It Has to be Said: krnel's Hypocrisy

Nine rants in two days, and counting.

@krnel sure took it hard that his posts were flagged. Judging by the tone of his posts, it almost seems like his mental health has taken a huge blow as a result of this.

First off, I'd say that it might be a good idea to just take a few days off of Steemit whenever the community starts to take more out of you than it's giving. This is just general life advice. Facebook really started to get on my nerves recently, and I've been mostly off Facebook for a few weeks now - and it's been great. Nothing that is clearly this toxic for you can be good for your mental health in the long run. And when all you do is loop negative thoughts in a negative environment all day long, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the end result of that is.

Things might look a lot better after a little break. Instead of wasting your time rating, you should try an adventure, like growing a moustache. If you were able to grow a manly moustache and post the photo on Steemit, I would upvote it and re-steem it, too.

---

Anyway.

There is glaring hypocricy in krnel's on going diatribe against certain community members for flagging him.

One of the issues that krnel has brought up several times is the fact that these people don't even read his posts before flagging. krnel feels that since they don't even read the posts, they have no possible way of measuring the perceived value of said posts, and therefore should not be allowed to reduce their rewards.

Okay, fine. I mean, there is a point there. How can someone, who never even read the post, accurately measure the value of that post, right? Let's go with that.

However, krnel never seemed to have an issue with all the autovotes that he was getting.

It's the exact same thing: a post receives votes that have an effect on the post's payout value, and are cast without the user even reading the post. Bots don't read your posts. No matter what you believe, your posts do not evolve the bots' consciousness, bunnyboy.

I don't remember seeing a single rant from krnel about the automatic upvotes that he was getting. I'd even argue that if the two notorious whales made it clear right now that they don't read krnel's posts, but opt to upvote them anyway, we wouldn't see nine rants about how unfair it is that someone just votes on posts without even reading them.

And before someone says that hey, no one could ever turn down free votes, I'd note that I'm the guy who became skeptical of the STEEM Guild's effects on the community's long term health, and opted out of being voted on by them. So, it's entirely possible for a person to have a backbone.

Sorry, krnel, but you come off as really hypocritical, and extremely entitled. I can't think of a nicer way to say that.

What is prevalent in your rants is that your content is so valuable, and objectively so, that you deserve nothing short of worship and praise, and never in a million years should anyone, especially mere peasants, question the value of what you bring to the table.

That's why it never crosses your mind that you might be hypocritical when complaining about downvotes from users who don't read your content, while at the same time receiving autovotes from bots who don't read your content.

Because of course you get automatic upvotes. You're krnel! Your posts will evolve consciousness to change individual lives, and the world, through steemit.com.

Because speaking of hypocrisy, weren't you one of the most vocal people driving @steemsports away? And why? Because, for subjective reasons, you felt they were overrewarded and their content was low in quality.

That is absolutely fair enough. You are completely within your rights to feel that way, nothing wrong with that.

But what is comical is the fact that you simply can't deal with the fact that some people may feel that way about you. I mean it's like you can't process the fact that someone just doesn't like your content, and finds it overrewarded - even though you have done the same thing yourself.

Now you want a council to review flags? Really? Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? If flags indeed require a council to review them, then so do upvotes, as well. That would mean no automatic upvotes, by the way.

A downvote is simply a reverse upvote.

When I upvote something, I upvote because I liked the content and, in essence, am disagreeing with the rewards. In other words, I upvote when something is underrewarded. A downvote is simply the same thing in reverse.

Why does one action require a council, and the other doesn't?

Because upvotes make you money.

You sound like a big American corporation that is okay with the free market, as long as it favor the corporation in every way possible, but as soon as the free market causes a friction of any kind, the government must step in immediately.

Is that really something Steemit should promote?

---

This whole thing during the past few days has made me respect @ozchartart more, actually. As we all know, oz was making massive payouts multiple times a day for a long time, until he started getting flagged by dan, which reduced his payouts to notohing.

At first, he didn't say anything.

krnel would have already made a dozen rants during that time.

And when he finally did make a post about, the only post he ever made about it, mind you, he wasn't whiny, nor did he come off as someone with a superiority complex. When the post was done, he want back to posting as usual.

That is how an adult deals with a situation like this. It also gives an idea on why he was so heavily supported: maybe he just conducts himself in a nice, mature way, and people like him. I know nothing about him personally, but it's a possibility.

---

So, why is your content such that one should not be allowed to disagree with its rewards? Because the flaggers don't read your posts? If that was the case, you should opt out of all bot votes, as well. The bots don't read your posts.

Is it because people are not allowed to disagree with rewards? If that was the case, you wouldn't do it yourself, and clearly you have.

Is it because your content is just so.. good? I'm sure every person of at least average intelligence can realize this is where it just gets absurd. A blog post has no objective value, only subjective. A glass of water for a swimmer in a lake is less valuable than it is to a dying man in a desert. Just because you find something valuable, doesn't mean others will. Even if it's the same glass of water, its value is wholly dependent on who you are offering it to.

Why waste your time complaining about the few users who don't like your stuff, instead of concentrating on creating content for those who do? You have over a thousand followers, and you have even a sixty dollar payout on a post that is flagged by two big whales. I'd say you're doing pretty damn good on Steemit.

But this crusade of yours has made you look really childish, and it's extremely hard to sympathize with you.