Who did that Joe?
1 Like
never understood why the comments always get hidden or wiped outā¦ leave a trace so ppl can see what happened and form their own opinion. now its all conspiracy thoeries and i heardā¦ but yes it was because of politics and maybe a little push back against someone with a ego
5 Likes
no ones asking for a free for all forum though. just common sense. i find the mods on here for the most part do a good job. but all the scrubbing of evidence and hiding things behind the scene is off putting and creates room for bias actions.
leave things up for us to read and make our own conclusions and decide who we agree with by blocking and ignoring the person we feel is wrong. if they do something that is banworthy to a mod show us what was said.
this is a small community and should be treated as a family imo and that starts with transparency.
5 Likes
Jinglepot did that, I had started following his thread after a couple year hiatus from it for otherā¦ āthingsā he said to me. Just understand it takes a lot of āthingsā to make me drop your thread.
6 Likes
figured this eould be good info here
7 Likes
Funny thing isā¦he was right about the āmemberā.
5 Likes
That was the point of contention: TST was booted for his questionable actions, and that was ully justifiable based upon the evidence presented. But then the other OG member, who was nice enough to volunteer to collect some money and send it to a vendor, was accused of conspiring with TST in a campaign of fraud and deceit. I do understand being angry about TST, but to rally against the one who, in seemingly good faith, assisted the community with a transactionā¦ wellā¦ that is not very productive nor fair: If a distributor disappeared with a box-set of all the seeds they were supposed to send out, we wouldnāt blame the person who all the seed run growers sent their seeds to just because that person then forwarded the seeds to the rogue distributor, and to argue such a position-- slandering an individual who was seemingly attempting to help the community-- is not really acceptable without any other proof of malicious intent; I am certain that if three people sent me cash so I could have a clone sent to a fourth party for distribution, I would be pissed if the 4th party disappeared and I was labelled as being a thief because of another personās actions.
7 Likes
if i understand corectly this restriction he is under is not related to tst but to a relation but im just speculating my understanding or im off the target
5 Likes
Then you reimburse the cash from your stash for taking this responsibility ā¦ no ? 
3 Likes
this then confirms my understanding, see if i was in jets shoes i would probably have reacted the same way, but theres alot of inside info thats makes us missjudge all this situation
5 Likes
What responsibility?
If we all give you a dollar to buy Tomās skateboard, and Tom flips us off, you owe everyone a dollar?
4 Likes
I donāt need an half second to reimburse everyone. I took the cash for everyone in this context, so iām the responsible of the ātreasureā until the counterpart is delivered. Intentions is good and all, but facts matter more for me.
4 Likes
Pls donāt anyone else make the same mistake:
This is @Joeās house and you either follow Joeās Rules or you are shown the door by a husky bouncer. Play nice w the Loki or heāll do you some mischief!
Aristocracy, not a Democracy. Deal.
Jet knows the rules, if he wants back in heāll get back in.
Jus my $0.02,
Grouchy 
6 Likes
thing is if we allow this in our small online comunity we end up accepting it slowly in the collective comunity we call society
2 Likes
I wonāt get into all this but I will say that I have @Jetdro 's email if anyone would like to contact him directly. Feel free to DM me for it if you wish. 
7 Likes
If the terms were agreed upon that the items were to be sent to someone else, and that person got the items, the responsibility has shifted. As this is what everyone agreed to.
The person who got the money, paid out of pocket for the items, as one person had to do this, and was just being reimbursed for everyoneās portion. They fulfilled their responsibility and itās been passed once the items were received.
If the person who everyone agreed would get the items, and they recieved them, but didnāt follow through with their commitment then that would be on them to reimburse all parties, even the person who was reimbursed money for paying out of poclet, as they are also out money.
Just because someone paid out of pocket for all the items, and got reimbursed for each parties portion, the ātreasureā was delivered to whom everyone agreed upon would have the responsibility to distribute said items.
So why would it be on the person who collected the moneyās responsibility if everyone agreed to these terms, and the items were recieved by this person. If the items were not bought or werenāt delivered to whom everyone agreed upon, then it be different.
Also all parties, plus the big boss, but one have the viewpoint that itās the person with the items, that everyone agreed to that holds the responsibility once the items were in their possession.
4 Likes
Saddens me to keep seeing the ripples of this going out. Hope we hold onto the giving spirit of this community instead of getting jaded
9 Likes
I like this discussion, culturally itās very interesting.
I consider the equation as very simple for the āmain actorā of the transaction : Itās a risk.
Then the āmain actorā have to gauge if at personal level he can take this risk for all others or not, before engaging his responsibility.
I mean, to organize such a system without any intermediary and full transparency ā¦ we have blockchains now right ?
3 Likes
@Jetdro did mention @Papalag , @herojuana.tom and @204medismoke when he gave me his email so if any of you would like it please message me.
6 Likes
Saddens me that we lost Jet.
Whatās the term of his suspension? Shirley someone knows that. Lol
3 Likes