That 'standard' broke down completely after a proposed Tweet which had 2 upvotes & hadn't been posted due to inactivity was then downvoted and rejected.

Funny you should mention this. You’re twisting the facts, so allow me to explain what actually happened:

We had a proposed retweet from the Twitter Proposals channel brought to our attention. In our channel, this met our voting threshold early on, but was not posted. I had to ask you 3 times over the course of a week without a response why you weren't Tweeting it, when other content was in the meantime making its way onto our Twitter feed. Finally, after the extended period of ignoring the requests, you muster up a downvote a week later.

Notably, you were the only person in the channel at the time who had posting abilties who would actually use them. (Quez did not involve himself in posting whatsoever in my time in the channel. He was better described as having taken a supervisory role). This gave you total control over what Tweets did and did not go out. This exact scenario is in fact the perfect example of why we needed more people with posting abilities; So that one person couldn’t call all the shots if it came down to it.

This wasn't why his Twitter access was revoked, don't rewrite history with false narratives.

It must just be coincidence then, that the day after he ignored this long-standing posting protocol and the issue was brought to the Quez, he no longer had Twitter access. I encourage anyone curious to go check out the mentioned date in Discord and read the conversation for yourselves.

I left because of continuous abuse/harrassment from yourself at very inappropriate times of the night for weeks on end which was just unacceptable behaviour.

I encourage you to pull up just one single example of this supposed “harassment” on my own part. Tagging you in a post and reminding you that something needs to be Tweeted because it met the voting threshold doesn’t count.

On the other hand I actually have numerous examples of abuse/harassment or otherwise negligence on your own part, which I could happily post publicly. You haven’t exactly been a shining beacon of cool-headed leadership in our discussions.

Someone created a poll for that, and it passed, lol! Why didn't you vote agaist it?

Nobody in their right minds could misconstrue that ill-formed poll to be a justification of having no governance structures in place. First of all, the poll reads “[Are] Admins of all social media accounts are free to express themselves?” To whom, and in what format? Is this asking for permission to be vocal about one’s opinions or is it asking for free reign to post whatever content they want? Well, nobody can really tell, because there is no usable discussion URL provided where we could talk about it.

I haven't tweeted my own Steemit content on the Gridcoin Twitter for at least a year if not longer, this is a non-issue IMO.

This was about proposed candidates having sole discretion on content, alongside the ability to post their own monetized content. Not you.

Why didn't you volunteer? You've got the time to write this all, but no time to volunteer? There's not going to just be 1 sole contributor.

I’ve already stated my opinions about why I think the original system that you derailed has been superior. I’m not going to volunteer for a system which I don’t think is ideal.

And this justified your behaviour?

And which behavior would that be?

They can now do so publicly in the marketing channel. No need to close doors just because others are open.

I could respond with the exact same sentence to argue against the contrary.

That's why there was a call to volunteers.

A call to have a number of volunteers which has been repeatedly shown to be less than the one we had been using. A number that was already problematically low.

Then encourage others to volunteers so that more time zones are covered, but don't expect people to put up with demands at all hours of the night again.

You seem to be taking offense to how we tagged you as a reminder to Tweet the proposed content that met our voting threshold, even though you were the only one who was capable of Tweeting. Kind of an unproductive attitude, wouldn’t you think?

I fundamentally disagree, closed group polls exclude the majority of the Gridcoin community who aught to have an input given that your actions affect their holdings.

They always have had input: Via the notoriously underused Twitter proposals channel.

Probably the social media terms and conditions & Gridcoin code of conduct/practice.

And where is this “Gridcoin code of conduct” listed? Anywhere in the proposal?