Not sure what you mean. I've never ran a witness by myself or with anyone else. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Not sure what you mean. I've never ran a witness by myself or with anyone else. You must have me confused with someone else.
Ah! I did indeed. Thanks for clarifying. I got confused with @rhondak.
Gosh what a thread to dig through hunting a mention. Mercy!
I still love my choice for witness team alignment, despite the controversy. I kept waiting to for those who warned me to be proven right, and Cork to be proven base of character the way they claim. As time went on, the inverse became true based on the behaviors I saw with my own eyes.
People can "claim" anything they want. For my own personal knowledge, I asked the one guy claiming Cork owes him money for the dogs if he would offer proof. He didn't just fail to do so, he flat-out refused. Publicly, in front of many witnesses. Yet still this is an issue? How? For me, the fact that Cork needed money to care for the animals he committed to says more about his character than that of any self-righteous accuser. It demonstrates loyalty and a clear understanding of ethical responsibility.
Then we get back to the moral code of the people in question. First, none of the people involved with @noblewitness or @thewritersblock ever engaged in divisive conduct. We included everyone in everything. Shared members, shared moderators. Shared witness support. No one can argue that Cork says things in the most diplomatic manner, because clearly he doesn't. But I've yet to see him be proven wrong about any points he's made. Others, however...wow. The behaviors! Licentious remarks in public forums. The creation of an entire Steem account to mock an accidental misspelling of Cork's name that was downright vulgar. Is there no sense of shame with some people? What about publicly ridiculing a person's appearance after they took chemotherapy and years of immunosuppressants? Yet somehow all of this is okay? But wait--the best (or worst, depending on which camp a person is in,) is the blatant edict by a community leader for his entire drone army to disassociate from Cork and any initiatives he's part of. This edict came with the express threat of removing delegations and all support from anyone who affiliates with him. And the whole drone army concurred that this was acceptable. And yet, this is okay?
Talk about centralized! It's the antithesis of everything the blockchain is supposed to represent. Bottom line is that no one associated with @sircork ever, at any time, forbade anyone else from affiliating with "those other folks," participating in their servers, voting their witness, or following their blogs. We encouraged cross-promotion and teamwork. Then suddenly there it is, in writing, that the leader of the largest community on Discord has forbidden "his people" from association with Cork or Noblewitness. What the absolute hell, people? HOW is ANY of this not a thousand times worse than any lip Cork ever gave anyone? Yet they get a free pass for this egregious and downright insidious behavior?
Not from me, they don't. Never have I been more pleased about where I chose to place my alliance. I'll take Cork's lip over corrupt character any day.
And by the way, his dogs are wonderful.