What's in it for me?
My ultimate goal is to make myself redundant.
I interject myself into the meta-conversation when I feel there are no reasonable voices.
I am trying to identify reasonable voices and encourage them as much as I can.
The downvoting for differences of opinion is really out of hand, and freezepeach is the only account I know of that really tries to help people.
I've been in the casualty-care discord hosted by steemflagrewards and they seem to think that it's basically the wild west and if people are posting "low effort" (in their opinion) or "comment farming" (I don't even know what that is) or "self voting" (how is this a crime?) or perhaps they posted some quote or something and forgot an attribution link (should we cite sources for every meme?) or if you got upvoted by a bid-bot (I'm also not sure why this is a crime) or if you bad-mouth some powerful steemit-user (they are quick to use the word "libel" but aren't clear on the definition they prefer, or present actual evidence, or allow any semblance of a "fair-hearing" or a path-to-remediation, so once again, just their opinion I guess) then they say, f-that-guy they deserve downvotes.
I make what could easily be considered "low effort" posts. Why don't they downvote me? Enforcement seems to be arbitrarily capricious.
Should they downvote markymark for using Mark Wahlberg's pop-star name (impersonation)?
Should they downvote marymark for using a profile pic of Nathan Fillion and Firefly wallpaper without explicit permission from the copyright holders?
Who am I to say? I'm just some rando seeking logical coherence.
Should I cite my sources for proper attribution to honor the person who coined the term "rando"? I have no idea who that even is.
Is it spam for me to reply to a post with "Thank you for your contribution"? More than 10 times in-total?
Interesting side-note, they do consider burnposts to be "spam", but they don't downvote them because so many people band-wagon on for the huge curation rewards, their significant downvotes barely make a dent and so they just save them (downvotes) for smaller fish.
I don't expect to "get anything" from delegating to freezepeach except the satisfaction that they will heed the cries of the down-trodden.
If I could write a bot to scan for downvoted posts that I could actually do something about, and counter-vote them (after some cursory evaluation), I would do that, but I don't have the resources and I don't know who to ask for help (I already tried trufflepig).
Freezepeach seems pretty fair-minded and I'll keep an eye on what they're upvoting and if I find that my steem-power can be better deployed somewhere else, I'll undelegate (they don't seem to be particularly active, but perhaps they're just saving up the voting power for when it's needed most).
Also, I might have overstated my "delegate 100%", since freezepeach doesn't seem to be particularly active, I'll stick with my 777.777 delegation for the moment and keep the balance for my fractional upvotes for now.
ALSO, LOWERING THE MINIMUM PAYOUT TO 0.001 (would remove the financial incentive to downvote) AND FLATTENING THE CURATION REWARDS (NO MORE INCENTIVE BONUS FOR VOTING IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES) WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO "FIXING" STEEMIT (are the band-wagon voters really "adding-value"?)
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles. copyleft wiki
Use the tag #LOGICZOMBIE if you'd like to participate in a civil debate or have your post critiqued for logical coherence.
Essential sites for (new) steemit users
Protesting without dialogue (with the sole intent to silence opposition) is harassment, not free speech.
I'm not a fan of ad hominem attacks, but I'm even less of a fan of censorship and retaliation.
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue and civil debate).
Perhaps anarchy already exists and government is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – @thoughts-in-time
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Tag @futuremind and @crypto.piotr, I'd really like to hear your opinion on this or if you can "set-me-straight" on anything I may have misunderstood, that would be greatly appreciated.
Hi @logiczombie,
Thank you for the tag. I think you covered everything pretty well here.
Thanks @seo-boss and @steemchiller and @blarchive and @saboin!!
And everyone else (I just don't want to bombard your alerts with mentions)!!
IMAGE SOURCE
As long as I've been here they've never really gotten it that for a platform to be successful you need people to engage on it. I can see people downvoting a comment but to flag a post and then have the ability to run over and flag everything someone's done in the last seven days isn't working. It's pure censorship. Plain and simply. Until they remove that ability and the inability to flag a post that isn't violating platform rules Steemit will continue to sink as the years ago by in participation.
Honestly I can't even really tell if the people who use to be here actually left the platform or not as the tendency for most is to run multiple sock accounts so as soon as they want to power down one they have another up and ready to go. It's a self serving system whereas a person could literally just post and respond to themselves all day long, they don't need anybody else's participation. I don't even think we could actually separate the tribe trail curation's into each being individually owned, half a dozen or so tight knit individuals each with a few socks and who needs outsiders to make them successful? It may be great to sustain themselves in the time being but for the long term sustainability of the platform I am not so sure.
I agree that they should replace downvoting with dislikes which is what YouTube and Reddit has.
What would you think about a proposal like, I don't know, maybe, if you don't make a post in 31 days, you can't upvote or downvote anything (and your automatic newb delegation gets yanked)?
You mean whoever gave that to me hasn't yanked it yet over commenting on this post?....I'll have to go look to see how amazed I should be. Not that I want to sound unappreciative of someone's good natured attempt at making me a minnow but I didn't ask them to do that for me. I don't think being a minnow made me worth anymore weight vote wise but I am not one to discount someone had a small bit of faith in me being here, that in itself was worth more than being a minnow. As far as your other concerns I am a blogger as such in most sites I participate in the upvote don't really count for much than an affirmation of what was said, given that I can do the same thing in a comment. Through my history as a blogger I have only downvoted one comment and that was due to an initial reaction that I took as child abuse in a meme. I am only trying to offer insight that can be, if wanted, taken into consideration and discussion as the sight moves forward in hopes you understand how people feel and can be driven to react to certain events. I'll carry on regardless of what is chosen to do as that is who I am. I've been struck down many a times in my life over my frankness, it's cost me so it won't be a first to happen here.
You can view your delegations here, https://steemworld.org/@sunlit7 (just click the "delegations" button on the left)
Make no mistake about it I was humbled by that action. Moving forward I really do though have to feel free to just be me, I live and adjust to the circumstances that entails sometimes, whether for the good or the bad.
Nobody's making any demands. Just think of it as an alternative way of upvoting (that can't be taken away by anyone but the person who awarded it).
You may lynch me, ;-) but I don't think people need to be helped in the form of compensation when it comes to voting differences.
I have been working as a social worker for many years now and I have learned one thing: each story has its own non-public version, each one presented differently by the people involved. If someone wants to be advised about a conflict, they can do so. If someone takes an online conflict seriously enough, for example, to exchange ideas offline with someone who can offer them a helpful perspective, that would be helping them to help themselves.
Democratic principles such as the legislature, executive and judiciary do not work in this environment because nobody has ever established them. Therefore, one doesn't adhere to this separation of powers because it is non-existent here. But whoever invokes it does so in a kind of lawless or lawlessly arbitrary space. Every large platform has difficulties with this.
The question of whether people believe that this place here will provide such a legal space will determine whether they simply continue to behave as they do in the Wild West. If not very many people really believe that such a thing will be established here - because it is also a highly speculative crypto-currency space and people see this here strictly economically and not socially - and there is no "government" to call upon, not all of them will feel obliged to listen to those who have taken on certain similar executive functions here. There is no consensus.
This space, if it were large enough, would eventually be regulated externally, much as, for example, the major portal operators are now doing now that they have gained economic and political weight.
In principle - I suspect - our societies, both offline and online, are still based on the often unconscious assumption that people need to be governed and need guidance, and I think that, in parts, this is in any case a consistent assumption. Only the form of governance could be different. Online places like this one could be a good example of this. It is a pity that it does not set a good example. One who sees himself as an individualist and thinks he can govern himself (and others without a mandate from all participants), has lost his mind in my opinion.
To answer that one: This would be none of my business. It's Marks Wahlberg's business and maybe he would do something about it if he would know. Or maybe not. Who knows. I don't care.
Take care - always a pleasure to comment on your topics.
We were all cave-people at some point.
If you prefer "might makes right", then you're in luck!
If you prefer "reason and logic should be no respecter of privilege", then we need to rally like-minded individuals.
The legal system didn't build itself, ex-nihilo.
Go for it, brave one! :)
I left my traces here and sources where one can dig deep and take this stuff for building up a good practice on democracy.
I just want to address part of your comment.
In this space our top twenty witnesses fulfil all of those functions.
It was the witness votes that gave us free flags and decided to implement EIP (economic improvement proposal) https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hf21-sps-and-eip-explained
It is my understanding (gained from reading many comments) that part of the discussion was about how to normalize flagging, what behaviour would be targeted such as buying votes, plagiarism, low quality posts and spam. The last two seem to be where most of the disagreement and pain are coming from.
The problem as I see it, is the top twenty witnesses are chosen by the amount of Steem Power held by the people voting for them. Stake based voting. A bit like American Democracy - Non Existent. The few are dictating to the many.
imho If we could actually change that selection process this platform could easily become a game changer.
I once had a lengthy debate on the subject with one of the witnesses. It is impossible to hold elections that have a meaningful character because of the possibility of setting up multiple accounts. I asked whether it would be possible in principle to carry out an authentification, but in order to prevent multiple accounts, it would probably be necessary to log in with your identity card details and number.
As this would hardly be done by users on the basis of this confidential data, this way of abusing accounts is not applicable. He also told me that if it were done, it would still not be one hundred percent safe from fraudulent accounts. In that sense, I find the whole debate about rewards and downvotes etc. quite useless, because you are in an environment that is not authentic.
The efforts that have been made since the last hardfork to counter abuse and to detect and weaken so-called circle jerks is not something that can be sustained once and for all if there are constantly new accounts that have to be exposed as abusive again. I think many of the fights were fought by people who already knew each other or who were actively trying to expand their circles to include other users in the fight.
Nevertheless, I would have liked to try the principle of formal consensus voting here, simply to see what the result would have been. Even if people, even if they have multiple accounts, voted on the basis of the least resistance to a proposal.
Democratic principles require a basis of honesty. But if you have an environment where that is not relevant, then perhaps the only thing left to do is to look at the whole thing as a game.
I think some people have done and are doing just that and therefore downvotes are considered something like a feature of the game. But since there are also users who don't consider this a game at all, you can't send one "player" against the other "serious taker", because it's impossible to reconcile these two mentalities.
I would even say that your own position changes permanently, sometimes you find everything quite funny and don't take it so seriously, other times you do.
What we have here is a virtual situation which cannot happen in physical life.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
Yes, if Steemit were to adopt democratic principals it would be pointless to base voting on each individual account. It would most definitely need to be based on one person. That would be the end of the illusion of being completely anonymous as each person would need to verify their identity and have that linked to at least one account for the privilege of voting.
I believe there would a huge upside and the possibility of mass adoption if it went down that road. Especially if there were no compulsion to register identity to open an account, only to vote on issues and for Witness selection.
Maybe that answers the other valid point you raised below?
Thank you for the links I will give them more attention tomorrow
Interesting, so you're saying that only when you're voting - and not when you open an account - would it have to be like identifying or logging in with your real name to participate in the voting process? Did I get that right? Would not then people who do not have an account on Steemit also be entitled to vote? Which is an interesting thought, too.
However, I still think that nobody would give such a sensitive document as an identity card to someone else - Steemit in this case. I would not.
I hope you will read the linked posts, as to talk with me maybe in further exchanges about systemic consensus. It's otherwise not possible :=D
What do you think would be a "better" system or a key "improvement"?
I sort of see it as a corporation, or mafia, or like in ancient Rome, where people could buy seats in the Senate.
The biggest stake-holders/investors have the most to gain and or lose and it sort of makes sense that they should have the most control..?
Great comment.
yea me to.
The trouble is, a good number of those who rise to the top of the money heap, are somewhere on the psychopathy spectrum and see no value in mutual respect, let alone support. Its the reason these great Empires fall.
I honestly believe that a democratic voting system for the selection of witnesses would sort things out. That would require a big shift in thinking if we were to have one person one vote, it would be the end of our perceived anonymity. I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
I don't think its just my wishful thinking, there seems to be a slight change of attitude. A few more posts by some respected well known accounts will be helpful.
What you did for that guy was brilliant btw, congratulations.
I am going to do a post asking for feedback on the burn post alternative.
How do you solve the non-trivial problem of sock-puppet accounts?
No clue. Not sure that all alt account are necessarily problematic ?
The person you helped was @starworld Unfortunately he is poking the bear again !
Not all accounts with negative reps have the same visibility or access to services.
I think the main "problem" with alt-accounts is the 15 steem-power-delegation and 25 rep that is provided "for free".
If I can generate 1000 accounts for free, then I can essentially control 15,000 steem-power without spending a nickel.
I can serially upvote each of these accounts with all the other accounts in order to boost their rep.
I'm not sure I did much for starworld except make things worse for them.
Although I did learn that "libel" seems to = ad hominem attack.
I have no clue how people can have access to so many phone numbers to generate so many Steemit funded accounts.
You gave starworld a space free from flags, which must be huge in his situation. He got flagged again with his second post and I am quite sure even he could have predicted the outcome.
lol yes it does seem to have a rather special definition here on Steemit
Which guy? Sorry, you seem to have me at a disadvantage.
No lots of money does not usually make the best decisions for the majority. But we still need to be aware of the amount of power they have at their disposal and respect that even when it becomes frustrating.
I think being gentle is more productive in the long run.
I'm not proposing giving anyone steem. Just counter-voting unfair downvotes. Net-zero-gain.
Not doing that either. Or maybe did once in a while, cannot remember. But rarely. I wouldn't argue about it with you, though. I think people in their diversity are doing different things, perceiving different and should therefor be distinguishable. That's the richness of us all.
I take a distance - investigating other groups and topics - as not to narrow myself in this one. It can easily drag one into it and biting its teeth into me. So I prefer to walk somewhere else and refresh and broaden the view again. Taking my time. No hurry.
Upon further investigation, downvoting isn't quite as bad as I thought.
For example, @superheroes seems completely oblivious to their (-14) rep, and good for them.
Steem doesn't really have a "ban-hammer", it's more of a "squeaky-mallet".
IMAGE SOURCE
Yeah, you could take it all in a much more relaxed way, as I said to @hon.heke, Steemit is actually a game, similar to the one we already all play offline, but with the less confusing fact that we only exist once in the physical world and there are no multiple avatars of us running around.
Those who invest here with Fiat money, however, now think that they are doing serious business. Which of course is also a really successful self-deception. People assume that if they invest a part of their currency in here, that they can claim a strange right to be serious. Forgetting that they have a stock market here, highly speculative. It's still betting on future behavior, a big guessing game. When I go to the casino, I naturally expect to win something, but I also expect to lose. This is a big gambling table in my eyes and I lost sight of that at times and got too serious in some debates because the hypocrisy behind it annoyed me. It's very easy to go from being a relaxed player to a fierce one. Frighteningly fast. So I stayed out of it all for months to get back to easy sense.
Blogging and looking at a readers base also would be more authentic without votes at all.
Well stated.
Most people prefer being governed. That is why I prefer spending time with the minority, people like you.
Hm ... I am actually not against being governed. I like guidance and seek it from those I put my trust in or spontane exchanges which serve as a learning experience. Always investigating the advice for myself, testing if it works.
Thank you for the compliment.
Most people agree with you like I said via collectivism, socialism, communism, etc.
How do you mean that? I have trouble to connect the isms to happenings within my daily encounters and work. Mostly, I experienced talking about isms between a person and me led away from talking to each other ... kind of "outer-acting" instead of "inter-acting" :)
Growing Up:
People prefer being governed, AKA being baby sat and taken of care of. Now, yes, technically, it depends on the person, but I'm speaking in generalities. So, of course, there are variations and it can be very subtle as each individual may do things a little bit more and/or a little bit less.
Personal Independence
But government is always around us in different forms. So, I prefer self government. I want to govern myself within the realm of my own private property. When interacting with another person, I would prefer no third-parties, no middle men in trying to help us negotiate to the extent that we can.
The Legal System
Now, if I want to take another person to court, then I should have the freedom to attempt to do just that. But one of my concerns is when government goes out of its way to take me to court, to jail, to fine me, to destroy me. Make government smaller and smaller and smaller, as much as possible because government is always expanding and growing bigger and bigger when good people do nothing.
I agree 100%.
The only "problem" is with steemcleaners downvoting people they believe are impersonators and or using copyrighted images or text without permission. It's less about the specific example, and more about Uniform Standards of Evidence (USOE).
I know of another account that helps people. The owner of the account really does care about the platform and its users . You may have heard of the account, its @logiczombie
:)
Spot on.
Dislike vs Downvote:
Steemit should replace downvoting flagging with dislikes which does not hide the posts, the comments, according to how Steem works and everything. Hypothetically, downvoting would be fine depending on the details, the structure, the nature of a website, assuming that a website could be like private property and not public which websites tend to be for a few reasons. I don't have time right now to talk about how tech cartels violate the 4th amendment. I don't even have time right now to talk about how downvoting can interfere with free markets, in the exchange of goods, services, ideas, assuming that the government has been funding Facebook, etc, assuming that the CIA, etc, have been spying online, and especially assuming the nature of how servers and data runs around the Internet meaning that it becomes more difficult for something to be strictly private property when it is omnipresent within some aspects of communism, socialism, etc.
Excellent points.
Steem is still my favorite place for now, but I encourage people to draw me away to better places.
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!