You all have some pretty big numbers, and I am nobody, but it seems to me the solution is obvious. No one should be able to take what another man has earned. What makes a man powerful and an influence within his comunity is his rightful rewards for a job well done. Voting down and showing your displeasure for content is one thing, but to punish? I am not sure this is the place for me.
RE: Plutocracy - Rule by the Wealthy - The State of Steemit
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Plutocracy - Rule by the Wealthy - The State of Steemit
You are fresh to Steem so I am going to assume you don't have a handle on the post/comment reward system yet. It's ok, it took me a long time.
All values shown on posts and comments are subject to change due to votes (not just on the post/comment, but on all others as well), the market price of STEEM, and other factors. They are pending, and have a 7 day period from the time they were created where Steem SP stakeholders are free to influence them up or down depending on their stake amount and vote weight.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good explanation. I don't think it is responsive to @lukigrl's underlying assumption, which is that upvotes are themselves earned.
Could you enlighten me as to why, in a market metaphor system, like curation is, there should be a downvote? It makes no sense to me, and I clearly am not alone. @lukigrl seems to be saying that it isn't fair, and to be reacting strongly to that lack of fairness by considering not participating.
This is demonstrably a widespread apprehension regarding downvotes, and seems to me to be a clear and present danger to Steemit - even absent significant competition. In a market for platforms as I expect to soon develop, that danger is existential.
What is the compelling purpose of downvotes that might make it necessary despite the fact it is an existential threat to Steemit itself? I haven't heard even ANY rationale for downvotes in a market metaphor system, much less a compelling one.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not a market metaphor system, it's a game metaphor system
You're approaching FUD here. "Existential threat"? 🙄
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Clearly @lukigrl indicated a strong and common reaction to the unfairness potential of downvotes, and further demonstrated a common response: voting with her feet.
I propose that there will be competitors to Steemit soon. Any competitor that is perceived as more fair will outcompete Steemit, as @lukigrl has shown is highly likely.
This is a threat to Steemit's existence, by definition an existential threat.
Please do show where I have approached F'ed Up Disinformation, as I'm agin' it.
Also, you can apply semantics all you like, but at the end of the day, what people understand is that Steemit is like a market, not a political decision on a new tax.
I don't even have any idea, nor do most people, what you mean by a game metaphor system, or how it is different from the examples I have given, which people do understand.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I blame Steemit Inc. for trying to have things all ways. It's true the describe it with many metaphors, and a marketplace is one, a big one. Experience and research has shown me this is not the case, it doesn't fit the idea of a market.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, in your comments with me. You are supporting the stance that downvotes are taking away from what someone has earned and are implying that the future of Steem rest on this being fixed.
It's not semantics I'm applying but the ideas behind the words, while striving for accurate terms to use of course. I don't accept this being reduced to semantics.
Listen, I'm going to make a post on this, looks like it's needed. Shortly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, I now have a new definition of FUD, for which I thank you.
You, after defining FUD, do clearly state my position. I am glad we do not misunderstand what I am trying to convey.
I was referring to the difference between metaphors as semantics. I apologize if that was unnecessary or inaccurate, but as the metaphors differences seem not to address the core issue, which is that a lot of people feel that downvotes do exactly as you state I state, I think that's the issue to address, rather than metaphors.
I look forward to your post. Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your welcome and glad we see each other clearly in some ways 😜 I hope to have it written soon.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I second what @pfunk has said here, and I'd like to underline the point that no one can take what another person has earned, that Steem, Steem Power and SBD you have is yours - period.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I cannot agree, since upvotes are earned. You build a following because you post stuff people value. They upvote based on their perception of value, because you earned it. Your reputation is earned also, but there is a basis for having a downvote for reputation that I can understand. Your reputation isn't like a box of widgets for sale.
In a market, buyers can upvote (buy) widgets, or not. Those sales are earned. In a free market, those sales translate directly to income. I'm not gonna push the metaphor too far, which would be further.
The best analogy for downvotes I can conceive is that of saboteurs that destroy the widgets after the sale, but before payment has been received. The rationale for saboteurs is that competing platforms harm the one dependent on the widgets, and therefore increase in power relative to the widget platform.
I just see no purpose for it within the Steemit platform. What purpose is so compelling to outweigh the existential threat that the perception of unfairness seems to be?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Upvotes are not earned, they are freely given, by whatever private choice the voter makes. This may line up with your idea of "earning" a vote, but it is not necessarily so.
Your analogy is nonsense. One is not buying anything, because there is no cost to oneself. The word "vote" here is not metaphorical, they are votes used to decide how to distribute the daily (or 7 day) reward pool.
The compelling purpose of downvotes is well explained in the whitepaper. I will go into it further when I respond to your lengthy comment in another thread here. But it's all there.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit