I have spent hours of my time doing research on the IBP Bounty and my post with legitimate questions has been deleted or hidden by staff.
How in this possible ? @bill_w3f
Update: it looks its visible now
1 Like
Tagging random people is against the rules on this Forum and I’m not sure why you would possibly be tagging me on this issue. I am not a mod on here, have no control over post visibility, and Web3 Foundation does not own this forum.
3 Likes
Hi there, unfortunately this is your third warning and instead of contacting the mods directly about the post (it looks like it was flagged by a community member) you are 1) tagging random people, again, after being warned about it only yesterday, and 2) creating posts which are not adding to the discussion and could have been a message to the mods instead, which is essentially spam. Please consider this your third and last warning - if you do not change this behavior you will be banned. Thank you.
2 Likes
I apologize for any inconvenience caused, and I won’t tag you again. However, I don’t understand how it’s possible that I published what I believe was a relevant and constructive post, and it ended up being flagged and hidden by the moderators.
Could you please explain what was wrong with my post or why it was considered inappropriate to the point of being flagged and removed? It’s clear to me now that next time I should address this directly with the moderators. Apologies.
As I said in my previous post, it appears it was flagged by a community member shortly after posting, which auto-flags it to the discourse forum system and auto-hides it until a moderator can address it. It was since restored.
There are a lot of automated spam systems inside the Discourse software which do not require moderator intervention, and in this case your post was hidden automatically. In general this usually makes the moderators’ lives easier (a lot of spam accounts, for example, are caught before their posts are even visible), but everything goes into a queue for manual review.
The manual review can take some time as the current moderators are doing this as a public good service and not as a part of a dedicated job. Thanks for your understanding.
4 Likes
Understood now! Thanks
Hi @Megadot! I’m concerned that your recent messages are adding a lot of churn and are coming across as personal toward certain people.
Please keep in mind that W3F is already funding OpenGov.Watch to do this exact kind of oversight. This work can be done in a way that’s more effective and more constructive: by keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high, avoiding reputational harm, and validating claims before making them public. In practice, that means contacting the people you’re raising concerns about via private channels first, giving them an opportunity to respond, and escalating publicly only with clear evidence. Good news for you is that they are the people that can help you do exactly that, also they are funded until the end of the month, so take advantage of that while you can 
.
I strongly recommend collaborating with them and stepping back from public comms. They can help channel your efforts into a process that’s effective, fair, and focused on facts… so it doesn’t come across as personal or adversarial.
I’d love to introduce you to @jeeper: I think you’ll get along well. You both care about protecting treasury funds and improving oversight, and you seem to approach evaluations in a similarly structured way. You even share the same kind of tendencies when it comes to evaluate how functional/dysfunctional bounties are. For example, neither of you had any concerns about the UX bounty. That’s why I think that you two will get along very well. It might be helpful to collaborate and align on a consistent framework for judging bounty performance.
Some folks have speculated you might be an alt of @jeeper because of the many similarities. I asked him directly yesterday and he confirmed that’s not true. He also said he’d prefer people participate openly rather than anonymously. So, please, help each other!
What worries me is the impact this is having on perceptions across the community. The current approach is fueling speculation about whether these anonymous accounts are being supported (directly or indirectly) by the W3F. Even if that’s not true, the optics are damaging and it undermines trust in governance. It also creates the impression that internal capacity is being used to create drama, and then justify a large team to manage said drama, rather than focusing the resources on reducing it and focusing on the important work.
I can understand why the speculation comes up (I even had that thought for a moment) but on reflection I don’t think it holds up. I’m confident W3F has higher-priority work than enabling avoidable drama.
That’s why I’m asking you (and any other anonymous accounts involved) to help de-escalate here 
. @Megadot, please coordinate directly with @jeeper so concerns can be handled through the W3F-funded governance process: gather evidence, reach out privately to the people involved first, and only share publicly once facts are verified and there’s something actionable to report. This will reduce unnecessary drama and lower the risk of unfair accusations.
If you’re open to it, I’d also suggest letting @jeeper be the public point of contact for updates while you focus on the research.
To protect trust in the process, I think it’s important that anonymous accounts stop hiding themselves. Please coordinate with the W3F governance team so allegations are evaluated rigorously and any misunderstandings are resolved.
Thanks in advance for considering my suggestion!
3 Likes