Listen Up Comrades, We Must Spread the Wealth Evenly!
Don't get too successful, because some people will try to knock you down. Many people want to do some socialist-communist activity to bring you down to their level when you are doing better than them for the work you do. They feel it's not fair. Many hate the success others get because, comparatively, they don't have it. If you can't climb up, then bring down those who are successful! Then it feels like you accomplished something.
source
The work you do, the content you create, the value it has, means little to many when you get rewarded more than others. You gotta spread the wealth out to more people, like socialism, no matter what they do, because it's not about rewarding the work people do that created content of value on the platform, and building up your recognition and reputation in the community to be known for that. Nah. It's not about the work, what is created, and building that "brand" of recognition over time for delivering a certain type of content that is appreciated now and then.
Let's just equalize people around a quota, and then we can match our level of work and quality to meet that quota relative to what other people are doing. We can work towards the lowest common denominator like what happens in sociality-communist and often in unionized-worker environments. All you need to do is do the required work, and everyone gets the same pay. Don't do better than others, because then they dislike you for outdoing them and being "better" or more "successful" so you might get rewarded more for your work and they don't think it's fair for compensation to relate to the quality of work being done. Ignore that insignificant measure.
Work for 6 months to prove yourself and your ability? Nope, forget about that, don't bother. You're not going to get rewarded for the work you do. Just do like everyone else, conform to the way things are, don't set the bar higher to show people what can get rewarded for producing things of value... because you're not allowed to get rewarded beyond a certain point. People are watching and they will take you down if you get too successful for the work you do. Rewarding work because it is actually valued for what it provides as a product or service for an organization, doesn't matter.
That's a sure way to success right? That's how things are done in the real world, where socialism and communism of working towards equally distributed pay just works out so well in history, in reality, right? No, it doesn't. Learn how things work.
People want this socialism to come into regular society, because other people have more money than them so they want a wealth distribution of the world. And this is what some people want in Steemit, but not of the existing stake, only of the daily pool that people work to get rewarded for. The work doesn't matter, what matters is that you got rewarded too much for your work. Too much according to what measure or criteria? None apparently. None of these wealth-distribution people wants to say because they can't because they don't even know! They don't have any understanding of what they are even talking about. They just make it up as they go. Hmmm, high payout here... yes. What about the content? Who cares, flag for payout. Higher payout here? Ok, leave that one alone for some reason that no one knows, an move on to the next one to flag...
This will mean anyone can flag anyone. Anyone's post can be judged to be making more than another post, and then people flag it to redistribute the rewards. There is no criteria. This is not rational. The logical outcome of such behavior applied to everyone, is that all posts get flagged until everyone has either been reduced or elevated to have the a near equal-level of payout. Otherwise, how is anyone judging anything? The valid measurement to judge rewards for content is... drum roll... the content itself! Imagine that! I bet that almost blew up some peoples heads by just reading that revelation!
source
If you want to remove rewards from content, then actually judge the damn content! If all you're doing is looking at the rewards in some ignorant socialist-communist mindset to redistribute rewards to people because it's not fair that better workers get paid more, you're a fool who isn't doing a damn thing to help Steemit succeed, but is actually harming Steemit and how rewards are supposed to actually be rewarding content.
So if you don't like success, ignore the content and just downvote and flag to redistribute rewards, because that's how real success is made for an organization!
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Looking to contact me? Find me on Discord or send me a message on SteemKURE.
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
2017-02-23, 7pm
rip my respect
" Many people want to do some socialist-communist activity to bring you down to their level when you are doing better than them for the work you do."
its literally about getting exactly what you produce without anybody taking it lmao
The thing I find interesting is that you @krnel are currently #4 in terms of reputation on this platform. There are exactly 3 accounts and only three accounts with a better reputation that your own.
By the way the reputation system works, you could start flagging the comments of these subjective value flaggers and you'd begin to seriously impact their reputation. Yet, they would consider that wrong. Perhaps you are subjectively deciding that what they are doing is abusive.
There are two types of power at the moment. Steem Power, and Reputation. You are almost top dog in one of those.
Yet, that would also be stooping to their level and like me you likely find that hard to stomach.
Flags lead to flag wars, and some of us are trying to fight our battles with words rather than flags. It is tough to resist at times though.
Is that artery clogging communism I see in that tub?
I wanted to comment in a timely manner, but alas the internet gods denied me such. (so, I will make a really long comment instead)
I love the workings out of steemit rewards. We get to see in months what changes to the money supply does. A micro-economics study par-excellence.
On communism... well comrade, the idea was brilliant, but misdirected, and the implementation was truly aweful.
In my opinion, what happens is not the wealth disparity as the thing that drives us nuts, its actually the loss of movement ability.
The current mindset of capitalist pigs is to get to the top of the ladder and then break out all the rungs beneath them. This can be seen in The U.S. where hiring people has become so onerous, and the regulations so deep, that it takes a monumental effort to start any real business. And then with how the lending system works, Wallymart can borrow money at 1% interest, while mom&pop has to pay 5%. So Wallymart can make money just on the carry trade.
So, in my opinion it isn't the wealth disparity, it is that there is no paths for the little guy to get to the top, so resentment and envy become great.
You can also see this in law. The wealthy get a pass. (Hitlery committed treason, but the FBI said she didn't mean to do it, so we aren't going to prosecute) While the little people get ground under the heel of ever more oppression.
On steemit. We have a real nice idea, but poor implementation.
The power slope of payouts, which is supposed to make a long tail (with payouts) is much steeper than they think. There is an power algorithm when applying payouts, but there is also a power algorithm (natural) in who has what voting power. You multiply the two together and you get a very steep curve, with a steem breaking tail drop off.
The other big issue is that newbies and voting doesn't pay. And so, one of the big draws (or touted attractions) doesn't pan out. The reason is that newbies are almost always below the 0.001 payout threshold. So, from a newbies perspective, the system is broken.
Add that to the great disparity in payouts vs votecount, it makes people see the system as corrupt.
One suggest may be for steemit to stop posting vote count, and start posting votepower.
Resteemed
Again ?
After all your posts about anarchy and voluntarism, you get mad, when someone goes out and does as he pleases.
Must be communism.
Nice try keeping it shorter; Didn't read regardless.
Hahha... air of superiority then you said didn't read. Impressive. Remind me not to ever give you a job where you vote on something since you seem to be one of those that only bothers to read the title.
It's fine to disagree and even healthy/normal. It is not impressive at all to admit not reading and then express an opinion about it as though you know what you're talking about. I haven't seen this before from you, so I don't know if this is something you normally do or not. If this is not normal from you then we all make mistakes.
Read it... tear it apart that way... emotional drivel and appeal to authority fallacies don't work for many of us. Actually attacking what he says might. Use reason, not ad hominem attacks.
You are on the wrong track @krnel (needless to say that this my subjective opinion). Try to better understand, what Steemit is about and how it works. You can find some hints in the comments to your previous rant.
Yesterday, I saw what you are referring to. I wrote in steemit about it because I'm new and I found it very baffling.
I was told that views are not indicative of how many have seen the article - they only show views from within steemit, not from mobile phones, other websites, etc.
I was also told that the pool of "money" available per day is limited so there isn't enough to go around to properly reward everyone based on their contributions. So, some people vote down high-performing messages in order to increase the balance remaining for other users. This seems terribly problematic to me - it will limit the number of users rather than this being a platform that rewards everyone who contributes.
Given the limit on the daily pool, how do you propose that all worthy contributors receive what they are worth - something that doesn't even happen for the majority of contributors, especially those who are small? I'd sure like to be able to make a living here but I don't think it's even feasible if the pool tends to be drained by "famous" members and the small/unknown members are left with little else.
As the pool of users increases, so does this problem, plus the problem of how to get attention drawn to yourself. Steemit.chat can only be so effective and if someone who is already famous on another platform opens here and brings in a large number of followers by announcing. Lacking an effective system to sift through specific subjects in a more efficient way makes it hard. There are a lot of flaws with steemit as it now exists - your complaint, a valid one, is only one of them.
I do not begrudge your complaint - I share it. I don't agree that people downvote for the wrong reasons, but I also understand the dilemma of limited wealth to spread around. What is the solution?
Who is Steemit trying to gain as a user? A content creator? What type? What will get them to stay? Why would they want to stay? Bloggers who creates content? Link sharers that only shares? Some people work to create content, while others don't. There is a discrepancy in how to reward people. There are no rules. No criteria. Everything is up in the air for anyone to decide on their own.
There are X amount of whales to reward people, and X*50 or more (invented amount, not real, just to demonstrate a point) user that need higher SP accounts to reward them. Not all people put out the same work, or quality for their type of content. Not everyone should be rewarded the same, and only the whales have the SP to distribute the reward pool to content or links posted on Steemit. They can't reach everyone who does good content. The problem is how Steemit is made.
The only solution to get mote people the power to vote for others, is time, as more people become larger SP holders by creating content (ideally) then more SP is in more accounts for more people to be able to reward others. So those who do the best work, should ideally get more rewards than those who do less good work. Then they get more SP, and they eventually reward others they vote for. On it goes.
Or the other solution is someone has to spend thousands of dollars, tends of thousands, to become a whale on their own without the need for upvotes from whales.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@krnel/steemit-economic-changes-now-vs-november-16th-fork
That will show you how much STEEM is available, 41040 for authors. In next hard fork, there will be 25362 for authors each day, since the comments get 38.1% on their own.
Punishing people who get support from certain whales, because the whales like their content for the content, is not rational. The best content should be rewarded, not punished.
I started off not famous, then I grew my work and eventually you get recognized for the work you do. If you don't do good work, then why would a whale want to support the work? People need to raise the bar and learn how to create work to get rewarded, not try to bring people who succeeded down to a reward equilibrium to all get rewarded the same for the work they do. More discernment and judging needs to happen on the content, for people who create it and whales to upvote. Back to the top... what does Steemit want here? No "core action" established, no definition, no criteria, so everyone is pulling in multiple directions. LOL.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think they expected the community to try to set what we wanted. That is what you are doing. Yet the difference is that 60 (made up number) can want something, and some whales can decide they don't want it. In some cases it is only 1 whale and what all 60 of those other people was interested in no longer matters.
This is a problem. We have people that believe they need to police what other people are allowed to support and indicate they like. These down votes can be subjectively interpreted many ways. In fact it has been funny to watch the excuses at times, and angering at others.
Essentially it comes down to "I didn't like it", or "I didn't even read it, but @dan voted on it", or "I don't like you".
Yup. ;) hehe.
I get what you're saying and, again, I am concerned about this situation. If the pool is actually going to be cut almost in half, that is a major problem. Membership is going to decrease - the pool cannot stay stable or decrease, or else it's going to become increasingly difficult for people to earn, and it will become like Fiverr where it's very hard to break through the established users to actually get customers.
But I'm not sure you really touched on what I asked - how to make sure all things of REAL worth get upvoted sufficiently, while the rest linger under a coat of dust.
I don't believe a link share (unless the sharer is also the author of the linked article), a single image, a very short piece, a quote, and other things where little or no effort was actually made should be rewarded. Of course, there are exceptions...But, ultimately, the ones who produce the best videos, images, stories, articles, etc. are the ones who should receive the lion's share of the rewards, and within that are quantitative subcategories based on things like overall effort; one or multiple sources in cases of academic work; what type of work it is (like your rewrite of the journal article on truth and the media is different from a multi-sourced article or an original work of research); the actual quality of a video or images, short stories, OpEds, and so on; overall quality; originality; etc.
Obviously, it doesn't much matter what you or I think, since neither of us run this place, but it's nice to roll ideas around and, hey, who knows what might happen? You've a very high reputation, I'm a newbie, but there isn't, as you pointed out, a vision and mission here that provides direction for all. It's not like "how to" sites that pay contributors to write articles.
I'm not really sure there is any solution here. We might say that promotion of Steemit should be stopped in order to keep membership low and thus, percentage-wise, increase the chances of earning money. But, that's not going to happen even if it were feasible. I believe that the ability to downvote is necessary, but without a QC team looking at voting to determine if people are really being rewarded for their efforts or if bots and friends are helping each other earn money (or hurting each other for nonsensical reasons), it can be abused. Heck, there are ways that steemit's reputation, views, and voting can be abused. Make many fake accounts, set them up with programs that target your main account so that you're always getting votes that help keep you at least trending, and it's possible to consistently pull in money. This is certainly something that can be done - whether it is financially worthwhile is another question entirely.
I hope that steemit will come up with solutions to the existing problems - I certainly don't think it's easy to deal with the complexities involved, especially when vote wars occur.
Consciousness is required to evaluate content. I said somewhat as much, followd by how that wold work, which is everyone having the same stake over time (not likely), then everyone who votes would get equal weight from the pool and apply it to their liked content. The evaluation on what is rewarded depends on the consciousnesses and what they value. If 90% like cat videos, then everything else doesn't get an many likes.
With more users, more people use the site and STEEM, and that increases the value. You're $ payout goes up. Go look at posts in mid/end July. That's why many here don't care about quality, and all they want is QUANTITY because their focus is on $$$$, not on actually making a real successful production producing platform for content. They just want their stake to increase in value and are short sighted in looking at the $$$$ from # of users that would increase that, thinking this is just like FB or other sits, when it isn't because there is money involved.