Never heard of this. Why are you leaning on a multi sig, regardless?
It was in the Wau Holland report, but itās an easy detail to forget.
I didnāt āleanā on him I asked one question after he insisted he knew everything. And again,
1 Like
Sigh.
If one had an issue with any deemed unethical behavior concerning BZ - than the actual approach is to address the Admin team, which IS the procedure.
In a professional setting - would you publish someoneās private messages with EVERYBODY?
In fact it is part of our community guidelines not to engage in something that would not be accepted in a professional place.
Its not like you have been specifically targetted either Emma - I was banned twice in succession and appealed it correctly behind the scenes with no drama - others here have been banned for MONTHS by BZ merely for asking about elements of his proposal. .
.
Someoneās messages with ME, not their āprivate messages with EVERYBODY.ā
You may be surprised to learn thatās why I left it up to the community. You seem to be against it but havenāt voted āNoā. And youāre citing community guidelines posted in a place Iām banned from even looking. So, 
I did this multiple times, until I was blocked entirely. As for not being specifically targeted, read the excerpts posted again. As for the ādramaā - Iām not the one who brought this up here. That would be @San_Shi_Wu.
You make a good argument for removing bz as a mod, but you should bring that up elsewhere.
Where is this procedure listed? Is it in one of the places Iāve been banned from? I brought up the issues in the chat Iām not banned from and they were ignored until @San_Shi_Wu derailed the thread by bringing them up and saying that I was working with bz based off my saying bz canāt be trusted.
Those procedures were presented under Start here>Rules at Discord in May 2022 and were formulated by the community.
@San_Shi_Wu - did not derail the thread IMO. Theyāre talking about key skills for consideration of candidates for the GTU. Its a key governance issue to be fixed.
My opinion on that is that the DAO will need to hire people capable of appearing in the public arena with very strong relevant skills, if Gabriel wants the place to succeed.
As for the poll - pay me $ /s. I think the rules outlined, that is contact an admin is good enough for everybody to abide by.
Youāve dodged the matter of raising those alleged moderation abuses first with other Admins or Gabriel. But havenāt explained why you didnāt take that sensible course of action. Clearer now?
Why would I? I didnāt bring it up here as a complaint - it was brought up as an allegation, and then I was repeatedly asked about it. You seem to think this is about me being banned, but itās not. I gave up on being allowed in the Discord.
Very productive, very professional.
On the contrary, I already said I raised them in the only chat Iām allowed in. Gabriel saw it and didnāt care (he has since left the group again).
As for Gabriel, heās made it clear he doesnāt want to hear from me. As for the other admins, youāre asking why I didnāt consult a list of people that Iām officially banned from seeing?
But the community has no power to unban you. So talk to the two Admins here. Im sure theyāre reasonable - theyāve tidied up a few things here that I felt was a bit off. But I donāt think much of this revenge exposure stuff. Anyway you can contact HH and Zylo, independently.
Again, my problem wasnāt the ban. Iām never going to be unbanned again, and I accept that. It was the duplicity, which is relevant to everyone. I donāt know how many times and ways I have to say that, but it was my first post on the matter in this thread (after San Shi Wu brought it up).
Doing something because Gabriel didnāt want him to do it is deliberate undermining, and he refused to explain further.
Youāre projecting a lot of meaning and intent on things while disregarding what I tell you happened and were my reasons, and refusing to look at the actual materials. Your bias is showing.
I really donāt know what you want or wish to achieve. If I look at those posts, it comes across as a it takes two to tango scenario, until it all went sour for both of you.
I wasnāt the one who brought it up here or posted the screenshots here. San Shi Wu did. I responded to clarify, and since then have answered questions and responded to posts directly at or about me while offering to be as transparent as the community wants, nothing more or less.
Leave off the dressing and nefarious assumptions and youāre close enough, there.
Take responsibility for posting them at the DAO, in the first place. The place is trying to recover, You always had more discete options. One would have been to walk away as soon as they gave you grief in their messages.
I have and do take responsibility for that. (Start with my first post on the matter in this thread and work your way down)
The community deserved to know. Your preference for silence and unity isnāt a reason to not share relevant information with the community. I know itās relevant because San_Shi_Wu brought it up, which you said ādid not derail the threadā because:
Itās āa key governance issueā thatās relevant to the communityās governance discussions, including this one. Your words.
You can blame me for speaking up about a problem (as always) which is a waste of energy IMHO, or you can deal with the problem, or you can sit with the problem.
I think anything else is both of us wasting our time, and we should really let the thread get back on topic.
Agree because I donāt and never would expose a private chat. Unless the content was illegal.
1 Like
Trying to get the thread going again / back on the main topic:
About the GTU candidates,I would like to recommend Martin Kƶppelmann. He is a holder of the Justice token and has been a long-time supporter of Assange.just not sure if he would be willing to join and dedicate time to our community.
2 Likes
I donāt know much about Martin Kƶppelmann, but what I do know (mostly having seen his posts shared on social media) suggests heād be a good advocate.
I was able to convert the HTML exports to PDF, and uploaded them here. Original archive was posted to Telegram here.
BZ 01.pdf (3.8 MB)
BZ 02.pdf (805.1 KB)
Attachments:
PA summary with bail.pdf (57.2 KB)
AssangeDAO-Governance notes March 5, 2022.html.pdf (45.0 KB)
Assange-Audios.zip (58.2 MB)
forum.assangedao.org-simple.zip (39.1 MB)
The PA summary with bail is about E, the former multisig. E originally posted the video, as well, which is a screen recording of one of the Telegram chats used by AssangeDAOās organizers.
The March 5, 2022 Governance notes come from A Collective Notion instance.
The audio files from Assangeās hearing were originally posted by Cryptome as released by the court, as PDFs with the MP3s attached. Because thatās confusing and weird, I extracted the MP3s and sent those raw. For completeness, all of them are included here.
The archive of the old forum was taken from the Wayback Machine. Itās an attempt to make a snapshot of the forums using the most recently archived version of each page before the forum went down, using the Wayback Machine Downloader. Iāve also uploaded this and a more complete archive here, and by clicking āView Contentsā on this page you can browse either version without downloading it.
If anyone notices any missing attachments, please let me know and Iāll try to add them. Likewise for any questions about the attachments, or their origins.