Dan Recites to Quill's Delight (Plus a Word to @crypto.piotr and the Members of @SteemChurch)

Dan ... Channeling Shakespeare

The Great @theycallmedan 20,000 STEEM Delegation Contest is over. 

Almost.

Dan ... Recited My Poem!

(I can't believe my haranguing actually worked. I wouldn't have done it. What was he thinking?) 

EVERYONE ... go hit him at 100%. 

And leave comments like you're Elvis groupies. Reciting a poem is a performance and performing an art form with which you are unfamiliar, in public, requires courage (and if you don't think so ... I have plenty of other poems from which you may choose). Yet again, Dan demonstrated a willingness to step into the breach ... and earned my salute as a result.

Dan, thanks for it all: The Recitation and the Contests. 

We owe you.

A Word to @crypto.piotr

During the Contest, I published an Open Letter to a leader in @SteemChurch, the Power House Creatives' primary opponent. In it, I called for the cessation of practices I argued were improper. That letter has attracted substantial objection from leaders of SteemChurch and @crypto.piotr in particular. 

We are all Steemians and we all have to live in the same house. And so, I wanted to address this matter and provide a bit of nuance about what transpired. 

First, a bit of background.

For the past year, I have written countless detailed (read "long and verbose") posts, comments and replies about what I deem to be "systemic abuses" on the blockchain and I have proposed reforms to address them. Bidbots, multiple-account-self-upvoting, down-voting as censorship, etc. In a word ... cheating. I have argued that such behaviors are having a deleterious effect upon the blockchain, creating negative feedback loops and preventing the establishment of positive ones, most notably, curation. (Links to said posts at the end of this one.)  

Over the past few months, I began regularly interacting with @crypto.piotr. I found him intelligent, insightful and desirous of engaging in constructive activities designed to develop the blockchain.

Here is a comment I left in the comments section of my Open Letter:

@abh12345 (72)

I sent a return memo to @crypto.piotr this morning, pointing him in the direction of the FAQs relating to Spam and Abuse. I suspect most aren't aware that wallet-spamming links is on the list of donts.

@quillfire (58) 

Thanks mate. 

I've actually had substantial interaction with @crypto.piotr prior to this Contest and I believe him to be a good guy trying to do a good thing. Indeed, despite my obvious involvement with Power House Creatives (SteemitBloggers), I nominated him with mine and my daughter's accounts so that he'd have a chance at receiving 1,000 STEEM (the 19 teams that don't win the 20,000 STEEM Delegation still receive a 1,000 STEEM Delegation as consolation). 

But I cannot condone his actions in this Contest. 

In our numerous interactions, I wrote extensively about the deleterious effects of vote buying/selling upon the blockchain. Those deleterious effects Do Not disappear because you do it in the name of a noble cause. The ends do not justify the means. 

That said, the critique in my Open Letter is not meant to be personal. 

Quill  

Clearly, things are more complicated than they first appear.

Before proceeding further, let me state unambiguously: I DO NOT believe @crypt.piotr is anything other than a well-intentioned individual attempting to increase the utility and value of STEEM and Steemit.

That said, he and I obviously disagreed about the propriety of "wallet-spamming" individuals in an effort to gain dPoll votes for his ally in the Contest, SteemChurch. 

@crypto.piotr is in marketing. I'm in advertising. The two are cousin-professions and the terms are often used inter-changeably. As such, we brought substantial knowledge and experience to our respective teams and, for lack of a better term, we became "strategists" for both.

One of the core concepts in advertising is "reach," that is, the number of people who see your advertisement or solicitation. Upon its face, this is common-sensical: A message people never see cannot effect their perceptions or preferences. But there's more to it than that.

In neuroscience, there is a concept called "fluidity." Stimuli that our brains process most fluidly are treated "preferentially." And fluidity is highly correlated with "familiarity." Simply, all things being equal, your preference will be that for which you are most familiar. And hence, the "incumbent advantage." If you've only ever heard of one of two competitors, that's the one you'll most likely choose. That's why Newfoundland in Canada is the only place in North America (other than the province of Quebec ... different story) where Pepsi is preferred over Coca-Cola. In the early days, Coke didn't bother to advertise in Newfoundland ... because there were more moose than men. But Pepsi did. This phenomenon persists to the present day despite Coke's decades-long efforts to remedy the situation. "Mere Exposure," can have potent effects. 

@crypto.piotr knew this and so did I.

So, let's examine this phenomenon in context of the Contest. 

@crypto.piotr started sending out hundreds, or thousands, of wallet memos with the $0.002 "gifts" required to make them appear as messages in people's wallets. This was naked "wallet-spam" and was a forbidden behavior. But, in doing so, he achieved "massive reach." Admittedly, such exposures were weak stimuli and unlikely to effect the majority of people who received them. But, in a Contest where the respective vote-counts were within a dozen votes of one another for most of the time, he only needed a negligible response rate to secure a victory for his team.

I, of course, instantly recognized the danger of this strategy to my team. There are plenty of Steemians who will respond to even the smallest of financial incentives, in particular, those residing in the poorest of countries. Desperation, makes people do desperate things. 

And so, the logical reaction for me would have been to advise my team to counter the effect with a wallet-spam campaign of our own. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. But now we would have an arms race on our hands, with each side ever-escalating their actions to counter-act the effects of their adversary.

Here's the problem: This do what you want and damn the consequences attitude is precisely the kind of mentality I've railed against for more than a year, arguing that it is destroying the blockchain. Moreover, the central tenet of the Power House Creatives is that we compete on the basis of Merit, not Manipulation. If you want a bigger payout, create better content. We are advocates of creating a Meritocracy.

And so ... we could not follow suit. 

And so, yet again, we would face what countless honorable Steemians face every day: The diminishment, or elimination, of rewards for Quality Content Creation and extraordinary effort, in favor of a few willing to exploit others' unwillingness to put personal interests ahead of those of the blockchain as a whole.

This dynamic has been the central problem of societies since our ancestors roamed the Plains of Africa. The actions of Free Riders create enormous internal conflict and group cohesion is rapidly eroded.   

And so, I penned the aforementioned Open Letter.

Did it have an effect? Honestly, I don't know. As of this writing, it has earned $2.34 from 81 upvotes, the majority of which came from other Power House Creatives or auto-upvote bots that follow my posts.  

In fairness to @cryot.piotr, he engaged in a practice utilized by countless bidbots, resteem bots and other game-manipulating mechanisms owned and operated by Whales and Witnesses ... and whose services are purchased by a substantial number of Steemians. And, one could argue that he was simply adapting to the realities of the environment. His job as a "professional strategist" is to secure a win for his client, not make a philosophical statement. In any event, it hardly seems fair that he should be singled out for a practice employed by so many others, including a number of the blockchain's leaders. 

For the record, I hold no animus towards @crypt.piotr and hope that this incident will not impair what were very thoughtful and thought-provoking interactions. Soldiers go to war. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Professionals don't let it become personal. 

There were other issues as well (including an incident on our side) but, to the best of my knowledge, none involved @crypto.piotr. I decline to articulate upon them as they did not obviously involve our opponent's leadership and ... it's time to move on.    

A Word to Members of @SteemChurch        

I don't know much about SteemChurch and so I cannot intelligently opine upon your organization. I would, however, proffer the following as food for thought: 

The two primary competitors in this Contest were the Power House Creatives, an organization self-defined by its commitment to Meritocracy and fair play; and SteemChurch, an organization with the word "Church" in its name. If such groups cannot compete in a manner that is beyond reproach, what hope is there for the blockchain as a whole? Both groups have held themselves out as exemplars, and hence, our manner of comportment needs to be exemplary. 

Perhaps, as the heat-of-the-moment cools, we'll all pause for a moment of self-reflection ... and pass judgements accordingly. 

I wish SteemChurch the best in its endeavors, both on the blockchain and off.

Series of Articles About Blockchain Reform:

1. Jerry Banfield, Down-Voting & Freedom of Speech
2. "Down-Voting as Censorship" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 2
3. "Derivatives" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 3
4. "Central Premise & Proposals" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 4
5. FOLLOW UP: "Central Premise & Proposals" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 4

And, an article involving ... Crypto.Piotr

1. The Bane of Bidbots ... An Intelligent & Civil Discourse

Quill