Thanks for Sharing @moeknows, ok now that we know:
It's JUST A GLITCH and that
@pawsdog is very observant (I'm following you now - you're going to be huge!), and
@berniesanders did not manipulate any images (You're still a crazy rock-star, because of you popcorn is tasteless in the movies),
Can we please allow:
All the shills, crypto bull fans, and chart followers to continue the debate with the purist Steemians if someone is entitled to 1.x% of the reward pool or Not.
For @haejin to keep gathering free delegation and Super-Free-Publicity (Worth More Than A Mere Weekly $40K That He Earns) till he holds the power of a whale and see what he will do with all that power altruistic or will it make him trigger happy with downvotes and Godlike Steem power?
AND.....Please for goodness sakes somebody actually sell Steem and not just threaten to sell and leave Steem forever, I cannot buy my next 20K of Steem for under $2 and I really wish someone will just sell this controversial crypto so I can buy some more!
PLEASE SELL.....PLEASE JUST GOD DAMN SELL BEFORE HF20 COMES OUT IN JAN18 AND SMT COMES OUT IN FEB18.
ok....thank you for your time, I love you all, please continue as before
My job was to simply point out an observation and bring the point up for debate, nothing more nothing less. I made no accusations one way or the other. The community did its job and may have solved the issue.
That aside, the proper way to handle it was to debate the issue, not act like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum and go about threatening people, threatening to destroy their accounts, flouting "I have the means" which I take as "I have money fuck you". To that end I am glad this article served it's purpose one way or the other, both in possibly bringing to light the reasons for the discrepancies I noted as well as further illuminated the lack of leadership and people skills bernie consistently demonstrates.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing.
I disagree. Your framing of the post is leading the audience towards a conclusion of guilt through a false front.
If you notice, most of the comments on this post are coming from relatively newbies who have very little understanding of how the platform operates or of its history.
@berniesanders has played a vital role in this community since it has begun regardless of how people have disagreed with or portrayed him. If that isn't the sign of a leader, I don't know what is yet, he never claims to be your leader, you have put him in that role. He is doing as he sees fit.
What is good is that the post was essentially nullified and a retraction can be posted to let people know more publicly.
While he may have done good and may continue to do so. He likewise demonstrates abusive tenancies in regards to bullying other members etc. Hell he may be the bees knees of Steemit and that is just dandy.
But you cannot be a hypocrite and advocate for the platform on one hand, posting pics of the rules for acceptable flagging etc and then turn around and break those rules with the other. Was he within his right to flag @haejin; yes most definitely. Did he post an image recently depicting the acceptable reasons for flagging? Yes. Is rewards dispute listed as acceptable? Yes.
Is disagreement of opinion listed? No.
I never professed him to be my leader. In all truth I would not follow the man through the express lane at Wal-Mart. He positioned himself on that pedestal through his proclamations of doing what is right for the platform, leading the way, making a difference, helping the little guy by saving the rewards pool from its pillagers. Yet on the other hand he essentially spammed 5 posts about the same thing, no new content, nothing substantive that added to the debate and likewise attempted to walk away with $20,000 USD; which I found to be somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
He at this point, I do not believe give two shits about members and is more concerned with building "his brand" (his words not mine) and profiting from his vote bot. That is is ultimate objective as I see it. To keep that platform at a level wherein people keep pumping quarters into his slot machine in return for votes.
Honestly it is rather ingenious to a point. The whole rando concept and its consistent contribution by people hoping to buy a cheap vote up. That is his enterprise and what his focus seems to be at the moment. I have no issue with it as it is within the rules of the system here and looks to be an profitable entrepreneurial endeavor. As I am sure he has invested in its success, he is going to use his popularity, power and any other means at his disposal to continue building that machine so as it continues to pay him dividends.
Bernie is a smart guy, no doubt. But a bit on the transparent side as well. Rando is his business and he is going to work to build it, even if it means breaking a few eggs (crushing the little guy) or buying up dissenting opinion (downvoting those that disagree).
Disagreement of rewards is listed in the reasons to flag but even those are guidelines.
I think that people are confused by this whole platform and figure that it is some garden utopia where fairness reigns supreme and everyone deserves the same in a safezoned environment.
You may even be surprised at where those 20,000 dollars in value ended up. Do you think he did it for the money? Do you think that he is concerned about his own post earnings here at all?
I disagree with all upvote bots but unfortunately, the only ones who can stop them are the ones using them, not the ones creating them.
If you think that Rando is his only business, again, I would think you mistaken but, this is a 'to each their own platform' in the end.
I am looking to one day someone analysing all of the BC data and seeing exactly how people behave and how their influence helped or harmed the platform.
I am glad that you have taken the time to answer well though, few do.
Thanks for Sharing @moeknows, ok now that we know:- It's JUST A GLITCH and that
- @pawsdog is very observant (I'm following you now - you're going to be huge!), and
- @berniesanders did not manipulate any images (You're still a crazy rock-star, because of you popcorn is tasteless in the movies),
Can we please allow:
PLEASE SELL.....PLEASE JUST GOD DAMN SELL BEFORE HF20 COMES OUT IN JAN18 AND SMT COMES OUT IN FEB18.
ok....thank you for your time, I love you all, please continue as before
Sincerely,
DJ
And a six day old post showing it by the creator of the site. Should have checked and asked from @dragosroua
My job was to simply point out an observation and bring the point up for debate, nothing more nothing less. I made no accusations one way or the other. The community did its job and may have solved the issue.
That aside, the proper way to handle it was to debate the issue, not act like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum and go about threatening people, threatening to destroy their accounts, flouting "I have the means" which I take as "I have money fuck you". To that end I am glad this article served it's purpose one way or the other, both in possibly bringing to light the reasons for the discrepancies I noted as well as further illuminated the lack of leadership and people skills bernie consistently demonstrates.
I disagree. Your framing of the post is leading the audience towards a conclusion of guilt through a false front.
If you notice, most of the comments on this post are coming from relatively newbies who have very little understanding of how the platform operates or of its history.
@berniesanders has played a vital role in this community since it has begun regardless of how people have disagreed with or portrayed him. If that isn't the sign of a leader, I don't know what is yet, he never claims to be your leader, you have put him in that role. He is doing as he sees fit.
What is good is that the post was essentially nullified and a retraction can be posted to let people know more publicly.
While he may have done good and may continue to do so. He likewise demonstrates abusive tenancies in regards to bullying other members etc. Hell he may be the bees knees of Steemit and that is just dandy.
But you cannot be a hypocrite and advocate for the platform on one hand, posting pics of the rules for acceptable flagging etc and then turn around and break those rules with the other. Was he within his right to flag @haejin; yes most definitely. Did he post an image recently depicting the acceptable reasons for flagging? Yes. Is rewards dispute listed as acceptable? Yes.
Is disagreement of opinion listed? No.
I never professed him to be my leader. In all truth I would not follow the man through the express lane at Wal-Mart. He positioned himself on that pedestal through his proclamations of doing what is right for the platform, leading the way, making a difference, helping the little guy by saving the rewards pool from its pillagers. Yet on the other hand he essentially spammed 5 posts about the same thing, no new content, nothing substantive that added to the debate and likewise attempted to walk away with $20,000 USD; which I found to be somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
He at this point, I do not believe give two shits about members and is more concerned with building "his brand" (his words not mine) and profiting from his vote bot. That is is ultimate objective as I see it. To keep that platform at a level wherein people keep pumping quarters into his slot machine in return for votes.
Honestly it is rather ingenious to a point. The whole rando concept and its consistent contribution by people hoping to buy a cheap vote up. That is his enterprise and what his focus seems to be at the moment. I have no issue with it as it is within the rules of the system here and looks to be an profitable entrepreneurial endeavor. As I am sure he has invested in its success, he is going to use his popularity, power and any other means at his disposal to continue building that machine so as it continues to pay him dividends.
Bernie is a smart guy, no doubt. But a bit on the transparent side as well. Rando is his business and he is going to work to build it, even if it means breaking a few eggs (crushing the little guy) or buying up dissenting opinion (downvoting those that disagree).
Disagreement of rewards is listed in the reasons to flag but even those are guidelines.
I think that people are confused by this whole platform and figure that it is some garden utopia where fairness reigns supreme and everyone deserves the same in a safezoned environment.
You may even be surprised at where those 20,000 dollars in value ended up. Do you think he did it for the money? Do you think that he is concerned about his own post earnings here at all?
I disagree with all upvote bots but unfortunately, the only ones who can stop them are the ones using them, not the ones creating them.
If you think that Rando is his only business, again, I would think you mistaken but, this is a 'to each their own platform' in the end.
I am looking to one day someone analysing all of the BC data and seeing exactly how people behave and how their influence helped or harmed the platform.
I am glad that you have taken the time to answer well though, few do.