Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Peterpandam
@peterpandam
tfw /nouns-retro is filled with funded builders executing their proposals. nouns-retro should be reserved for unfunded proliferation imo I get that farming $nouns in /nouns isn't as rewarding but cmon @seneca maybe we need some parameters established and enforced by moderators?
5 replies
1 recast
26 reactions
krel
@krel
i feel this -- i usually make a point of not posting camp stuff in /nouns-retro _unless_ its something we consider a side-thing maybe i post in /nouns though bc i think it makes sense to highlight new features etc, but i could see why it rubs ppl wrong there too
5 replies
0 recast
8 reactions
drewcoffman
@drewcoffman.eth
i'm surprised to hear this is it explicitly written anywhere that /nouns-retro is for 'non-proposers'? and even if it was…why? isn't the point to incentive people to do nounish things on a regular (weekly) basis?
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
I see /nouns-retro as a nounish version of /base-builds. Small amounts of ETH as incentives to keep builders of all stripes accountable to themselves and others. That is more or less the directive I was given to moderate these rounds, so that’s what I’ve been doing, mostly only eliminating entries that are 1) visual art 2) low effort 3) duplicate post or 4) spam.
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
tbh, scrolling through last week’s round I find it hard to believe people are seeing these entries and feeling ripped off. Most of the entries were non-prop contributors, and also at a glance, most of the ones that were “double-dip” were nominations by other people who were obviously very impacted by the results of their efforts. Major bikeshedding imo.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
