RE: Since it's now acceptable to reward yourself.
"Nobody" is factually untrue. Should more people care (specifically whales with huge investments here)? YES.
I've used up a bunch of my voting strength here (and elsewhere as I see it) to do what is expected: flag posts when there is a disagreement over rewards, and I think the poster isn't thinking in terms of the value of the network but just in terms of their own shortsighted gains. I don't do it because I don't like someone personally or don't agree with their views or approach (unless that approach is purposefully using language intended to cause pyschological harm). I'm not involved in vendettas.
The funny thing is, I actually like the visibility this post and its useless, factually untrue comments will bring to the problem of scammy abuse through self-voting content which is not valuable to the network. In that regard, it serves a purpose and may even be worth some valid rewards.
What frustrates me most with the whole "rewardspoolrape" discussion is how authors are often blamed for the voting habits of others. Unless self voting is going on or a connection between the poster and the voter can be proven, authors shouldn't be held responsible for the voluntary actions of other voters. If authors who bring content others value get called out because of votes they get, how is that their fault and what's the expected reaction? Should they stop creating valued content? That's paradoxical. If someone values this network, the last thing they should do (IMO) is motivate people to stop creating valued content.
I've tried to have discussions with @berniesanders about this type of stuff, but he blocked me in rocket chat and is unwilling to have a face-to-face video chat or even voice call. I really do like how much he cares (or claims to care) about the rewards pool, I just don't understand the approach he takes asking for @ned to somehow magically solve the problems around here or by calling out an author instead of the voters he actually disagrees with.
For what it's worth, thanks for shedding light on a problem in your unique way. If it gets you the results you want, fantastic. If not, I hope we can all work together to discuss more effective, productive approaches.
@lukestokes most of the time I would agree with you about go after the voter not the person receiving the vote. In the situation with @haejin it became pretty clear the moment he started getting the huge upvotes he upped his rate of posting.
He can't control (if the whale account isn't his) when a whale gives him a large upvote anymore than he can control when one gives him a large downvote(s).
He can control how much advantage he takes of those votes. For that he needs to answer for his actions. If he doesn't want to reduce how much advantage is being taken, then other whales really should be stepping up unless they agree with what he's doing.
I agree with you! I've posted more than once about how sometimes it makes sense for authors to do decline payout posts if they think they have been taking more of the rewards pool than is justified.
I think your argument goes both ways: if whales blindly upvote someone even when they increase their posting rate, that's still a failure of the upvoter. They should either stop upvoting or adjust the weight of their vote accordingly.
The cryptocurrency markets experienced some intense volatility recently and some may have benefitted from @haejin's increased frequency of posting. I could argue that one in either direction so I didn't get involved. I won't defend him or vilify him just yet. If he wanted to show good faith with the community, he could get the same visibility he wants with decline payout posts. My hunch is, the whales wouldn't vote for him as they'd get no curation rewards on a decline payout.
So again, the whale vote is the problem.
Oh Luke, there is so much more coming, people will get it by the time I'm done. The fact that you truly believe I'm wasting money and voting power on this pointless drivel for "shortsighted gains" shows just how truly ignorant you are.
What confuses me so much about you is how much you misunderstand and twist what I say.
Did you not read "it serves a purpose and may even be worth some valid rewards"?
I called your comments "useless" because that was your exact intention, from my perspective: to demonstrate how useless, repetitive comments are selfvoted by scammers to drain the rewards pool. I clearly said what you are doing here as an experiment has value.
You and I want the same thing: for people to value and improve this network. The "shortsighted gains" I was referring to is the same abuse you are trying to stop.