In recent weeks, certain whales have increased their policing of rewards on the platform. It's arbitrarily determined, based on their own whims and predilections, not based on any criteria to determine if their claims are justified. The community is just letting whales flag people for their own reasons, not for any real, genuine, authentic, consistent, integrated code of conduct or philosophy to justify their behavior.
Bad whales are reducing visibility and rewards for content creators, under varying justifications that are hidden by generic messages, or none at all. Some content is of higher quality information that has more value and utility to help people in their lives, to understand themselves, and how to potentially change the world. They lack understanding to the degree that they think what they are doing is "good", when it's actually harmful and bad for the platform. They are acting against knowledge of what is good, right and true to learn about, like morality, or good knowledge to help increase a comprehension of ourselves and the world, or knowledge that can help Steemit become better. They don't like the good content (or apparently who supports it), so they act against it and try to diminish more people accessing it since it "doesn't provide value to Steemit" in their ignorance and inability to see the value.
I'm tired of the bullshit lies that bad whales use to drive down visibility of content that provides information worth being discussed. These are whales that attack the "smaller fish's" content because they don't understand the value the content brings to someone life, or to Steemit.com. They lack understanding so they engage in beavhior behavior from that base of ignorance. They have the power, and they use however irrationally they want.
source
Good whales don't flag content that adds value to the platform. Good whales don't make up lies to justify their flagging behavior.
Here is the copy-paste justification that @smooth uses to validate why he flags things:
Is this true?
Let's look at the post in question, and other posts that day and the day before, to see if @smooth applies his code of conduct or ideology on things being over rewarded or having too many whale votes. All users pulled are above 300k SP. @smooth won't give his definition of what is "whale swarming" and doesn't care about defining things for others to understand. He just wants to invent his own criteria and be free to apply that irrational behavior as he sees fit. Screenshots of his rationality on that are later.
So this post was over $90, wasn't original content, OK, flag it as expected...@berniesanders got to it at $120 just because @dan voted for it as you will see his ridiculous reason below:
https://steemit.com/fracking/@krnel/6-600-fracking-spill-in-4-states-during-a-10-year-period
What about the next post? It was in the $30s... and this one has a lot more vale to add, especailly related to Steemit, but apparently it;s not content that is worth being rewarded $30 for @smooth, or $50 for @berniesanders:
https://steemit.com/truth/@krnel/does-competition-in-news-or-information-markets-promote-truth
@berniesanders has ridiculous irrational justifications to flag this content.
@smooth has the same lame justification that he selectively applies to content he doesn't like, even though it does provide value to Steemit.
smooth: Downvoted, overrewarded due to concentrated whale voting
~$50 too much for @berniesnaders
~$30 too much for @smooth
Overrewarded?
What?
Concentrated whale voting?
What?
They aren't even being honest about it, or caring to explain how they go about their selective flagging of posts they don't like. It's all based on their whims.
Here are more posts from that day and the previous day, that @smooth did not flag, because he apparently likes the content, so even when it's rewarded more, and has more whale vests voting, it's ok and is good, but not other content like mine... LOL
https://steemit.com/food/@sweetsssj/miss-delicious-39-infusing-portuguese-food-with-asian-in-macau
Payout: over $100
no smooth flag
https://steemit.com/health/@heiditravels/why-i-love-coconut-oil-and-you-should-too
Payout: over $75
no smooth flag
The previous day had some posts that are temporally significant only, and don't add value to Steemit in the long term. No one will care about these posts after a few days. These posts are highly rewarded, with many vested users voting it up, yet they don't get flagged for the "over reward" or "concentrated whale voting" when they have more reward and more vested votes than other posts that get flagged. This suggests the reason is because the whales who flag content does provide value to Steemit, are doing so because they don't like the content or can't recognize value when it's presented and think the content removes value from Steemit... LOL.
Payout: $134
no smooth flag
https://steemit.com/golf/@ats-david/steemit-scramble-pga-tour-the-honda-classic-preview-and-contest
Payout: $133
no smooth flag
@smooth flagged three posts yesterday, two of mine, one was only in the $30s but thec ontent and who voted on it didn't appease him, so it needed to be flagged... lame.
The other one who got flagged was https://steemit.com/funny/@lordvader/where-have-i-been.
How can a post at $50, or $30, that adds value, adds information that is worth learning about, be "over rewarded", while other posts have much more rewards, more whales voting, yet aren't considered "over rewarded"?
There is no consistency, no rational behavior.
Ever try to find out what this means? I did. What does concentrated whale voting meaning? How many whales does it take? How much vest weight? Well apparently it means whatever @smooth wants to invent it to means and aply it in any ways he damn well pleases. When you do something that is irrational, you don't have to explain it to anyone or define what your saying or doing, just say whatever you want and make it mean whatever you want subjectively, because words can mean anything apparently...
Next time you say your doing something for X reason, you don't even have to explain what that means, just make it mean anything you want and just keep being an irrational fool. Isn't that wonderful?
For anyone rational out there, that's not how definitions work. They have a specific meaning, even if you reinvent a word. When you use a word or term, and you make it mean whatever you want, and don't provide that definition to anyone,t hen you are creating a fantasy land of your own making where you don't think you have to be held accountable for what you're doing,and just do whatever you want based on made-up definitions to justify your behavior.
If you're going to make a claim that it's not fair to other lower paying posts, when "too many whales" up vote some posts, and the content doesn't matter, then you need to apply this rule everywhere for posts that go above a certain dollar value. Otherwise you're not consistent in you're claims to justify action. This is not being integrated, but disintegrated from inconsistency and contradiction between behavior that flags some posts with certain payout values and certain whale votes, but not other posts that have more rewards and more whale votes. This inconsistency and disintegrity makes one a hypocrite: "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated belief". Integrity is an "adherence to some standards", and "the quality or state of being complete or undivided". Behavior that is inconsistent from claims used to justify behavior is being divided from oneself, to claim one thing and do another in hypocrisy. To claim a flag is being done because a post is over rewarded, or has too many whale votes, while other posts have more of each criteria yet are not flagged, is inconsistent, disintegrated, divided, hypocritical behavior.
Integrity requires consistency in behavior, not hypocrisy. Steemit requires integrity to set a consistent standard of behavior in the platform. If certain actions are to be done, because they are "valid" to an individual, then they are to be applied consistently to remain valid for that individual, otherwise it is hypocrisy.
This is bad whale behavior that is piking on certain posts they don't like. They don't like the content, they don't like the author, they don't like the whales who upvote, or a combination of those.
Let's look at @smooth's irrational justifications for previously flagging my original content that does provide value to Steemit and individuals with useful knowledge that people can use now, 10 years ago, or 10 years from now. That's how Steemit will have value over time to reward Stakeholders, through content that provides value not for 1 day based on picking a sports team to win at a free lottery, or some other fleeting information that is no longer very relevant to one's life after it significance passes. "Timeless" knowledge that has a use in people's live, to help improve their understanding of themselves or the world, has value that will attract people to read it beyond a day or week.
https://steemit.com/psychology/@krnel/trinity-of-consciousness-symbolism
Was at $100, not the most payout of that day, and I had another post at $200 that didn't get flagged.
Why did this get flagged? Because @smooth doesn't like the content. Then he decides it's over rewarded when it already had over 200 views, because apparently having 200 views in a short period of time indicates content that "is not the type of content that will help steemit attract, retain, or grow a user base, nor will incentivizing it with high rewards do so"
He has a problem with truth and morality posts, as you will see. This post was at $100 and he flagged it down to $70 and reduced visibility to quality important content that can help people in their lives at any era, now, in the past, or in the future. He sees no value in these types of posts, despite other people appreciating it and valuing it. Other posts had been done in recent days and after, that went over $100, but since they weren't about higher quality important knowledge to help people in their lives, that somehow attract people to Steemit, like game-picking gambling mentality that gives things away from free in a free lottery that doesn't reward content for content. Yes, that adds value through no real engagement. While the content I put out, gets meaningful feedback and interaction and engagement from some people, yet that is of no value to Steemit according to @smooth. Just upvote a post and comment about your favorite team or something and that's "real value" and "real engagement" to Steemit though.
Here is more original quality important information on morality that @smooth doesn't like getting to $100 again, so he flagged it to reduce the visibility and of more people learning from it and the rewards that reward the content creator for putting it out.
https://steemit.com/morality/@krnel/learning-about-immorality-leads-to-more-morality
smooth: Downvoted as disagreement on rewards.
Yet, go read the post, it's value and the people how comment who can actually recognize real value in life when they come across it, which @smooth apparently can't do.
Another on morality, my original content again, that @smooth flags because he can't recognize the value in it and thinks it's over rewarded at the least, most likely with the previous justifications that pots on morality or consciousness that actually has real value in people's lives doesn't seem to have value to him, or have anything to provide to Steemit's value, in his ignorant understanding.
This time my post reached $70, but that was too much for a an original content post on morality.
smooth: Downvoting since overrewarded largely as a result of swarm whale and trail voting.
Go read the post, see that other people value it because it has real world value in people's lives and isn't just some fleeting entertainment of fluff info.
One more, not original content to help people in any time period, like on consciousness or morality, but it was my most popular post ever, added info on Steemit to help people understand things, and some people gained value from it, yet not ignorant people who can't recognize information of value in the content:
https://steemit.com/socialmedia/@krnel/how-does-content-go-viral-on-reddit
Here is what others had to say about the post though:
But apparently, that post was not adding value and actually prevented people from joining Steemit? What? The ridiculousness of these statements is baffling. What foolish statements!
There is a self-declared "content-police" made up of 1 or a few whales that go against valuable content that does add information relevant to Steemit to understand how it works, or adds relevant important quality information in our lives to learn about ourselves in consciousness, or morality. They can't see the value, so they flag it when it gets too high. At first $100, then $70, and now apparently at $30 for content that add information to understand ourselves or Steemit, it too high or a payout and has too many whale votes, despite other content having higher payouts, and more whale votes.
This behavior is sure going to encourage people to post on Steemit, right? It's going to attract quality content creators that deal with hard hitting issues, right? When you get rewarded by certain whales that other whales don't like, then you're going to get flagged for putting out content they don't like or think is over rewarded, when it isn't.
This is a new police, a "reward police" and "view police".
Steemit needs rational behavior. Not irrational justifications used to selectively flag and remove rewards from posts for ridiculous reasons like "not enough views", "I don't like it", "junk", or "over rewarded" and "concentrated whale voting" while more posts have more rewards and more whale votes. The behavior of bad whales exposes themselves. You judge, offend and insult yourself all by your own actions and behavior. Bad whales expose the hypocrisy of their actions all on their own.
I'm calling on others to step into this issue and set a consensus for better behavior so that this bad whale behavior can finally be address:
@dan
@dantheman
@blocktrades
@ned
@freedom
@jamesc
@abit
@val-a
@val-b
@tombstone
@michael-b
@michael-a
@rainman
@summon
@hendrikdegrote
@thejohalfiles
@transisto
@pharesim
@created
@proskynneo
@xeldal
@roadscape
@arhag
@riverhead
If other whales don't get involved to correct bad flagging behavior, or the community doesn't get involved, then this will keep going on.
Certain whales don't like it when other whales vote for content, so they selectively target certain content to flag.
The policing of whale-police flagging content based on views, and who upvotes, is not rational behavior for Steemit, and needs to be addressed.
No one individual, no the community, is able to counter the bad behavior if this behavior is not made aware to the community for people to address.
When someone posts content that took them a while to create, some whales want to say "hey, you haven't reached the 'view-count quota' yet, you're post doesn't deserve the rewards it got", or "hey,
If you're successful because of your content providing lasting value on the platform, you can't be too successful or else it's not fair to everyone else. Then a socialist-communist acting whale-police decides you don't deserve the rewards for the work you did. The whales who find value in certain content and reward it for the content are apparently not being fair to everyone, and it hurts hundreds of other posters who don't get rewarded for their content that some whales don't care to upvote. The communist whale-police doesn't want certain content that brings value to get rewarded and wants to redistribute the rewards away from that content, and reduce visibility of that content reaching more people for them to access the information within.
When you actively suppress important quality information that has use in people's lives to learn about themselves or the world, then you're acting against truth by preventing it from reaching more people.
If you are a content creator that creates too much content, and get consistently rewarded for your work, some people don't like that success, and don't like the type of content being rewarded so they invent irrational justifications to flag it and reduce visibility for more people to find it through the trending page. My posts get more views when they reach the trending page. That's a way for more people to access the content and learn from it. But, that's not desired for @smooth and @berniesanders, as they don't recognize value in these posts and just want to flag it for whatever irrational reasons they can invent and not have to rationally justify. They just want to be assholes yet think they are "helping" Steemit by punishing posts that get rewarded for content they don't like.
See if one of my original content posts on morality goes above $70, that's too much for @smooth. Important quality content isn't desired on Steemit according to @smooth, it has no value here, and doesn't help bring users. All he cares about is more users, thinking that is what will get STEEM to go up in price. The quality of content doesn't matter, it's all about quantity and the getting popular content to attract more quantity of users. An organization shouldn't care about the quality of its' products/services offered, it's all about quantity right? LOL. Content is what is being offered on Steemit to attract certain users or not certain users. So we don't want quality content creators on Steemit, according to @smooth, or at least not rewarding them for creating their original quality content. They can keep creating quality content, but if they get rewarded by whales who value the quality content and information is provides, then @smooth decides it's not providing valuer to Steemit, or it's not fair to author authors trying to make money. We have to even the rewards out based on everyone getting some. Don't reward content for content, that's bad for Steemit.
Please flag away bad whales and others who don't want this information getting out to more people for the community to be aware of bad whale behavior. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Letting whales flag content, reduce visibility, because it doesn't have a view quota; or goes over a reward quota for content they don't recognize value it provides to Steemit or in people's lives; or is voted on by whales they don't like; is an irrational and ridiculous code of conduct to engage in and will not help the success of Steemit. Trying to punish content that adds value to Steemit, or individuals lives, is not a path to success for a platform, nor a way to retain content creators or promote more content creators from joining Steemit. This is bad whale behavior.
This data collection is annoying to do, but it finally needs to be done to expose this bad whale behavior. THe community needs to be aware of whats going that the don't see because it's not being done to them, And as usual, most people will probably not care, since they are not directly affected. But this does affect everyone, as this bad whale behavior is accepted by the community if the community doesn't do anything to stop it. It will simply keep going on and one, and get worse as it has in my case, not with a +$30 post getting flagged to the $20s for bullshit irrational justifications. If this would happen to you, you might care more about what was being done.
I have demonstrated that @smooth has been targeting my original quality posts that get much less rewards that other posts, simply because he doesn't understand the value of truth or morality and doesn't want it to get visibility on the trending page or have the rewards some whales gave it for the quality and value it provides.
If you don't know how content is creating value on Steemit over time, and its not about the daily or 30 day reward, but about important information that adds value to Steemit, then check out @dan/@dantheman's post on such a topic Building Long Term Value from your Blog.
This about irrational behavior, selective punishing of certain valuable content that bad whales deny has value to the platform itself, top users on the platform, and to people outside of the platform. It's not about the rewards.
Flagging the reddit post, meh ok even through it does provide value maybe it was over rewarded, ok, I get it. But flagging other posts that actually are original content I make, that is about important knowledge that can help people in their lives now or decades away, and was valid to help people decades ago, is not ok. It makes no sense. It's not rational. It adds value to Steemit and people's lives. It's not being flagged for concentrated whale voting or simply being over rewarded, as I demonstrate other posts have larger concentrations and more rewards. It's about the type of content, being too serious, too informative, and @smooth being unable to recognize it's value. I have made other posts that go higher in payout, with more whale votes, as have others, on the same day, but they don't get touched. This is not consistent rational behavior.
If my original content -- that adds quality information to Steemit, and can add useful knowledge to people's lives to affect them in reality -- was not flagged, then I would've likely let it continue as I don't even want to be doing this. But when I put out content, that matters, that adds value, and it gets flagged for ludicrous, irrational justifications, over and over, because some whale-police is a fool who can;t recognize value, an their foolish behavior will continue, then I can't keep letting this happen to my important work, and letting the information get suppressed and removed from higher visibility on the trending page.
This information needs to reach more people for the information to be understood, whether its about changing individual live or the world through an understanding of consciousness, truth and morality that constitutes my original main higher quality work, or if its about what is happening on Steemit through posts like the Reddit post or the competition in an information market post.
Truth matters to me, and when it gets suppressed from reaching more people, that is a serious issue to me. Does truth and important information matter to you? Don't you want more people to access it? Then this whale-policing and flagging of content they don't like, don't like who is upvoting that content, while they give false hypocritical justifications, needs to be addressed and corrected.
Is it just me and the fact that @dan/@dantheman used to upvote my content more frequently (but has since stopped doing so recently...)? What about when others get votes from @dan/@dantheman? Is this just a flag war between Steemit whales and bad whales who take it out on content the Steemit whales support? Why can't they recognize value int he content and flag it when it only at $50, or $30? Is this how rewarding informative content is to be done?
@smooth has flagged other content, for whatever reason of it not being good enough to him, not content that attracts new users, or is content he thinks will drive peopel away, etc. I don't know but he just gives the same BS excuse each time of "over rewarded" and "concentrated whales".
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dzEsLdq1o18MjzGeVWn2D8_uSgW-od4YbTj7jkEIbh4/edit?usp=sharing
Some posts might indeed be "over rewarded" for the content value it provides to Steemit. But when something is at $30, and it does provide value, then why is it targeted apart from being content that someone simply doesn't like?
When bad whales act irrationally against the better interests of the platform, then it needs to be addressed. Content creators who do add quality value to the platform to help people's in their lives, or to help the platform become better through issues about the platform and improving, yet are punished for doing so because bad whales lack the comprehension and ability to recognize it's value, then only the community an step in to do something to stop this.
Do you value truth and quality information to help individuals in their lives; or information that can help Steemit improve? Do you want authors to be rewarded for creating such content, whether original or based on some other sources? Then it's time to understand what is happening and how it's harming the platform through certain individual bad behavior. Those of use who do care about these things need to unite to put a stop to this irrational behavior. Or else it will just keep going and demotivate people from creating similar content because they will see what happens when you do (flagged), and that won't attract them to do similar content. That's the point of rewarding quality content that matters in our lives, because it matters and can help people understand things. If you want more useful content to give that reputation and value to Steemit.com, then understand this issue.
Flag away bad whales. Show everyone how you like to suppress information from getting out, like you have been doing, and have done in the past for posts you decide "doesn't provide any value to Steemit" or "causes trouble in the community", when it's actually your behavior that is the problem and is causing trouble, and needs to be addressed by the community which requires them to be made aware of what you're doing. Face the mirror.
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate this knowledge reaching more people in Steemit because it needs to! Take care. Peace.
2017-02-23, 11am
Too much text; Didn't read.
I for one appreciate smooth and transisto flagging over-rewarded , whale-swarmed posts.
As someone who clearly benefits from those swarms, your opinion is obviously biased.
What if you used your bandwidth to address the guild-issues, their self votes, the cheating from that side, instead ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's 'funny' how people use 1% to upvote a post, but is using 100% to downvote. I know that everyone has their reasons when they do something. For example: I think that you(@krnel) were very happy how long nobody downvotes your posts, and now after few flags, I can tell you are not so happy anymore.
The reason why @smooth start downvoting you and also other people that were too much on trending page, is a good reason because are so many other people on this platform that provide a high level of value and still we miss them because whales are using their SP to vote you and few others every day.
You are still doing a good job, nobody says otherwise, but you should accept other people actions even if you do not agree with them. Anyway, just my little opinion!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is pretty obviously selective though. I would prefer to see them use their flag more often if they are going to say this is their reason, because liars in power, especially those who refuse to acknowledge their responsibility are a total turn off for the userbase. I appreciate transisto because I have seen that he doesn't target users for personal reasons. Some other whales mentioned in the post are pretty obvious that they are acting out of retaliation, possibly for political gain, as users quickly learn not to cross them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Since you named someone else and excluded me, you obviously think I'm not being selective. What would be the opposite of selective? Blindly throwing out votes without any observation or thought process. I can guarantee that is not the case. I have been downvoting (100% manually), and will continue to downvote overrewarded posts.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not, but if so I can't imagine what personal reasons or reasons for retaliation you think would apply. There aren't any.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Who's overrewarded? Wasn't it the guys that made posts and made thousands of dollars per post when the price of Steem is high?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is possible to have (and we have certainly had) posts that are earning too large a portion of the reward pool at any price level. @krnel's $30 post with the exact same voting would have been earning about $1500 last summer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
but there's "overrewarded" posts that are over $100-$200+ on the trending page. That's well over last summer's $1500.
If anything we have a lot of "underrewared" posts. Trending or not.
Sounds to me like the "overrewarding" is not the problem. The reward pool is the problem and how it's set up to distribute rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Inb4: Long-ass reply, statements that I'm jealous, statements about how I should improve my own content first.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Seriously? One whining rant about not earning enough money wasn't enough, you had to go for two? That is pathetic.
I will be downvoting this post if it earns significant rewards as whining and criticizing how people vote is not positive for the platform.
BTW, $30 is certainly not too small a reward to consider excessive. $30 currently ranks a post at about #12 out of a thousand or so active posts. At the time I downvoted, that was about 300 STEEM, which, at the higher prices and with the larger reward pool from last summer, would have been around $1500 with the exact same voting. It is a very substantial portion of the reward pool for just one post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I disagree, futhermore this kindoff feels like trolling (my personal opinion), you kind of mixed up the good/bad whale list,
Dan should never be on the "positive one"
he is permadownvoting posts without any reason at all, and u cry cos he stopped upvoting your posts, lol!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
DIsagree. In fact, i think the situations are pretty much exactly the same.
I seriously don't see how you can differentiate dan flagging you and bernie flagging Krnel... except maybe 'he started it'
(i guess the whole steemit, inc thing too)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you. I see the exact same behavior on both sides as well, both with upvoting and flagging.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Subjective value is precisely that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The platform logic was intentionally designed in a way that lets rewards equilibrate between the stake-weighted up- and downvotes during the life-time of a post´s payout period. It allows every member of the community to agree and disagree with the valuation of a piece of content. Collectively, this results in community approved value allocation, for me the essence of Steemit.
The fact, that community approval within Steemit results from stake-weighted opinions can be difficult to deal with for the individual, but this is what makes Steemit being Steemit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
yes indeed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
why are bad whales only the ones who downvote.
if i dont get upvoted by a whale i loose money same way as you loose when you get flagged.
should i call all whales who dont upvote me a bad ones?
thanks for mentioning me in your post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that this is the same thing how it was with @steemsports and @ozchartart. If you post 4 times a day, your all posts are trending and you are not the only person here on Steemit. I admit you are doing a great job, but what is too much is too much. Plus people are using their SP how they want and I don't see how can you stop that. I think that @smooth noticed that and this might be the reason why he downvotes your posts. And @berniesanders already told you why he downvotes your posts. I think the best you can do is just go over it and keep doing what you know better.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Finally some interaction on steemit - can we just all work together on improving the platform and being a real community? Some have the power as everywhere in life, that is a fact. Some buy power, some get elected and have power, some are born with power, some work and earn power.
The ones that have the power can use their power - others without power can work and try to get power. That is life - whining does not help.
Are we on a platform that is maturing to become something major or is this just the usual social network kindergarten shit that made so many networks fail?
#BePositive
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well said, intelligent, perceptive and insightful!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks bone man - appreciated! @kus-knee
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're all made your point and no one is right or wrong. But this is bad publicity for steemit. Really bad. So sad for new users coming on board to see this kind of bullshit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm a new user and I like to see discussions like this. It's not bad advertising, it's honest talking about how Steem works. The reward system is complicated for people like me used to Reddit, where every vote is equal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm glad to hear this. Thanks for reply and your opinion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is 100% true! Well said - and I work in PR @oldtimer
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've been watching this "issue" simmer for a couple of weeks, but I am really too new to Steemit to comment intelligently on the longer term internal politics. So I'm going to mostly watch and see how others respond as an interested party who received one of those >>>Downvoted in disagreement of reward generated by concentrated whale voting<<< comments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't read a single word of this rant other than the subject of the post.
I'll use my SP however I see fit, as ALL OF US ARE ENTITLED TO DO. Moving forward I will no longer provide reasonings for my flags but know I a) thought the post was junk or b) thought it was over-rewarded.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
perfect
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The reality is that they can, and will downvote, or vote, for whatever they want.
Here's the solution: Seize all of the whale's assets and force them to become normal people, while sending their current Steem Power to "@null", which would instantly give every non-whale nearly equal, or at least fair voting power.
Everyone would then have a fair vote, and would actually have to "buy in" with their own money, instead of just getting lucky because they found the platform first.
By this I mean, act as if the first "wave of Steemit popularity" had not happened, and no one was able to become a whale due to luck. Nullify all existing power structures, and start from scratch.
This makes Steemit more accessible, because everyone can donate multiple cents per vote, as long as they buy in even at the $500 level, rather than the $10000+ dollar level. It makes it reasonable to want to invest in Steem, because just a small, sane investment is actually worth something.
This would probably improve Steemit long term.
Of course, this solution is dishonest theft and forcefully manipulating the platform, so I don't think I can support this.
But if morality is what you've after, good luck choosing.
It comes down to wanting fairness long term, but only if you commit a grand crime of theft, vs unfairness long term, but there is no theft or wrong doing on your part.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Seizing anything is a slippery slope. That's how all bad things begin. I'd rather them change the UI or even remove the ability of the down vote to impact posts in certain ways.
Seizing assets is NOT a door you want to open. At that point confidence level in steem as a currency would plummet. How is that any different from the government seizing gold, bank accounts, etc from people?
That is a big reason people use crypto currency so things like that cannot happen.
I truly despise how these guys are using the down vote and I consider it potentially the worst thing occurring on the platform at this time. I speak up about it quite a bit. Yet, I do not support seizing of assets. This historically is a VERY bad thing that people tend to justify exactly for reasons like this, and long term this would not be beneficial, in the long term this would be bad. It is only short term that it might seem beneficial.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you guys didn't finish reading the comment..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And yes... I did read it, but my response was not to @krnel here. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I was responding to @heretickitchen's comment... not the original, thus why it is nested. I responded to the original post with a comment of my own.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It would destroy Steemit because why would anyone invest money in a platform when it could arbitrarily be stolen? I would power down immediately if something like this ever happened.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, I would too, but at the same time, don't you think the platform is unsustainable as it is? People can't buy in to gain voting power.
The sheer amount necessary to give you influential power is too high.
I will never be able to get voting power my entire career on Steemit, because I earn money here. I need to buy food with the meager amounts of money I make, so I can't just afford to become truly part of the community.
I think the only solution is for whales to have their power converted into something else, so they don't feel cheated, but yeah, we need the whales to disappear, so that everyone's vote is worth something, even if it's all worth much less.
It'll start to add up, right? Plus, people will have an incentive to buy in, because even a little SP would end up allowing them to have fun voting and giving people spare change, instead of literally nothing except a platitude level vote.
Your vote carries weight, and it nearly always has, right?
But for me, a person who's been on Steemit for months, but still has a worthless vote, it's disheartening to know that my vote will always be worth zero, or at best, maybe a single cent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not sure what the solution is. There has been some talk of changing the vote weight from the current n^2 to something more like n * log n. This would flatten out the power curve somewhat and give more proportional voting weight to lower SP accounts. Something like this might help.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This should be tried before anything else.
EDIT: Your later comment about how it is unfair to existing stakeholders is absolutely true. I was explicitly told by a key founder that a reason to power up and stay in the system instead of dumping the coins I mined was that I would receive 50% (not '25%', or more accurately 12%, as is currently the case) curation rewards and they would be very superlinear (which was subsequently reduced, but still somewhat superlinear). I was also likewise advised to combine my stake into a single account because that would receive even higher rewards by doing so (which no longer is the case)
Now the fact that all of these have been reneged upon and my property has been damaged, repeatedly, by rule changes, does indeed reduce my enthusiasm for the system and for sticking with it. Flattening the rewards would further do so. However, there does seem to be wide support for trying it. If it makes the platform more successful maybe that would be worth it. I'm open to trying it, but other large stakeholders may not be, and I wouldn't criticize them if that is the case.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have another solution, but I'd rather talk about it privately via PM on the chat website.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's implying socialism is always bad.
It's not. It is simply untrue to say that socialism is inherently bad in every situation.
Also, the idea that they "deserve to reap the rewards" doesn't make sense on a platform like Steemit.
This isn't just a currency. If it was, then I'd agree.
But this is meant to be a community, and when the people with voting power are literally ALL early adopters, and other people, no matter how dedicated to the community, have about $10 worth of votes between them, the disparity is absurd.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Soo..no one should ever invest in anything early because if they do, the unfairness police will come and steal it from them.
Should the price of Steem ever reach 10$ Your account would be worth about 16000$ and your votes might be about 5 cents or so. No doubt you'd be happy to hand that over to someone who just joined that day, to keep things fair.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thats not socialism tho
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That sort of thing could help, but I really think the most vital operation is to eliminate the "lucky whales".
To be a whale, you should have had to have invested actual money, or saved your way up to whale power over time. These whales that appeared just at the beginning of Steemit's existence? They just got lucky, so it feels legitimately unfair that they have so much power, despite not investing anything.
But still, theft is theft, and that might also include changing the algorithm, to "steal" their voting power. It'd be like saying "Well, the rich people in the USA are so rich, that we'll just devalue money until a million dollars is worth nothing, while making sure food and housing is still affordable by the average people."
I mean, I dunno if that makes sense, but yeah, I feel like any solution can potentially have troubles to it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have to disagree with you here. If a person discovers something early and invests in it, and then it goes big. They deserve to reap the rewards. Using force to prevent this would just be another form of socialism.
Lot's of new technologies/companies don't make it. Investing in them at that early stage is risky.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nobody finished reading the comment :P
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I did read that part.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
that comment that included socialism was wrong
rip cant reply because limit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Care to elaborate?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
socialism is abashment of private ownership of the means of production
market socialism and anarchist forms exist
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a TL;DR but after skimming I have the impression that you basically tell other people (@sweetsssj , @kingscrown etc.)'s posts are not contributing to Steemit while your posts do. That reason alone earns a downvote from me because of disagreement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I guess that's why actually reading matters ;) Congrats on not reading. What was the point? Consistency. Flag high rewarded posts according to no criteria other than its over rewarded, ok... well I was pointing out how there are other posts that are highly rewarded as well, yet no flags. Why why not flag them? I asked for a definition, and was given nothing except that someone can make up whatever definition for "concentrated whale voting" to justify flagging. So I provided actual data on who voted on what post and how many top voters vests there were. Data. Facts. And then you ignore the post and make an ignorant remark. LOL. Please read next time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't read your post but I do read a few comments at your post. If all people behave like you did (complain, whining and think yours is better than others), then there will be krnel version 2, who in the future complains that the original krnel made too much money. Too much crabs mentality in Steemit right now, sad truth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
People that you try to reason with and they can't change and their answer is "I can do as I like" yet their actions hurt the platform.
First thing I will not do is support them as a witness. If they say "I don't care" and it is related to the platform, then I will not support them as a witness. Witnesses should CARE, they can argue why they disagree and if it is rational and not hypocritical I'll listen.
I will not endorse witnesses that see attacking others as beneficial to the platform.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is another possibility here. Doing things that are negative PR and hurt the steemit platform.
Steem price falls, while some of these people have been actively powering down for some time.
Some of them claim to be transferring funds to Poloniex, etc not to take them out of the platform...
So if this is true... another way to reap rewards.... Why grow the platform now when you can help drive the prices down, sit on the money, and turn around and buy massive amounts of steem power on the cheap for a completely new account under a new name.
The @dan account may be powerful enough to fight back now, but there is a way to fight that for the despots that don't like their "authority" challenged. Sell, Sell, Sell, while also doing things that cause negative PR for steemit and the community. Price falls... Buy, Buy, Buy... Now do what can to uplift the community and hopefully the price some, and if the plan works they are now more powerful than @dan and other whales... Their despotism can continue unchecked.
If it needs to be done again they can repeat the cycle.
From a purely financial perspective this does make sense.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can assure you I have never placed a single vote (up or down) for the purpose of market manipulation. I can't speak for others.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah I didn't think you did. You've remained pretty consistent in terms of your activities... your account didn't suddenly power down massively around the same time some huge new accounts suddenly appeared.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dan was voting more often I believe. I cannot tell you why he isn't now. I do know they attacked him pretty viciously for challenging them.
It's okay if they do it, because they have the power. If someone with more power than them does the same thing then suddenly it is a bad thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There should be a FAQ sheet of set rules for flagging written by the Steemit community.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The thing is... rules are just words. Some people will choose to ignore them. It kind of already lists what the flag is intended for when you click on it.
i
These guys are using that top one... yet if you read carefully that is not always the case. It is often "Did @dan vote on this?"
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The rules need to be changed, I've haven't flagged anyone lateley, so I didn't know flagging to remove profits was listed. This rule can and is used unfairly. I've read many post that whales have an unfair power regarding curation because of their sp power. That'll have to be addressed as well, which is I think the core issue here. So power does not equate wisdom or knowledge, flagging and upvoting are so emotional.
Curie was created to help and inspire newbies, they helped me and the trending page wasn't such a downer.
Seeing the same top trending posts does not make me feel helpless or uninspired but seeing heavily weighted votes does curb my voice as I do not want to post things whales may not like, which kinda pisses me off, I feel controlled...controls curb my creativity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah I stopped paying attention to the Trending page within a month of joining. I joined in July.
I simply write about what I feel like writing, what I am inspired to write. If it does well great, if it doesn't no problem.
Trying to guess and post what will earn me more was not FUN. I'd rather simply be who I am and write about what I feel like writing about.
I enjoy that a lot.
I actually haven't been subjectively down voted for the reasons in this post. I've seen it happen many times and have been very outspoken against it.
"It's my vote I can vote how I want"
This is true...
"It's my mouth I can be an asshole if I want"
is also true...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If everyone's vote was weighted the same there would be no issue. I'm not smart enough to figure that problem out, especially when one owns many accounts and bots. When popularity and currency are involved in judging others all sorts of demons pop up and cause all sorts of problems.
People worked hard or spent their hard earned money to power up. They should be able to do as they wish when buying or selling their coin. But when regulating a system, emotions and bias are never fair or logical from what ive seen in this world of desire.
I think freedom has its consequences though. Just because one is free to do as one wishes does not protect one from the cause and effect of ones actions.
I happen to enjoy assholes, but I'm not a dog so I'm not going to sniff your asshole.....lololol. Everytime someone mentions they are an asshole I think of how dogs sniff each other's butt when greeting each other.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree. I am trying to think of answers. I just posted a blog about one possible way to address it. I don't think it'll do much, but it could influence some people, and maybe change some people's minds.
I don't believe people that put their own interest first in front of the platform should be witnesses.
They can be focused on their own interest, that is fine, but witnesses should be a witness because they support the platform and will do whatever they can to grow it, not harm it.
Voting "however I like" is not exactly the best action of someone who is supposed to represent the platform.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As far as I see it, and this has been clarified by recent discussions, there's no solution to this except what you're doing here, social shaming, and it's a poor solution as you know well. But on your last article I feel for you, that was good I enjoyed it, long as it was.
Make a suggestion or two for projects got Steem FOSSbot, I'm trying to collect good ideas of tools what might be useful for me to develop if I get to it or hopefully some other devs will come on board.
https://github.com/Steem-FOSSbot/project-tracker here as an issue
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great initiative, community bot are the future to bring people power together however the bot owner must be trust able.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks! 😆
What do you mean exactly with this?
Trustable in what sense?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
*trusted
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But what do you mean, could you expand why a bot owner must be trusted? It seems like a contradiction is all, making bots source free and open to all means anyone can use it, trusted or not. Maybe that's your point?
And I'm not sure what a "trusted" person means in this capacity. Trusted to do what?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It would be a coalition.
One person would have control of the account though, because it'd be unwise to trust everyone in the coalition with the account's voting power.
Multiple people would donate their money to the coalition, to give it a single mega-powerful vote.
This would be the the bot.
The person who programs the bot, and runs the account must hold true to the ideals of the coalition, and that's what he means by trusted, I think.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
To create the account
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
awe
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm Just going to quote a quote of the post
"Good whales don't flag content that adds value to the platform."
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/683950269167312916
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
LOL @ them voting for trivial food posts just because it's from a woman. This is something I've seen, and I feel the draw myself, to vote for a woman's post because you want them to like you. But lol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
this comment is beneath you @baerdric, trivializing a post based on it being posted by a woman. That is just wrong on a lot of levels.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's not what I did. Chastise me as you wish, but for what I really did, which was trivialize the motives of guys who vote for a female's post just because they want her attention. I think that is very clear to those who want to see.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There, I've changed the wording so you can see it easier, but the other reply shows that my point was clear.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I dont often vote for female's 'trivial' food posts (at least not recently) but if I did it would be because I feel that is adds more value in terms of attracting users and growing the platform. It may also (as it was in the past when I did regularly vote for such posts) be done on the basis that they contribute a positive and fun vibe to the platform that is more value-creating for the platform than posting whiny rants about not earning enough money or that you don't like how people choose to vote. Likewise some art posts, news, photography, humor, memes, etc. (whether or not posted by females, which is often unknown).
Females drive social media and food content is a much bigger and more promising market (and part of social media) than long form blogging. These along are good enough reasons to support those posts, in addition to just personally liking that content better.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@krnel This post has 3 dots? Flagged 3 times? And I thought I was crazy :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Here' another example of whimsical downvoting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
to be fair I don't think its that your content is rewarded too much I think its that other content isnt rewarded enough and that's why they are downvoting
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoted because @freedom upvoted with no reason.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, that makes so much sense, everyone needs a reason to upvote. Brilliant!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The only thing that bothered me is the reason that was given. And seeing him or her up vote stuff that has a high payout already.
It seems better to say; "I down voted because I can." or "I don't like you"or something.
Or say nothing at all.
But of course any reason can be given and no one has to be consistent.
I will give an example of what mean.
krnel I up voted this article because it was really short, and I only up vote short articles (makes no sense at all)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
THEY'RE MY ACCOUNTS. Why should I not be able to vote with MY ACCOUNTS? Please try to justify that with whatever ridiculous bullshit you can come up with.
Flags are subjective, that's the whole fucking point. Maybe you guys should take some time to understand THIS IS HOW THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED, BY DAN.
Don't be so sore just because your account is worth less than my smallest. It's obvious this is about nothing but being jealous of others, it's not flattering.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit