you said, I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but the community is pretty negative overall. It’s not just me. There are no users, no applications, no projects, etc. There has to be a reason for that, and it’s certainly not because of volunteers who are donating their free time for nothing.

I’m also still curious about the fact that the W3F received DOT tokens completely for free at the TGE, abused them by taking staking rewards, sold them, and now part of those tokens are being used to vote against the community on Opengov proposals. What’s your take on that? Doesn’t it raise serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the governance process?

This account is not controlled by the same people behind @salty_carbonara or @ButteryBolognaise. That’s a baseless accusation and doesn’t reflect reality. I’m here to discuss the issues, not to be dragged into conspiracy theories.

1 Like
9

There is a clear reason why people hide their identities.

The last two topics opened on the forum included 2-3 people with clear identities - both of them landed on KUS daily where KUS used whatever information he has about them, to discredit their personal value/integrity, in order to prove they are unfit to ask for a report, which he is unable to produce (to this day).
KUS on political violence

”Jeeper is an angry fellow” - anyone who interacted with jeeper knows this is an oxymoron.

This is not the first time KUS did this:

AAG - Crushing Fudders, Drinking tears, Wiping with diplomas
Let me also help you out with a written transcript of what was said on that AAG:

I’ve had an amazing weekend just crushing the paid fudders it’s um it’s just been Incredible. You know I like coffee I like it with cream but what I’ve been doing I just imagine the cream is their tears and I drink it up you know. When I walk around my apartment I like to imagine the paid fudders as tiny little ants that I’m crushing with every bullish step and when I’m on the toilet I don’t see toilet paper but I see a role of their Community College social science diplomas and I use that to clean myself before I carry on with my bullish business paid futters are absolutely.

So lets get to the point here:

  • Who in the ecosystem is protecting individuals, like Jeeper, which simply published the report numbers to the forum and received public linch?

  • Who in the ecosystem has spoken up about AAG where “fudders” are are being crushed, and their diplomas used for wiping themselves?

  • Did the OpenGov pay for the AAG where this quote was said?

  • When says what he says, you can clearly see who other participants are, their reactions. This is what anonymity is for.

  • Where is accountability for KUS?

  • Do we feel Polkadot has created an environment where it is safe to speak up about problems? The proof is above, do whatever you want with it.

    Proof of personhood will not change this, it may achieve only one result and that is - total anonymity, where users enter with a nickname, leaving the door open so they can still say what they mean, without risking a public linch. Technology cannot solve a systemic issue, where accountability does not exist for people in position of power - it starts there.

    Think for yourself. Question authority.

4 Likes
10

There will always have the debate of anonimity.

If we want PoP in governance, it should be anonymous.
We never saw “democratic” systems without anonymous mechanims. No one should be able to know your own voting in the end.

Otherwise, you are subject to receive active pressure on your name or auto-censor what you say or vote.

You will have pros and cons about anonymity.
Trolls are a plague.
Voting anonymously is a requirement.

1 Like