Polkadot forum moderation, flagging and policies

I have had two comments flagged by ‘the community’, and therefore hidden.

Both were deemed ‘off-topic’ despite the fact that the authors of the posts either liked the comment or messaged directly to ask why the comment has been flagged.

If anyone is to establish what is/isn’t off-topic it would be the OP.

I reached out to moderators and have had nothing back.

Without some transparency about moderation policy, its annoying at best and censorship at worst.

Comment 1 on Subscan ought to change its business model or be replaced

Comment 2: on Quadratic Voting for Polkadot Governance


I can confirm that the second one was very much on-topic and relevant to the discussion (some parts do take a detour, but IMO are still relevant)

1 Like

These posts are being flagged 3+ times by the community:

Moderators on this forum then have a queue where they are notified to review the post, and have the choice to unhide it.

The list of moderators can be found here:


If you find that your post is still hidden, either it hasn’t been reviewed or has been deemed by a moderator to be correctly flagged.

In either case, it is not moderation policy which is leading to this, it is the fact the community finds your posts not in line with the community values.

I agree moderators selected at the moment are not super active, but certainly it would be wrong to say there is some effort to censor material here.

Ok. Not an ideal situation. Flagging content should really be in line with the policies of the site not something so arbitrary.

I’m not clear then, have mods reviewed these examples?

If this is how sensitive the ‘community’ are we’re gonna have a hard time if debates become more energetic shall we say.

Stupid question, but given general engagement on posts is low, it seems 3 independent flags are stretching credulity when they are so banal.

Could this not be one person with three accounts?

I do not think your posts are getting sybil attacked. Note that this problem with posts getting flagged seems to be pretty specific to you, and if I had to be honest, your posts are often times to me very ranty / off-topic.

I have not flagged any of your posts, but I can understand why someone else might.

For example, your second post is on a topic about quadratic voting. Can you please summarize what your post says about that topic at all?

In your first post, you seemed to hijack a post about Subscan, a specific block explorer, and tried to turn it into a conversation about parachains economics, starting with this post, and carrying on until your flagged post:

Without becoming confrontational, I might suggest you do not use this forum as an outlet to rant about whatever, wherever, and instead move forward conversations with the topic in mind.

If you have a topic you want to speak about, you should create a thread, not hijack another persons.

I think you have seen that there is a very high tolerance for topics discussed on this forum, however we should continue to have low tolerance against people who disrupt conversations.

As a tangible action item, all users have the ability to send personal messages to moderators using @moderators and ping them review your posts. Beyond that, these are the default settings for the discourse forum, and if you want the site administrators to adjust something, please first research the available settings and make a suggestion for what you think would be a better configuration:


Related to moderation, flagging and policies - i think we need to evolve our thinking to enable this forum to allow conversations to flow, to wander and to ultimately flex to allow diverse perspectives to flourish without immediately killing momentum.

Moderation is a tough job and something that is far more nuanced than people realise - but we should focus on outcomes, not trying to regulate every situation.

Please see this comment and my response

Noted. I am after all human and building in this space, can be frustrating. I would like to think my posting to the forum represents an emotional, as well as a rational side. That is ok in my book.

This is a good question - and cuts to the heart of why we need to understand the challenge of raising the collective intelligence here as one of semantics.

I think differently to you, you think differently to me and therefore what seems on-topic for me, may seem off-topic to you or others.

I see connections where you don’t. I’m sure the reverse would be true for posts that were maybe more technical.

The Quadratic post is specific in its focus on a type of voting system - but its presentation is directly attributable to @brenzi’s recent experience with Encointer and explaining the purpose / value / rationale for public goods.

You take his starting point, and then move on quickly from his specific ‘tool’ suggestion (the subject) and move down a rung on the intuition ladder by suggesting this isn’t a good approach, instead:

and then.

I agree with this but you have moved one level “off topic”, and it is from here that you then make your case about different voting systems.

I read this, and the original post and from this point on, due to the way I think, its clear this is not a debate about Quadratic Voting, the real issue is at a much lower level, namely the tension between public funding (that will not obviously accrue value to the token, hence skepticism) and public funding, which @brenzi is focused on supporting via this particular toolset.

We can see this insight as two or perhaps three levels below the original topic, but still directly connected to the reason for the suggestion of Quadratic Voting.

It is this framing - of what I would contend are closer to the real issues, that I then take as forward steps - this is perhaps my problem of not being clear the way I think to make what then feels like an intellectual leap.

The leap I make is about how to address the seemingly intractable challenge of both funding public goods and making NGU.

The point I make from this point is about how we need to think about public —-> private goods as a funding and support process, rather than trying to perfect some perfect single function to keep everyone happy. This won’t work.

Are you familiar with Toyota’s five whys?

Five whys (or 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question “Why?” five times. The answer to the fifth why should reveal the root cause of the problem.[2]

For the majority of the issues we see come around again and again in the ecosystem, it’s because people don’t inquire deeply enough about the real reason for a particular symptom.

We see this problem everywhere in the modern world - in fact (to go a few step further “off topic”) modern medicine treats the symptoms of illnesses, rather than the root causes.

Have depression? Here’s this pill. Cures - perhaps working less, spending more time with friends and family, walking in nature are not profitable, simply because they are not commercial.

It is better to let problems continue and indeed profit from the new problems caused by the treatment of the original one. The system corrupts itself through badly misaligned incentives, which is where we come back to your key point about “outcomes”.

Crypto imo is for the most part this same story. Slowly fixing hard, boring problems like how to sustainably fund public goods does not make for a sexy keynote presentation nor material for influencers to tempt token holders into NGU level fomo.

Rich, I have definitely noticed that at time you steer of the topic into a tangent that totally ends up derailing the original topic of the conversation. Imho, if you want to start a whole new thread of thought, please do start a new topic use another channel for that. There is a reason someone recently just replied to you with the CIA disruption handbook meme.

Useful information!