RE: Flag Wars?! Ohhhh I'm Coming 2x as Hard for ALL of you!! **PLEASE WATCH STEEMIANS**
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
UPVOTES TO RE-STEEMERS!
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
UPVOTES TO RE-STEEMERS!
I just ReSteemed this my Brother. I am fully Behind what is RIGHT !! @broncnutz
Upvotes to re-steemers, perfect
Keep on not giving a shit about the content discovery, and bribe and trade for yourself. Just shows how little your claim that you care about distribution (how it's intended to work, for the best content and its curators, not randomly and to the biggest stakeholders) and the platform itself is worth.
"The crypto ecosystem owes the Steem blockchain and the STEEM token a nod of appreciation because it built one of blockchain’s first tangible real-world use cases, a decentralized social content platform. The years have not been kind to the platform, however, with clear flaws such as the manipulated upvoting of content and power disparities between users becoming increasingly apparent. As a result, many users have opted to switch to other platforms like Medium."
Re-posted here because my original was hidden. This time it doesn't even need an upvote for visibility ;)
only time i ever posted a comment like this here in 3 years....and you know exactly why i did it. i knew there was a reason i unvoted you as a witness.
You still bribed and traded, as you admitted yourself. Not as openly,so it's good that you finally come out as what you really are!
And if you think I'd give a shit about witness votes you have no idea why I'm here.
Upvotes to re-steemers seems fair if you're trying to make a point with a trail.
He didn't make his point by downvoting everyone in the trail?
But why am I trying to argue with someone who thinks upvotes for upvotes would be fair too.
Upvotes for re-steeming seems fair when countering a gang.
A gang xD You're hilarious, thanks for the laugh.
You're welcome. I'm fairly new here. What does xD mean?
I don't know what you mean "upvotes for upvotes would be fair too." Is that what you think I said. I'm not sure what that even means.
Well, you defend someone who is trading votes, and blame the people who knowingly take the risk to get retaliation downvotes for using the way the system provides to counter groups voting in circles, and redistribute the rewards to everyone else.
Maybe you're too new to understand what's going on, but then you probably shouldn't be taking sides before having read the whitepaper and understand that downvotes exist specifically for this kind of users.
You guys are really going to be busy downvoting because I see auto voting going on all day long and pretty much on every post that has a steemian with $$ behind it. I get some of the reasoning but this was a great post possibly his best which makes the downvoters look suspicious of voting with hard feelings instead of objective reasoning. Possibly punish "circle jerking" another way instead of downvoting a great post.
Oh yes, we are very busy :/ That's why there is a trail.
It was the post with the highest rewards, which gives the most back to the community. I doubt that the delegator who submitted it watched the video, I honestly didn't when I checked if it's a valid submission.
What other way would you suggest? It's the one and only tool the blockchain gives.
It seems wrong to downvote quality since that is the main focus you want for our post. Maybe a fine would be more appro pro for voting style that goes against the rules.
A fine? You mean take something out of the wallet? Who should decide on that?
We have upvotes to give rewards, and downvotes to take them. That's how the system works. Of course it's unfortunate when something with quality is shown to have been downvoted. I'd prefer a lot if he got an upvote from curangel instead of a downvote. But for that he would have to stop trading his rewards into regions the majority of users here can only dream of.
It's not that the reward would be really low now. It's still higher than a lot of other good quality stuff. Our goal is not to nullify it.
Maybe if technically possible. Treat it like a parking ticket that must be paid OR ELSE!
I think that would be better than snuffing out someones earned creative reward.
It's not possible as there would be someone who had to decide to give it.
The whole thing is that he didn't earn. First point, he trades votes, so he gets high rewards on everything he makes. And second, nobody has earned anything on here before the 7 days are over and it's paid out. It's intentionally like this, or every vote could be paid to the wallet directly. It's a process where the community decides how big a portion of the pool a post should receive.
An upvote assigns something more to that post, and all other posts get a little bit less.
A downvote assigns a little bit more to all other posts, and that post gets something less.
None of the two is bad, only maybe for some peoples egos.
I think it's because I'm technically challenged that I don't get it but I do appreciate you trying to help me understand.
Maybe the curating person(s) who gave out this type of downvote could also be the person(s) who gives the tickets (fines) instead. Same job different penalty. We're here to create. Vote on that and give out tickets when you find someone "jaywalking".
Well, that way it would be technically possible of course.
But the whole idea behind steem is that the "best" content (evaluated by the whole community) gets the most rewards. The pool is limited, everything someone assigns to himself or his friends or family isn't available for anybody else. The fine could be put in the pool again, but that would give those who have the highest rewards the biggest part of it again.
Seems overly complicated and counterproductive to the goal of the platform. To rank posts by quality, it needs to be possible to take off rewards which then get assigned to everything else.
Thank you.
Like you gave a shit about discovering content yourself.
This dude did for 3 years. So did I.
Curation trails suck.
I always cared and still do care about spreading over content, yes. I don't hunt the next trending, as I don't want to maximize my curation rewards. I want to support the broad base.
Good on him that he did. Unfortunate that he switched to trading votes mainly, or we wouldn't be here.
You cared and you wanted to, yet you gave up on voting quite early.
Now that you started your own curation initiative it didn't take long for things to go sideways, did it ?
You started one of the first flagging trails, called for the minnows to join you and started policing and now you are flagging this guy ? Together with @acidyo even ?
What an escalation. You even anarcho-shamed the guy for not being as anarcho as you or something in the other subthread ?
I skimmed through his video, rather than antagonizing him like a bully.
Sounded reasonable and I totally agree with him on curation trails.
I gave up when I didn't see something coming out of it, because not many others were doing so, yes. I returned when I got new hope that we can turn the ship around, by necessary changes in the code.
I don't see anything going sideways. We seem to stand at very different positions if you think that.
I'm not deciding on who to downvote, I only check the reasons submitters provide and remove what seems unjustified. Didn't happen so far. @acidyo joined because this guy was retaliating against minnows.
Anarcho shaming is a funny word. I don't even regard ancaps as anarchos, as they not only accept but praise the hierarchies money creates. But even if I did, I never understood the NAP they talk about all the time as something that justifies escalation in the level he did over there. "If you say this to me at Anarchapulco I'll punch your teeth out" was hilarious, besides the unacceptability of physical threats in any form on here.
We stand on different positions then.
Here I was, hoping that one day, people would pick up their mouse.
I said this many times before: If the whales (had) not acted like they had won their stake at a bubblegum machine, we might have (had) a chance.
I never understood this anarchist thing - there will always be someone willing to punch you in the face for what you have.
The idea that people would use their mouse proved as unrealistic very quickly to me. Especially investors don't have much time for that obviously. But yes, we've been there both.
Agree with the rest too.
Another culture on here, less self interest, and we could've gone extremely far.
I like the concept of self organization and mutuality, but I'm not an activist who organizes on conferences and stuff to overthrow the state :D The self description is more of a play. I have most sympathy for the different traditional anarchist theories, but am too much of a rationalist to self identify with any political movement completely.
And that is where I disagree.
It was just a handful of people, who were chosen. Obviously poorly so.
And they still own a huge chunk and call the shots. And are probably some of the few, who took a good profit.
The actual investors like @laonie (just to name one of the many) instead got burned.
I can not believe that after all this indifference you now police content and then not go after the big fish, but easily irritatable circlevoters who make real vlogs.
Sooner or later acidyo will throw a fit with you too and then things might get more interesting.
It is inevitable. You will have to start voting, or this is never going to work.
You have a huge stake still and should have an interest and even you can not muster 20 minutes per day - why would a minnow ? And then if that minnow was to engage, would he not appreciate a vote by checking back on the other persons blog and start circlevoting like that ?
...
Running in circles here, really.
Safe travels !
As I said 2 replies before, I don't do the policing personally. I give delegators (who effectively decentralize their upvote power by giving smaller accounts the power to decide where the upvotes go) the option to utilize their downvote power too. If not all of them use it, they contribute to the selection all the others made. I never choose posts to downvote, as that'd always result in 100% downvotes by curangel and I want to give the smaller guys the possibility to have more impact.
As with slowwalker, I would intervene when the post would go really low, as I acknowledge some effort behind the post and a certain value. With the amounts he makes we're far from having that kind of impact though.
I still see this form of decentralization of the own stake as the 2nd best option after spending hours to find enough posts myself. I can support 100 authors a day this way, plus a bunch of manual curators. Doing that manually would take me considerably more time than 20 minutes. I don't want to push only a few posts up unreasonably high, and imo we desperately need ways to give at least a small heads up to the big base of authors as long as most big stakes don't care about them. But we had this talk before :D
What if I said, that by designing this system you already assigned which stuff will catch downvotes ?
I would agree more if you were talking about only your stake voting in this partuclar method, but you are creating a trail and that has much different implications.
That happened way before, the whitepaper defines the purpose of downvotes. The delegators also talk to each other, checking opinions, but they all are going after self rewarding behaviour only.
Trailing is a part of steem. The trail was created before I registered the account on steemauto, I just added a description and declared it official after I was notified about that. The only difference between a delegator and a (dv-)trailer I see is that the delegators make the decision what gets chosen, and the trailer can easily decide to stop following if he doesn't agree with what they choose. Oh, and of course people on the trail open themselves up for retaliation, but I tried to make sure to make them aware. It also usually stops when they unfollow.
Or maybe you mean the feeling someone who gets hit by a trail gets, as seen here? That's not up to me though. I had plans for an upvote trail, but never one for downvotes. And even that only after I was asked about one several times.
I somehow also doubt he would've reacted differently with a single downvote. Maybe a bit less rage, but probably a lot more retaliation for the individual.
Or was that about the upvote trail? That allows us to give even more votes without getting near dust value, so I appreciate it. It also allows users to vote manually when they have time for it, something delegators give up on. So it's two different ways for two different types of people.
As an author myself I can tell you that nothing motivated me like that single hand-vote by blocktrades.
You could make at least one person very happy every day, instead of this massive overhead for little outcome.
And I got a lot of feedback for the vote following I did in the beginning to spread my votes, that it motivated a lot of people. The answers to curangel posts also don't seem like "very little" outcome to me.
Yes, a bigger vote may motivate someone more in that moment. But it's not sure for how long. How many people who received a few big votes disappeared later. Curangel may be better suited to motivate to consistently produce quality - or not, there's no data on that I guess. Both approaches are helping in my view. And mine definitely scales better regarding the goal of mass adoption!
How so ?
My method would keep making at least one persons day, every day.
The more you spread your votes, the less they are worth.
Rewards are not linear anymore.
Another big difference: It takes more balls to put yourself out there and vote by hand.
I don't like the idea of a few whales being the ones deciding who is happy here and who isn't. I have always been of the opinion that we need a better distribution for the system to work. With my approach I go one step ahead by effectively creating a bunch of small orcas for the voting. They admittedly can't vote on the same post multiple times, which may be a flaw. But there's more in the community who can push them higher. If we manage to see less disparity in the rewards, and no good content going unrewarded, we might be able to make everyone happy.
I don't get how playing the guy who decides about making it or breaking it on an internet platform requires balls.
It would reveal your preferences and personality.
It is easier to hide behind proxies.
Did you ever consider to go undercover and just start a random blog ?
Try putting a lot of thought into a post and then get some half-assed unpersonal upvotes for it, getting as much as the next persons shitpost.
Or better:
Do you not think there is a post out there every day, that deserves a full upvote and to be on trending ?
Or like this:
Is it not how you train a dog ?
You can not reward them each and every time, but you reward them sporadically, which gets them super excited.
What you are proposing sounds bland to me and has no profile and it delegates your responsibility to other people.
I don't have preferences, I'm not a blogger, not a social media person, and generally not very interested in strangers and their lifes or creative output :D
I'm not hiding, I just leave the decision of what's "quality" content to others who can evaluate that better, over a more diverse spectrum.
I never considered having a blog at all. I wouldn't know what to write, and it wouldn't be fun at all for me. No matter the upvotes it would get. I would assume that what creative people really need to feel their work valuated are engaging comments though.
Dogs are rewarded very regularly in the beginning of the training. When they do something extremely well, they get a bonus. And only when they already know to do something you cut down on the rewards.
I may be a bland person without profile in this space, I don't mind. And that's why I distribute the big responsibility which comes with an exceptionally high stake to others who fit in better.
That's a fucking preference :D
I'm sure you would have a lot to share with this world - imagine my face, lol