Reply to "Texas niche, description"

Emily Barnett posted:

Not trying to sound like a parrot to @Malkazoid but rather to reiterate that more than one person thinks we should be able to vote separately on the name and description.

Or if it really is to complicated of a voting procedure then, I guess the solution is to work it out amongst ourselves like we just did, but I think that caused a lot of undue concern placed on the part of the winner of a Niche. I can only imaging the crappy feeling one has when you win only to find out somebody rejected it to the tribunal. I feel badly about that. But I also think that this Niche will be more profitable as a result, if it gets a more aligned  and in focus description to match the Niche Name, as a result of this process. 

I too think a two vote system should be considered. Name and description.

No danger of sounding like a parrot to anyone Emily - your voice and presence are very distinct and valuable!  It is very helpful for the community to hear more voices than one, but also helpful to me because everyone needs rational others to help them better understand their own perspective.

The ICO and Chaucer alpha are a powerful filter, not only favouring those with crypto knowledge, but probably also selecting for passion, adventurous spirit, and various forms of intelligence.  I don't want to assume that everyone will be as rational and devoted to community success as TheRandomOne is - when the general public can buy niches, we'll get a very mixed bag.  I'm glad some of us feel it is important to try to solve this in a systemic way!

×
×
×
×