Blockchain Trailblazers - Civil Registry Discussion

Hi Blockchain Trailblazers. You have successfully submitted your application to join the Civil Registry. Over the next 10 days, members of the Civil community may reach out to you with questions regarding your editorial policy, privacy policy, and business model. Newsrooms will get an email alert every time there is a comment relating to their Civil Registry Profile. Please make sure to check this discussion forum regularly to respond to community comments.

(Cross-posting from previous discussion forum, for posterity:)

Vivian
Staff
2 months ago
Hello everyone, The Civil Council had decided to uphold the community vote. The appeal is not granted. You can read more about our decision here: https://blog.joincivil.com/civil-councils-statement-on-the-blockchain-trailblazer-s-appeal-af053d04b9b9. Thanks.

mariabustillos
3 months ago
I learned a lot from these first few challenges. Especially, that there will never be enough manpower to keep this registry clean unless it is very clear that a newsroom’s application can’t be altered after the initial submission.

I propose a system like the ones used for journalism award submissions, where you have to upload inalterable PDFs (not links). Maybe requiring some set series of pages: About Us, staff bios, an editorial mission statement and say five or ten pieces for the community to evaluate. (?)

It’s out of the question to expect this community to review a submission over and over, as violations during the challenge period are “fixed.” We’ll never have a moment’s peace.

Still more importantly, there is the matter of fairness to the challenger. If the “problems” can be “fixed” so that challengers are at risk of losing their challenge tokens based on unforeseeable events, that will very much discourage challengers (and vetting).

Knowing, instead, that you can’t alter your submission will make people think twice about submitting unprofessional/unethical newsroom applications, so it’s optimizing for the right goal.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
This is a very good point Maria. And I completely agree. However, this is not a factor in my challenge, since to my knowledge there are no restrictions on making changes to a newsroom under challenge.

(IMO)
Your suggestion would become increasingly effective when there is more challenge data and examples for new applicants to review. And when people are spending their own money (not a Civil grant) to apply as a newsroom, they’ll use this information to seriously consider how their newsroom may be in violation of the Civil Constitution.

This will significantly reduce the amount of effort involved in reviewing newsrooms. Then the Civil voting process will play a more important role as there will likely be more split decisions. I believe a one-sided vote indicates an overall failure in the process.

These early challenges are not so much challenges as they are an education on journalism for those without a strong journalism background. As it is now, I believe voters are taking a quick guess at who’ll win, and placing a vote to win tokens rather than defending the Constitution.

In the future some applicants will surely be professional journalists, while others will still be learning the ropes. Journalists will instinctively understand and apply the Constitution. Others will have to try harder. But it would be a mistake to systematically eliminate non-expert journalists. Because chances are they’ll have more to write about.
nealmcb
3 months ago
I’ve advocated since the first challenge was unfolding that the current rules are too simplistic, and we need updated procedures. I think that is actually to be expected early on.

But I don’t think we can change the rules as we consider this particular challenge and appeal. I think lots of people voted without following all the subsequent back-and-forth during which many changes to the site resolved the issues raised in the challenge. Unless the newsroom is currently not out of compliance with the constitution, I think it should be accepted.

I think Civil should stick to the “big tent” vision in the Constitution, and be proud of helping improve this particular site. If the site goes out of compliance in the future, it can be challenged at any time.

People are concerned at this early stage, with a very small community of active stakeholders, that we can’t effectively evaluate the flood of early applicants. I agree it is a bit overwhelming now, but I hope we can also evolve ways to scale these efforts.

E.g. suppose a challenger identifies significant issues with a newsroom. And then suppose the newsroom resolves them, and is accepted. That would be a win-win for the newsroom and for the public. But as has been pointed out, currently the challenger would lose their challenge deposit. Instead, perhaps some of the still-unallocated CVLs can be awarded by the foundation to the challenger when that kind of win-win occurs. That would also get yet more CVLs in circulation to helpful members of the community also, which seems like a win-win-win to me. That’s a quick idea, but I expect that with some judicious evolution of the rules, we can come up with various ways that both challengers and newsrooms can be more confident that if the result is a win-win for journalism, it will also be a win-win for them. And who knows what other mechanisms we can evolve. Might it be appropriate to engage the readership of each Civil newsroom in the effort? For example, what if all accepted newsrooms were obliged to make it easy for readers to learn about the constitution, and provide their feedback (both positive and negative), so we can identify persistent issues that may come up?

It isn’t ideal to have sites approved and later rejected, but I think the world will understand that these are early days in an enormous undertaking, and as we all evolve our tools and practices and norms, we should quickly reach a state in which we effectively maintain a clear link between the Civil Constitution and the accepted newsrooms, which is in everyone’s benefit.

People also want to help identify the highest-quality newsrooms. With our infrastructure in place, we or others can also consider additional categories of newsrooms to reward the truly exceptional ones, with a level of quality that goes significantly beyond the constitution.
Benjamin
3 months ago
Responding to Neal, I followed the discussion and maintained my vote against the newsroom because they did not seem to fully address all of the complaints raised to them and seemed to disrespect multiple community members, thereby violating the constitution. If they had been less aggressive towards some critiques, I think I could have been convinced to give them the benefit of the doubt on the remaining problems, but I think that disrespect to the community is a problem that is unlikely to be resolved.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Hello Everyone,

Before my vote takes place in a few hours I wanted to share one more thought…

I think one of the greatest speeches ever was given was by President John F. Kennedy. The words he used are some of the most inspiring words ever spoken. I’m sure you’ve heard them.

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
― John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. President

I know most people who are voting on my challenge are focused on their own personal preferences and beliefs about what journalism is.

But I believe the challenge in making Civil great is being “objective enough” to vote based on the Civil Constitution. And this seems to be the same challenge Kennedy proposed 58 years ago.

Here’s Kennedy giving the speech - it’s only 1,366 words in length and worth a listen.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago

But I believe the challenge in making Civil great is being “objective enough” to vote based on the Civil Constitution. And this seems to be the same challenge Kennedy proposed 58 years ago.

I absolutely agree! Hence I’ve shared the following comment previously that I would like to mention one more time before this vote ends:

“On your website you state in the “About Us” section: “BlockchainTrailblazers.com is a non-profit news site that’s is part of the Civil network of newsrooms.” This is factually false, unacceptable and in clear violation of the constitution (Journalistic principle #1 Accuracy). You are not part of the Civil newsrooms until your listing is approved. Proof, as of now: https://snag.gy/8rBGud.jpg - Hope that point wasn’t too vague.”
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
This “is” accurate in my understanding of the Civil Constitution.

However, if it makes you happy I’ve made a small change.

BlockchainTrailblazers.com is a non-profit news site that has applied to be part of the Civil network of newsrooms.”

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
(Edited)

This “is” accurate in my understanding of the Civil Constitution. However, if it makes you happy I’ve made a small change.

If the previous version was accurate, then why would you change it? To get my vote? Is that the type of “Journalism” you believe the Civil project is trying to attract?

The fact that this statement was there when you applied is enough for me to go all-in on rejecting this newsroom. But then you tell us that for you it was an accurate statement, only to compound to all this, you make a change you don’t believe in. Imma start to think you’re a bait sent by the Civil Foundation to test the community ability to curate the registry :sweat_smile:
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Now you’re just being argumentative. And maybe you’re a bit nuts?
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Initially I only laid out my arguments for the sake of clarifying my position to other members. Then yes, I became argumentative to get you to express yourself so we can understand better the way you reason.

You might also be right that I’m a bit nuts, but who isn’t really!

I think we’re done here but regardless of how the challenge ends, I do want to wish you good luck with your projects. Cheers :-)
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
If I need to appeal, it will be interesting to see what the actual experts on journalism and freedom of speech think.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Hardly anyone here seems concerned about the truth (or the challenge).
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
(Edited)
Or, everybody might lose interest in the discussion where everything that needed to be said, already has been said? But feel free to appeal, I’m eager to get some of your tokens! ;-)
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Yep, that seems to be what all the comments here are about. Getting some tokens. Because except for a few comments, there seems to be little interest in the Civil Constitution.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Well tokens is how us, curators, get paid. So yes, I am happy that keeping out websites like yours that do not respect the Constitution’s journalistic principle #1 (accuracy) is helping to pay my bills, it’s indeed quite exciting!
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
If you felt there was something specific about my site that isn’t accurate, you should’ve spoke up while you had the chance.

The only point in the challenge about accuracy is my reporting. I record all my interviews and transcribe them word-for-word, so everything is 100% accurate.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
That also, is incorrect. Everything around your Newsroom must be accurate, not only your reporting. I’m happy your are making all those statements that cannot be deleted, everything you said can and will be used against your newsroom if you appeal. ;-)
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
I actually misunderstood you here, apologies. Allow me to properly answer the two points you’ve just made:

If you felt there was something specific about my site that isn’t accurate, you should’ve spoke up while you had the chance.

I can speak up at any point in time, there’s no time limit for that.

The only point in the challenge about accuracy is my reporting. I record all my interviews and transcribe them word-for-word, so everything is 100% accurate.

The points made in the challenge are only useful to get the attention of other members and to make it easier for them to locate the problem. Any point that hasn’t been raised by the person who created the challenge, can absolutely be raised by any member, at any point in time.

Benjamin
3 months ago
Accuracy shall also be maintained by presenting relevant facts from different points of view.

The constitution is quite clear that multiple points of view should be addressed, which your website does not do.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Benjamin, regarding your point about accuracy and the requirement for “different points of view,” there are two points of view in every interview I’ve conducted - my own (my article) and that of the interviewee (their quotes).

About the other multiple points you believe my website does not do, please explain.

I think Civil asks for evidence so they can to treat this process like a court case. Quotes from the Civil Constitution are not evidence. The only evidence presented were links to Youtube videos that have been removed from my site. I expect that’s all the appeal will be based on.

The challenger also said my site is made up mostly of third-party content. This was never the case since the videos from Youtube were never on my site. My site only contained links to Youtube. Regardless, most of the content on my site was always my interviews. My feature interviews average 1000 words each. All 43 of my interviews are still there.

Here’s the latest post on “Popula,” Maria Bustillo’s site - I see only one point of view and a linked Youtube video
https://popula.com/2019/04/18/mursik/

Benjamin
3 months ago
If that is how you view the interview, I would wonder where the boundary is between opinion and journalistic content on your site. It seems to me that either your interpretation or mine raises issues.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
It’s an interesting discussion. I’m sure Civil will use these comments to improve their system.

As far as I know, the purpose of these comments is to evaluate the above challenge based on evidence.

Here’s how the Constitution defines journalism. I think my content meets their description…

“Journalism can be defined as the the activities involved in an independent pursuit of accurate information about recent or current events. It can take many forms including audio, video, illustration, photography, data visualizations, animation and text; “straight” news reporting, features reporting, long-form narrative journalism, opinion writing, advocacy journalism and personal essays. They are diverse in the topics they cover and the geographic regions in which they operate.”

Benjamin
3 months ago
No, the purpose of these comments is to evaluate your newsroom. The constitution also says, bolding mine:
Civil is founded on a belief that transparency — including, among other things, revealing categories of funding, biases, conflicts of interest, naming sources where possible, covering multiple angles of a controversial story and delineating facts and opinions — is a core value of journalism, and necessary to its sound practice.

Labeling opinion and commentary as such

These both strongly suggest to me that it is against the spirit and letter of the constitution to combine opinion and factual coverage without a clear separation within each piece.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
No, the purpose of these comments is to evaluate my newsroom based on the challenge. Read these comments from Vivian Schiller, CEO of Civil, here they are again…

"HI everyone, I’ve been monitoring a lot of the conversation here and want to weigh in with some guidance and reminders that I’m hoping will help.

First of all, I’m delighted to see folks engaging around the challenge. I’m particularly glad to see challenged newsroom responding regarding their position. This is exactly as it should be.

The spirit of Civil is to be a community where everyone plays a role in owning and managing the network. That means that token-holders have a responsibility to say something when they feel a newsroom is in violation of The Civil Constitution.

But it’s important to point out that the Constitution “must be referenced in support of any argument for limiting the access of any Newsroom to the Civil Protocol, whether that argument appears in a proposed Challenge, Vote, Appeal or Veto.” The Constitution then goes on to read that it is incumbent on the challenger to specify “the reasons they believe the Newsroom is in violation of the Civil Constitution, or evidence that the Newsroom has shown itself unwilling or incapable of meeting those standards.”

Put another way, Civil members are asked to vote solely on the basis of whether the newsroom- in its actions, in the provisions of its charter, in its organization or in it’s governance - is in violation of a specific constitutional provision (or provisions).

I would also strongly encourage the community to consider intent and a desire to publish quality journalism, often in the face of sustainability issues. That’s not to say that unethical behavior should be overlooked but rather give that you give newsrooms an opportunity to makes their case, and reflect their desire to find remedies .

Also - an important reminder: In the event that a challenger prevails, anyone can appeal that vote to the Civil Council. As a reminder, the Civil Council is comprised of seasoned journalists, attorneys and free speech experts. They will review the merits of the case and may overturn the community vote if they feel it was not tied to the Constitution. (As a reminder the community can then overturn the Civil Council’s decision by a super-majority.)

All that said, It’s still early days for us so we are still learning what the best incentives are - are there other tools or forums to address and correct ethical issues before a challenge is levied? Are discussion boards effective places for constructive dialogue? Ultimately, how will all of these tools and services lead to meaningful value to newsrooms and readers alike and an increased sense of trust and sustainability in the journalism industry?

We’re keeping an ear close to the ground and will consider building out whatever we need to do to support the community in making good and fair decisions. Civil succeeds when it provides the tools for the community to fix Civil on its own, without a central authority, in a process that’s transparent and isn’t answerable to anyone but the community itself.

Thank you for being on this journey with us."

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
I already posted what I think would be a description of my feature articles - a combination of profile, news and trends https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-writing-feature-stories-2074355

I guess the trends would be my opinion.

Thanks for putting so much thought into this.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Further, Civil’s definition of journalism is all encompassing. Some of the references in the challenge don’t apply to every type of journalism.

For example, I can see how an article that’s controversial would demand different points of view. But my articles aren’t controversial. They are interviews with high-profile business leaders about the innovative use of blockchain technology. If I wrote a story that was controversial I would certainly get different points of view.

I research every person I interview. This includes checking their website, Linkedin profile, youtube and other interviews. My feature stories are journalism, but not "investigative or under cover journalism. I’m not trying to blow the lid off the truth about oil lobbyists. Building their credibility is I expect the whole reason people let me interview them.

I don’t consider myself an “expert” journalist but some of the people who’ve been criticizing my writing obviously aren’t either. Most of the comments make claims based on opinions without any specifics. So, they seem like an effort to discredit me just to win tokens. That’s definitely not in keeping with the spirit of Civil or the Constitution.

As Vivian Schiller points out, the challenge is about showing…
“…evidence that the Newsroom has shown itself unwilling or incapable of meeting those standards.”

I believe it’s obvious I’m willing and confident I’m able to meet Civil’s standards.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
I guess it’d be more accurate to say my opinion in my feature articles comes from the people I choose to interview and what parts of the discussion I include. Upon reflection, I don’t think I’ve used first-person narrative in any of my articles. So they probably wouldn’t be defined as Op-Eds.

Again, I’m not an expert on Journalism. I’d be interested in what someone with a Masters Degree in Journalism could tell me.

I understand Civil has genuine experts on their board. So, I’ll leave it to them to tell me if I must appeal, which of course I will if necessary.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
The comment above I made that about the commentors not being interested in the truth is not accurate. I’ve just found that most of the comments are just not very specific about how the challenge relates to my website so that I may defend myself.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
According to Vivian Schiller, Civil CEO, the purpose of commenting and voting on a challenge is to:

“…give newsrooms an opportunity to makes their case, and reflect their desire to find remedies.”

So, now you have one more reason to vote for me. (I included her typo for accuracy)
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)

mariabustillos
3 months ago
The editorial mission page (https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/editorial-mission/) now states that “There is no fee to be interviewed by BlockchainTrailblazers.com. Derek Litttle [sic] is currently carrying all the costs of producing the site, so if you’re interested in supporting independent blockchain journalism, you may want to contribute or take part in our cause marketing campaign.”

I’m not sure Mr Little what you mean but “independent blockchain journalism” but these remarks and others fail to reflect reflect the Constitution’s idea of ethical journalism, which is rooted in Civil newsrooms’ “journalistic integrity, keeping their responsibility to the public at the fore.”

I’m trying to evaluate this application in good faith, but I do not see any representations on the Blockchain Trailblazers Editorial Mission page, or anywhere else on the site, that these precepts to heart. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a journalism project boast of not charging a fee to interviewees. This alone seems disqualifying to me.

Additionally, the B2B Content Network page solicits money from readers for copywriting and marketing services. I’ve spent a lot of time evaluating this site and despite many, many changes from the first time I went to evaluate it, there’s been no substantive alteration in the basic purpose of the site, which appears to be to sell copywriting and consulting services.

1 Like

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
I’m not sure I understand what you mean… Maria. Perhaps I haven’t explained myself well enough…

On my mission page I say there is no fee - this means I do not write sponsored content on my news site.

The reason I put this there is because people keep contacting me asking to pay me to write an article (pitching their products) and post it on my news site. Before I’d heard about Civil I considered this as a revenue strategy. But I didn’t feel good about it. I wanted to write what I wanted to write.

Now I maintain my independence by choosing which companies I write stories about. I don’t charge them a fee so I can write what I want. I only write about companies I feel are trailblazers. This means they have achieved some success at implementing blockchain (for a purpose other than cryptocurrency/tokens.

If you can suggest better wording, I’ll heed your advice.

My “public” is technology workers who already understand blockchain. They thank me for my articles so I “know” I am serving the public. These are the only people who visit my website. So it seems to me I’m doing exactly what I’m supposed to - “keeping responsibility to the public at the fore.” I am explaining “what works” with blockchain technology.

I do not believe there is a conflict of interest between being a copywriter (writing content), and a journalist (in training) writing interview/op-ed articles. These are two complete different types of written materials. I have two different websites serving two different purposes.

BlockchainTrailblazers.com is for news about blockchain. TrailblazerWriting.com is for my copywriting services. I believe I am entitled to earn an honest living as a copywriter. A news site is not a very reliable way to feed a family.

I’m completely open about the fact there’s is no sponsored content on my news site. I’ve positioned my site as a Nonprofit because once my site is approved on Civil I want to start encouraging my audience to buy Civil tokens and vote on what I write about. I believe they’ll take to this because they already like blockchain.

My news site is a work in progress, an experiment. I’m open to changing anything that makes it better.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
If I could earn a living just operating a news site, I’d drop the copywriting work (like a rock).
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Here’s a good article that describes the type of articles I write, a combination of profile, news and trends

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Here are 3 more great sources I found:

Curtis, Anthony. “How to Write a Feature Story.” The University of North Carolina-Pembroke, 2011.

Klems, Brian. “The Secret To Writing Stronger Feature Articles.” WritersDigest.com, 2 July 2014.
https://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/the-secret-to-writing-stronger-feature-articles

The New York Times Learning Network staff. “How to Write a Profile Feature Article.” NYTimes.com, 1999.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/students/writing/voices.html

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
To clarify - there are no sponsored “feature stories” on my site. There are a few links to content on my copywriting webiste, but all of these are labelled as “sponsored.”
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
I welcome any discussion or analysis on any part of the Civil Constitution you feel my Website does not meet. I look forward to continue being part of Civil network of newsrooms. Please add your relevant comments below.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
THE CHALLENGE: (and the changes I have made)


Summary of Challenge:
"Multiple violations of the Civil Constitution; publication is mostly unverified third-party content

On My Site:
There is now virtually “no” third party content on my website
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
All remaining linked Youtube videos in my newsletters have detailed citations.Any thoughts?
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
— Claim #1 (against my site)

Ethics Policy, Accuracy:

Civil Constitution says…
“Keeping their responsibility to the public at the fore. They should aim to report and present facts with the highest degree of accuracy possible… this may include verifying information before releasing it, including verifying third-party content; consulting first-person sources; avoiding exclusive reliance on third-party reports… acknowledging when this is not possible; acknowledging where information comes from, crediting other news organizations where appropriate as sources,”

On My Site

  • My audience (the public) is “technology workers.” They want to find out “what works” with blockchain technology in enterprise environments. My interviews deliver the goods
  • Facts are presented with the highest degree of accuracy.
  • All sources are “first-person” phone interviews
  • All sources are identified

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
— Claim #2 (against my site)

Ethics Policy, Transparency:

Civil Constitution says…
"Newsrooms “should make public their editorial mission and values.”

On My Site

Ethics Policy, Independence:

Civil Constitution says…
“Newsrooms must be clear and transparent about the lines between economic interests and editorial activities, which may include a posted policy on advertising, sponsorships and sponsored content; and consistent and clearsignals to indicate the difference between editorial and advertising or other sponsored content.”

On My Site

  • There is only one piece of sponsored content and it is labelled as such
    blockchaintrailblazers
    3 months ago
    Any thoughts?
    blockchaintrailblazers
    3 months ago

Additional Details (see above)

These posts have been removed:

Further:

  • There is “no” reliance on third-party content.
  • User: Trailblazer Admin has been removed from the website.
  • Any content mentioned (under additional details) has been removed
  • Claims of no Independence are false:
  • All articles are written by me personally

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Any thoughts?
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Civil staff: It would be practical to have a way so that members can filter out messages from other members, should they find their content non-relevant. In the instance of this publication, the overwhelming number of comments by the editor of this “Newsroom” is making it somewhat challenging to find the valuable comments of other members.

This case, while annoying, is not extreme. We have to start thinking about what the future will bring should the project become successful. If it does, we will see attempts at burying legitimate critics to protect the interests of a publication. We will need advanced moderation tools and techniques in order to help token-holders do their curation job. Eagerly waiting for a full-blown Discourse forum as a first step.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@GustavMarvin. - Not sure if you’re an American, but I think you need to re-read this

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@GustavMarwin - It’s challenging to find the valuable comments of other members because there are so few.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
(Edited)
I’m not American. But you must be French with such a peculiar sense of humor. :rofl:
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
136 Civil members and 8 people have made comments
Reidob
3 months ago
I respect your opinion (especially in this string) but I respectfully disagree with you here. Only the free flow of discussion will enable us to make an informed decision. For instance, had I not read the applicant’s childish response to your well-reasoned argument above, I would not have been as able as I am now to make a firm decision about how I will vote on this newsroom. Filtering his comments would have been a distinct disservice.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
(Edited)
I can see how multiple people might have different perspectives on that aspect, hence what I suggested would be something that would be activated on an individual basis. My perspective comes from Twitter debate where there’s a LOT of trolling and low-quality content that is impeding the smooth flow of a good debate. I’m very thankful I have the ability to mute certain people over there when I feel like they are hijacking my attention.

As I’ve mentioned, in the current case it’s not so much a big deal, it was meant as an early-warning of something that might become important. Once there’s 500+ messages on a controversial Newsroom challenge once Civil has gained a bit more traction, I have a feeling you’ll be thankful at that point, if such feature would be implemented.

If that reference isn’t clear, a Tweet that makes for a good example of this: https://twitter.com/IMFNews/status/1116082402940551169 - Observe the Ripple (XRP) shills making impossible to find any actually interesting comment. Obviously this is a different level of participation, but should we get this with Civil, it won’t be a personal blacklist that we will need, but a personal whitelist (technically that’s what the list of people you follow, is). It’s critical aspects like this that needs to be thought about way ahead, it’s part of the plan for scaling. If Civil gets successful, we will most definitely face this problem.
dallendoug
3 months ago
I feel that the filter is a feature request to help users, and doesn’t stop the “free flow of discussion.” If the default is unfiltered, then any user will see the totality of information, and can then use the filter to help make the information load tolerable if they can’t parse the unfiltered feed. I agree w/ Gustav here.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@dallendoug - Any thoughts on the challenge stated at the top of this page?
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
In defence against claims some people have made that my articles are not “journalistic” or independent enough (though there’s only a vague mention of this in the challenge)…

Not Typical Journalism
I’m not reporting on something as relatively simply as “local news.” The point of my articles is to report on how blockchain technology is being used in ways that didn’t exist 6 months ago. The people I’m interviewing are working on innovative projects where confidentiality is involved. There’s often no one else to interview than the person I get the story from. The technology is too advanced. My audience is mostly technology workers with advanced knowledge - not the general public. (a very limited, but important audience)

Being More Journalistic
I’ve written about projects months ago that involved “tokens.” But other than Civil I have no interest in crypto token projects. My focus is on application of blockchain being used for the first time in enterprise environments. There will soon be lots to write about on this topic.

For example, I may be interviewing a CTO who was just laid off along with 300 people from a major US health solutions provider that wants to remain centralized. In this case, This is a story that could interest the general public as well as technology workers, even though they are not my main audience.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Summary of the Challenge is:
“Multiple violations of the Civil Constitution; publication is mostly unverified third-party content”

This is no longer the case. Please explain otherwise.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Please provide specific examples of the claim that my site is:

  • Not accurate
  • Not transparent
  • Not independent

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
The only specific challenge I’m here to defend is an overuse of third-party content.

The challenger claimed there is “absolute reliance on third party content.” Yet ever single word on my website was written by me personally and is 100% original.

You said I haven’t changed anything - I’ve changed plenty. The links above no longer work and were changed a week ago. And every video had an original commentary written by me.

Reidob
3 months ago
Unfortunately, you continue to miss the point and react defensively rather than demonstrating any willingness to correct the shortcomings of your newsroom. Neither Mr. Clear’s article nor what Linked In thinks of you are relevant to this discussion, IMO. At least, they do nothing to make anyone more likely to support your application, which is really what your concern should be here if your intent is to become a Civil newsroom. I assure you we have read the Constitution and know what it contains. And in the original challenge the constitutional reasons for believing your application should not be approved are detailed. You have made no serious effort to respond to those concerns, it seems to me. I am one of those who was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but am beginning to doubt my judgment in this. Can you tell me why I should vote to approve your application?

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Before you post your next comment you may want to read this article by James Clear, author of Atomic Habits. It could influence you towards truth and accuracy rather than a need for belonging, which is a Civil virtue. https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

jer979
3 months ago
I have to say…of the 3 challenges I have seen so far, this one seems to be the one where the Newsroom originator is making the most sincere attempts to hear the concerns and modify in line with the Constitution. You may lose your challenge, but I am going to vote to keep you b/c I think you are showing people that you don’t have to nail it the first time, but you have to be willing to adapt.

If everyone who didn’t quite get it perfect the first time is kicked out, it will be a weaker community overall.

The Civil concept is new and it’s going to take some time to adjust for newcomers (which is pretty much all of us).

I think it’s critical to adhere to the Constitution and take feedback. The amount of effort you’ve put in shows a level of commitment I respect.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Thanks
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Here’s what people on Linked think about quality of my journalism.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
I’m somewhat frustrated that most of the comments on this board are not related to the Civil Constitution. Yet that is how this process is supposed to function.

See the following section of the Civil Constitution…

Section V. Civil’s Governance

(Sub-section) “3. Civil Constitution:
This document must be referenced in support of any argument for limiting the access of any Newsroom to the Civil Protocol, whether that argument appears in a proposed Challenge, Vote, Appeal or Veto.”

Here’s the Constitution for your reference.
https://civil.co/constitution/

Reidob
3 months ago
I had to give this a great deal of thought before I took the plunge, but I have decided to bring something up here. (Deep breath). There is an already approved newsroom, The Small Bow, which is in truth simply a series of blog posts tacked together. There is no journalism there. They are sweet stories, mostly, but I question both the clearly biased point of view on recovery the stories demonstrate and their status as journalism. These are emotional opinion pieces rather than any kind of original or hard-hitting stories.

I bring this up in the context of Blockchain Trailblazers because we have already demonstrated a certain willingness to be flexible in what we consider to be the parameters of “journalism”. Blockchain Trailblazers is not very professional and the author could clearly use some help with the nature of journalism and clear, cogent writing (not to mention grammar and punctuation). He needs to learn and adhere to basic standards of originality when publishing something under his byline. But does this truly disqualify him from being in a place where some of that help might be available to him? Does his heart being in the right place count for anything (if I am not merely projecting those motives on to him)?

I am only raising questions here. I honestly don’t know how I will end up answering them myself. But I think it’s important to at least take them into consideration.

Reidob
3 months ago
I am glad this sort of challenge has come up. As others have noted, this is a true test of our ability as a community to set some standards by which we can judge applicant newsrooms to come. In a way, the Constitution sets up some parameters, but our action on websites such as Blockchain Trailblazers will be setting precedent within those parameters. The central question to my mind is, are we simply approving all newsrooms which meet the lowest level of compliance with the Civil Constitution? Or are we truly attempting to curate a journalism that rises to a certain level of quality and professionalism? I would hope that the answer is the latter, as having the former be our response would dilute the registry to the point of meaninglessness.

I also wonder about the impulse to leniency that, to their great credit, two of the commenters here have exhibited. While we don’t want to be cutthroat, at the same time we need to be firm and intelligent in our choices if we hope to be taken seriously. All applicant newsrooms are aware of the risk they take when they apply and that they will be held to a certain set of standards. They are also warned that if not approved they will lose their stake. To fudge on this basic principle of being a token curated registry is to run the risk of diluting our effectiveness with excessive softheartedness.

Honestly, I have not yet decided how I will vote on this particular newsroom, but would like to advocate that we let the process take its course and let the tokens fall where they may.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Excellent point, thank you @Reidob.

We need to amend the constitution and clarify this qualitative aspect we’re talking about here. It will probably be difficult to do, but it needs to be done.

Also, we should probably suggest Newsrooms to have their readers participate to the discussion, so they can express what a specific newsroom represent for them. Aside from abiding to the Constitution, the quality of a newsroom is defined by its utility to its readers. In some cases the writing might be of low quality but the information of high relevance and uniqueness.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
The quality level of journalism is more related to funding than anything else. Funding is something Civil intends to address through ongoing webinars.

And when it comes to quality, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
This commenting board is not the place to share your opinion on what makes quality journalism. It is a different subject than what we are here to decide.

Here’s a quick list of factors that make up quality journalism I researched online. The only two that are relevant to the Civil Constitution are Originality and Transparency. (proofreading is not one of them)

  • Clarity to complicated subject
  • Analysis
  • Reporting
  • Context
  • Technique
  • Independence, fairness
  • Originality
  • Difficult subject
  • Benefit to society
  • Transparency
  • Breaking news

This information could be a useful part of Civil’s ongoing webinar series. But it’s not relevant to their stated Constitutional goal of creating a “big tent” of newsrooms capable of changing the news industry.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago

This commenting board is not the place to share your opinion on what makes quality journalism.

Fine, lost my vote.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
You’re not offering any concrete examples, just vague options while hiding behind your username. If you’re not interested in respecting the Civil Constitution then maybe Civil isn’t for you.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
I simply have been trying to express my opinion in the best way I could. This case is complex so it is important to keep the debate open. The fact that you are telling me that I shouldn’t be talking about quality journalism here is an absolute red flag. Goodbye.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Actually before I leave this debate, there’s one thing I should add:

On your website you state in the “About Us” section: “BlockchainTrailblazers.com is a non-profit news site that’s is part of the Civil network of newsrooms.”

This is factually false, unacceptable and in clear violation of the constitution (Journalistic principle #1 Accuracy). You are not part of the Civil newsrooms until your listing is approved. Proof, as of now: https://snag.gy/8rBGud.jpg - Hope that point wasn’t too vague.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
I’ve been given 10,000 tokens are the right to vote. As far as I’m concerned I’m part of the Civil network of newsrooms - so the statement is “not” factually false. You are twisting the truth.

While I appreciate you taking part by offering comments - as pointed out by Civil CEO Vivian Schiller at last week’s News Room presentation, the Civil commenting and voting process only pertains to the Civil Constitution. (not to push a personal agenda)

The only relevant text so far about this was made by the person who created the challenge. They were right, there was an over reliance of third party content on my site. That’s been fixed. But the vote is on how my site is now - not then.

The goal now is to come together as a community and vote on whether my site meets the Civil Constitution - not in the past, but in the present.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago

I’ve been given 10,000 tokens are the right to vote. As far as I’m concerned I’m part of the Civil network of newsrooms

You are making the situation worse for yourself. All token-holders can now observe that the founder and only editor of this newsroom has, in the best case scenario, a severe issue with understanding how things work on Civil, which certainly undermines his credibility along with the one of his publication.

You have been given 10,000 tokens to apply to the registry and participate to the voting process. That makes you a token-holder “only” and you are definitely not part of the Civil network of newsrooms until your newsroom gets approved.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
You are wrong. You obviously haven’t read the Constitution.And you should be quoting (and reading) the Constitution instead of quoting me. It sounds like you’re just trying to win tokens, not participate in a relevant debate over the Constitution.

“Newsroom
A Newsroom is the basic functional unit for journalism on the Civil network. A Newsroom can be composed of a single journalist or a group of journalists. Newsrooms are also Token Holders.”

You are not adding any comments relevant to the challenge.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Here’s a quote from the Civil Constitution explaining who is part of the network as I have accurately described on my webiste.

“Civil
Civil is the community owned and operated network of token holders, including newsrooms and interested members of the public.”
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Do you by any chance notice that, “Newsrooms are also Token Holders” means something different than if it would say “Token Holders are also Newsrooms” ?

Yes indeed, I am here to get more tokens and increase the value of all tokens by curating the registry. I don’t think having an english Newsroom composed of one editor that doesn’t understand english properly is a good fit as it results in false informations presented on the “Newsroom”.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
I suspect some of the people commenting here have not actually read the whole Constitution. Re-read this part…

“Should the Constitution be a “ceiling?” Or a “floor?”
By which we mean: is it the minimal standard for newsrooms operating on Civil? Or should the Constitution be an aspirational document towards which newsrooms can aspire, even if they don’t currently meet all the criteria? In the end, we opted for a floor, meaning we wanted to create a big tent, not a bubble of only newsrooms that meet the strictest interpretation of journalistic ethics.”
Contemplative
3 months ago
I haven’t voted and may not, but this site and challenges raises some questions for me that seem well-raised in this context:

  • What does “Civil newsroom” mean? We have the letter and spirit of the Constitution to go by, but this is a new and emergent organization. The Constitution very well may be overlooking or mistaking things at this point. So on one hand we need to consider these challenges against the Constitution, but on the other a year from now the Constitution may look very different. Can newsrooms be challenged later if the Constitution changes and the newsroom which once qualified no longer does? If yes, what does that process look like? Regardless, is mere adherence to the language in the Constitution adequate to delineate whether something “should” be a Civil newsroom or not? This example is making me start to think no. More on that later.

  • Is there a process for changing the Civil Constitution? Ties into the above question, but I’d like to explicitly understand if it can/will change, and what the process around that might entail. Apologies if that already exists in the Constitution and I’m just not remembering it.

  • What do I think of Blockchain Trailblazers as a Civil newsroom? This ties back to the first question about what being a Civil newsroom means, but I will share my idiosyncratic perspective which may have no bearing on reality. One of the joys of Civil for me has been discovering newsrooms and journalists whose work I admire and find inspiring. It is stuff that I am proud to be part of the same organization as. What they are covering, and how, is lovely. I don’t feel the same way about Blockchain Trailblazers. While some of the topics are sweet - exploring how blockchain can benefit homelessness being the most obvious example - the actual content is not what I would consider well-reported. It is taking an interesting topic and stitching together a handful of 3rd party content nodes with a minimal of original transition and analysis which also includes grammatical errors. Using school as a metaphor, the newsrooms that feel like Civil to me are offering content that is created by a hard-working high-achiever, whereas Blockchain Trailblazers is putting out things that feel like they were quickly thrown together at the last minute. That may have no literal bearing on reality but reflects the differences I perceive in the content.

To me, having Blockchain Trailblazers as part of the community does not make me feel proud or that Civil is better. It makes me feel like Civil is worse. But I don’t think that criteria has any bearing on whether a newsroom passes a challenge or not. But maybe that’s because the Constitution is wrong, or the process is. Certainly, regardless of the rules, I would prefer Blockchain Trailblazers not be included. But that seems unfair to Blockchain Trailblazers, because it is trying to participate within the rules and context provided by Civil.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Thanks for your honesty that I’m not being judged solely on my adherence to the Civil Constitution.

While I agree I’m far from being a great journalist (yet), I believe content is more important than artistic skill. Further, I lot of fans for my articles on Linked so I realize your opinions are your own. (I look forward to doing podcasts, far less work).

But when you refer to homelessness as being “sweet,” it makes me think you’re out of touch with reality. For me, this puts all your comments into question.
nealmcb
3 months ago
Please re-read the comment: “some of the topics are sweet - exploring how blockchain can benefit homelessness”. This refers to the exploration as sweet, not homelessness itself. Is it not kind to search for solutions to homelessness?
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Evidently I misinterpreted what Contemplative was trying to say.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
@Contemplative - I’m a bit offended by the fact that you somehow think you work harder than I do or have achieved more.

While I’ve spent over a hundred hours sourcing interviewees and conducting 43 interviews, half of the 10 podcasts on your website are interviews with your own staff. There’s not a single article.
Contemplative
3 months ago
(Edited)
I was in no way referring to how much I work or have achieved. Please re-read my post more carefully. I was comparing your work to other work I’ve encountered through Civil. In my opinion there is a significant quality gap there. To try and capture what my intuition was telling me about said gap I compared the difference to those I encountered while in school, between the work of the high-achieving students and those just sliding in their work at the last minute with less effort. I have no idea about the time or effort you put in, and I commend you on the obvious effort you are putting into the defense of your proposal here. You are obviously trying very hard to earn acceptance.

As for your incorrect and baseless attacks on me, every single interview on our show is with someone unaffiliated with our company in any way. We have published a variety of articles as well, although a podcast is an acceptable medium for Civil, regardless. You are now simply lying to divert attention from your own deficiencies. I urge you to present evidence to the contrary.

Both here and on the Slack you’ve chosen to attack me with various accusations, and you are reacting defensively to people’s questions almost without exception. It’s not a good look, Derek. You are alienating the very community that you aspire to join.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Code of Ethics
My website’s code of ethics is aligned with the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing.
https://sabew.org/about/codes-of-ethics/

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Definition of Business News
This is a good definition of the type of news you’ll read at BlockchainTrailblazers(dot)come. The focus of the content is on people, products and trends. My audience is “not” investors, but businesses looking for blockchain solutions that work. I interview I.T. leaders who have the budget to implement, and success stories from blockchain solution providers.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
** Here’s an example of how my interview articles are changing the world. This is a response someone posted on linkedin after reading one of my articles (sorry, I’m not able to shorten the link)

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
BlockchainTrailblazers.com Civil Analysis:
I’ve taken the initiative to analyze my website for you, based on the Civil Constitution. I welcome any comments based on this.

“Newsrooms must be judged by their intent, responsiveness and body of work.”

  • Civil Constitution
  1. Accuracy:
    The content of my articles is verified before releasing it All articles are based on first-person sources. This includes acknowledgement of where the information comes from (there is a link to interviewees website) Each article is a news interview about a series events that have taken place in the interviewee’s entrepreneurial journey to use blockchain technology.

  2. Transparency
    The stories are not controversial. There is no need to interview multiple people. They are interviews with company founders and I.T. leaders on their journey to use blockchain. The articles are not intended to be traditional “negative” news reports, but a positive look at the challenges of creating something new. My editorial mission page explains my internal codes of conduct and editorial ethical guidelines.
    https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/editorial-mission/

  3. Independence
    It’s just me writing articles that no one is paying me for.

  4. Accountability
    All my articles are posted to my 6000+ connections on Linked, Facebook and Twitter

  5. Anyone discussed in an article is given respect. For example, in a recent article about homeless, the interviewee preferred that “homeless” people be referred to as “people experiencing homelessness,” and I made all the changes in the article.
    https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/how-can-we-stop-failing-people-experiencing-homelessness-with-blockchain/

  6. Permanence
    Articles are permanently archived on my website by category

  7. Original Work
    All articles are written by me personally

  8. Fair and Equal Access
    No one is denied being interviewed because of their religion, race, gender or gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, economic status, political beliefs, educational background, language, literacy or disability status

  9. User Data
    My privacy policy explains how user data is collected, stored and used.
    https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/privacy-policy/
    blockchaintrailblazers
    3 months ago
    It should be noted by any reviewer/commenter here that there is a difference between B2B (business-to-business) News and B2C (business-to-consumer news).

Judging by most of the newsrooms here ( other than mine), it seems no one else is focused on B2B news. I believe it’s possible that my website is mistakely being judged as emotional B2C news - which it’s not.

B2C News
Focused on individuals. Personal issues. Emotional issues, etc.

B2B News
Focused on solutions to business problems.

** Please judge my website and comment on it based on what is it - B2B news.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
A perfect example of this is Civil - Civil is a B2B company.

The Problem
Journalists and news site are trying to figure out how to earn a living as a journalist. “No one” wants to pay for news anymore. Banners ads are now "virtually irrelevant. Statistics show you have a better chance of surviving a plane crash than someone clicking on your banner ad = .1%.

The Solution
Civil is trying to set a standard for ethical news so that people will more likely want to read news from a Civil newsroom - and will therefore donate their money to the newsroom who gets paid through crowdfunding.

Part of the solution requires that newsrooms like ours are ethical - but what’s ethical? And who’s going to do all the work to review and analyze newsrooms so they’re up to the Civil standard?

The solution to that problem is that Civil gamifies this process so that existing newsrooms are motivated (by CVL tokens) to want to do the reviewing work.

But it seems that none of the other newsrooms are bothering to participate in reviewing the first round of new sites - yet. So this process is not yet working that well - yet. And it seems that people making comments are using their own definition of news to judge what that is and challenge other newsrooms.

Unfortunately for me, there are no other B2B players here.

If I Was to Interview Civil for My Website
I would go in-depth on the problem their product is mean’t to solve (with blockchain). Then I would interview them on their voting process and how this solution is supposed to work. Because it “seems” like they have a plan.

Then I would ask them for 3 pieces advice on how to use their voting system. I Think Everyone Here Would Read That Article!! Would that be a “shill” for Civil?

This is the exact same format that all my other feature articles follow. Check my other feature articles here:

  • About
  • Problem
  • Solution
  • Tips

Read here:

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
I’m still waiting for someone to respond to my original comments from yesterday.
nealmcb
3 months ago
Thank you for engaging persistently with us, and also addressing what seem to be the main issues in the complaint!
guywithhands
3 months ago
Honestly, none of these stories really look like “news” to me. They are mostly clickbait buzzfeed style articles (X ways to Y!) and press release style articles (“Company X going to save millions doing Y”)

See for yourself: https://imgur.com/a/pG4A9tV

I think it’s a stretch to call this type of content “bona fide journalism”. It’s a lot of vapid interviews with no fact checking of what’s said.

This article is basically just a straight up shill / press release for “Me Token” with zero criticism or insightful commentary: https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/me-token-the-new-way-to-succeed-in-fashion-social-commerce/

Many of the articles are similar to the above.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
You’re entitled to you opinion. Though Buzzfeed is sponsored content and I am not paid for these articles. They are my opinion, not yours. And I may think your writing is crap, too. But the question is do you have anything worthwhile to say as it relates to the Civil Constitution?
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
This is Civil’s definition of Journalism (that you are voting on) - My content meets this definition — “Journalism can be defined as the the activities involved in an independent pursuit of accurate information about recent or current events. It can take many forms including audio, video, illustration, photography, data visualizations, animation and text; “straight” news reporting, features reporting, long-form narrative journalism, opinion writing, advocacy journalism and personal essays. They are diverse in the topics they cover and the geographic regions in which they operate.”


blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Me Token is a business solution for e-commerce websites that are selling apparel. The problem is that most clothing businesses are going out of business. This article is valuable news for an apparel business that’s trying to stay in business. Major retailers are just now implementing online virtual fitting rooms - this is cutting edge stuff!

@guywithhands, I think you are making the mistake of assuming this article (in fact all my articles) are written for someone like you. Why would I waste my time and effort writing an article to promote a business if I’m not being paid for it? The purpose of this article is to introduce a new application of technology.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
RE: DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW (Accuracy) — Regarding this point, each of my articles is an interview with an individual. Each represents a different point of view with a focus on being objective and education. My ultimate goal is to interview CIOs at the front lines of using blockchain. However, I’ve had to work my way up through Crypto founders and Blockchain Developers. This weeks article is an interview with the Director of I.T. at the Calgary Drop-in & Rehab Centre — they’re using blockchain to help people experiencing homelessness.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
@blockchaintrailblazers: It will take me some time to review everything in order to vote on this but, as starters, I wanted to thank you for quickly reacting to this challenge and making adjustments where necessary. Just as an observation for the community, not saying that it necessarily applies here (like I said I have review work to do), but in some cases it might not be wise to immediately create a challenge instead of asking questions first and giving a chance to the newsroom to explain themselves and make adjustments.
mariabustillos
3 months ago
Respectfully, I disagree. Journalists who apply have already given their word that they are abiding by the Constitution. Unqualified organizations can easily swamp the applications process; as you note, review takes work and time. Frankly the number of changes this publication has already made, pages removed etc. in response to this challenge are alone disqualifying, in my view. The point of the Registry is to make a home for providers of ethical journalism, not to correct people who have already misrepresented themselves.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
Fair point. But then how is a newsroom supposed to know whether or not to apply at this early stage? We need a forum yesterday so one can suggest their publication, discuss it, learn what they need to improve, etc. Because there’s no such place yet, I would potentially be more flexible with the first mistakes if good intent is shown. To be honest, this interface where we are discussing here just doesn’t cut it, we need a proper discourse.org website. I participate to another project where they leverage this super well: https://forum.aragon.org - we should have had this before the first challenge could have been posted.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
I totally agree. I feel like I’m flying blind - It’s not like I have 20 years experience as a journalist and am now simply applying what I know to a news website. I’m trying to figure all this journalism stuff out. And I’ll still trying to wrap my mind around the constitution.
GustavMarwin
3 months ago
If you correct everything in a way that makes you compliant with the registry requirements, I will vote for your publication to stay. Once we have a forum however I will see things in the same light as @mariabustillos. But all in all, the Civil foundation might want to consider refunding whichever party loses this challenge, because I don’t think it’s fair to have either of you part ways with your CVL tokens since you are both acting with the best possible intent as far as I can tell.

mariabustillos
3 months ago
It’s pretty simple, I think? Prospective applicants have to read the Constitution and consider whether their publication already adheres to its premises before they represent that it in fact does. It’s not a long or complicated document. Nobody should apply who has not read this document and understood it really well, and who can vouch for the fact that their publication conforms (already conforms) to its provisions.

Either your project abides by the document, or it doesn’t; you have to promise that it does before you put up your stake.

mariabustillos
3 months ago
I’d be perfectly happy to return blockchaintrailblazers their stake; my goal is to maintain a quality registry, and it’s early days yet. Maybe Civil can cancel the whole application? I’m not clear on the rules in this case.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
I love this journalism project but admittedly I’m not a specialist in this field. Now I know little bit more about blockchain, and if there’s one thing to know with this it’s that it only goes forward, never backwards. Hence in theory this cannot be cancelled and it has to be completed one way or another. Hence only fair outcome I could see here is 1. exceptionally let @blockchaintrailblazers make the adjustments necessary until it is fitting the constitution, vote based on final result and 2. a gesture-refund from the Civil foundation to the loser of this challenge. imho.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@mariabustillos - Civil hasn’t ironed out all the wrinkles in the process. That’s why they gave us each 10,000 tokens instead of charging us $1,000 dollars. Plus see here at 28:30 minutes of Part 2 Webinar… Elena says to apply even if your site is not completed, just put that in your profile which I did.

mariabustillos
3 months ago
Unfortunately I don’t think there is time for @blockchaintrailblazers to create a professional, ethically-produced publication that will conform to the Constitution in the time remaining. But agree that the process is so new… we all have a lot to learn. Happy to refund my portion of challenge tokens.

GustavMarwin
3 months ago
That sounds like a very fair offer, thank you @mariabustillos. @blockchaintrailblazers the ball is in your camp, good luck
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@GustavMarwin - you got it right the first time. This cannot be cancelled and it has to be completed one way or another. And, the best option is to let @blockchaintrailblazers make the adjustments necessary until it is fitting the constitution. Let me know why specifically it does not currently meet the constitution.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
The reason I made such dramatic changes is because this is the first ounce of feedback I’ve gotten. How is an organization supposed to know what’s qualified or unqualified? It’s very true that reviewing take time and work. So, there should be some preliminary feedback - or an additional onboarding step before everyone’s time is wasted. I gave my word to abide by the Constitution as I understood it. To say I misrepresented myself is slanderous. Is this an elitist club where only people as clever as you are allowed to be members?
Reidob
3 months ago
Although I think you may have a legitimate gripe (I’m still unsure myself), this is precisely the kind of comment that may cause me to believe that you don’t yet have the maturity or sophistication to truly call yourself a journalist. I know you are probably going to think that’s another elitist statement, but I hope you can look at it as constructive criticism. This comment is an ad hominem attack on the author of an intelligent and probing comment. Not good form.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
@Reidob - You are disrespecting homeless people by calling homelessness sweet and you think you’re more mature than me?

Your job here is to compare my newsroom to the Civil Constitution. Judging by your comments I don’t think you’ve even bothered to read it.

I’m not at all impressed by your attempts to puff yourself up with flowery language, either.
Reidob
3 months ago

  1. It was not me who made that comment about your homelessness article.
  2. It is not up to you to determine what my job here is.
  3. I am very familiar with the Constitution and was, in fact, one of those who read a draft of it with great care and made thorough comments on it.
  4. My language is actually fairly pedestrian and average.
  5. It is quite amusing that you would choose to use an ad hominem attack to attack my use of the term ad hominem.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
(Edited)
Reidob, my comments were mean’t for you. Sorry if you got caught in the crossfire. It’s easy to get confused with all these made-up names.

If people used their real names I could see who they are, what their website is like, etc. - I’d understand them better. With fake names there can be fake news. One person could make up multiple fake names and post all kinds of comments to support a position.

For example, “GustavMarwin,” … I don’t think this person even has a newsroom on Civil. I checked out their twitter profile and there are an endless stream of posts about where to get the best tokens. I they’re here just here to stir up trouble and make tokens. In fact, they came right out and said they’re just here for the tokens and to be argumentative

I think this is a major flaw in the system. If people can comment with no skin in the game then there’s no accountability and fake news.

I don’t actually remember anyone using the term “ad hominem,” (though I would’ve used “argumentative.)” My comments were referring to Contemplative (who definitely was using ad hominem).
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
The only thing I changed on my site is removing all the Youtube videos I had responsibly and legally created curated posts about. I did this to educate myself about blockchain and have enough content to actually create a news site – then I began conducting interviews. Not that I have enough actual interview content, I’ve removed the linked Youtube videos.

And the only way the content I removed contravened the Civil Constitution was there was too much third party content.

blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
Now that I’ve taken a closer look at all the content that was added to my site, I had far few Youtube videos linked to my site that original content I has created. So the original challenge wasn’t even accurate. The person who created the challenge did not look that closely at all my content.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
RE: EMBEDDED YOUTUBE CONTENT Any YouTube video that is embedded in my newsletters as curated content contains a unique overview written by myself. Further, there are no copyright laws being broken as stated in the YouTube TOS — The youTube TOS states the following - “You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.” [youTube TOS part 6C]
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
RE: TRAILBLAZER ADMIN USER — This user profile was originally created to enable me to post press releases without having to give a company access to my wordpress dashboard. The press releases have expired, and so have been removed. This user profile has also been removed.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
ORIGINAL CONTENT — Every single article on the website is based a first person interview conducted by me and each article is written by me. The person name is included at the top of and within each article. So, sources are cited.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
RE: THIRD PARTY CONTENT – Almost all third party content from my has been removed (again, these were old posts). The only third party content that remains are the charts and curated Youtube videos added to my weekly newsletters. This is a small percentage of my total content. Sources are are cited for charts, and within videos.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
INDEPENDENCE – There is only one item on my site that is sponsored content. To address your concern I’ve added a “Sponsored by” notice to my educational Webinar about native advertising (see sidebar).
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
TRANSPARENCY – My editorial mission was already stated on my site. - I’ve now gathered together this content and put it on an “Editorial Mission” page… “https://blockchaintrailblazers.com/editorial-mission/
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
ACCURACY All the content on my website is accurate. Please specify what it is you believe is inaccurate.
blockchaintrailblazers
3 months ago
The posted links above under “Additional Details” are referring to old content I’ve now removed from my website. Thanks for pointing that out for me.