RE: STEEM DOLLAR Peg Debate : Stakeholder Analysis
I wasn't speaking for myself alone. I do take responsibility for my emotions and constantly work to keep them in check. I will continue to use and believe in the platform. I am talking about the majority of humans that are subject to having human emotions and basing their decisions largely on how they feel about things, especially when it is something new to them and they are deciding if it is worth getting involved with. If they come on the platform and see a bunch of people fighting most will just turn away. If they see people suggesting ideas that will improve things, they will naturally want to get involved and bring their own ideas with them.
I didn't mean to offend you. Let's sing Kumbaya, let's chill, let's be positive and not let negative emotions affect either of us. Enjoy an upvote because I really do agree with the intent of your comment.
Countless good ideas have been suggested in the past, but like I said in my original post they will never be aired on a larger scale because it is not in the interests of the various stakeholders to make the necessary changes for allowing steemit to actually grow and be used by ordinary people.
Steem/IT is used by ordinary people and keeps growing, the investors aren't holding anyone back and almost all of the ideas offered are immature or haven't been considered carefully in exactly what other problems would be created, as for example the multitude that scream Curation equated to Censorship, which in my eyes is akin to killing in Self Defense being equated to Murder, yes killing someone in self defense is not nice, but it's not murder and a complete necessity and not a "protecting muh investment/strategy", yet that doesn't stop people for calling Curation Censorship regardless that for censorship to exist in the very first place it, in it's most base form even, at least one thing must be present:Centralized Authority and/or a mechanism to actually Censor, and not simply Hide/Rate content as Hidden by Default, content that can be simply accessed by using a different front-end and even brute force Spamming until the person's or persons's voting power is drained, regardless of how large the account is because the bandwidth limitation makes Flagging crap for "censorship" and there have been numerous suggestions proposed that hardly consider the numerous problems that they would introduce or even less consider the problem that they are trying to fix as not a problem but a feature and instead are convinced that their understanding of censorship and curation is understood when it hardly could be called considered.
Here is a question for you and all alike: Is flagging in the interest of the various stakeholders or in the interest of the community, and how can you explain that it is in the interest of stakeholders?
I'm tired of the rhetoric of "those greedy investors" and only hope that someone else will have the balls to ridicule such nonsense besides me.
When someone says "we" I always assume they are referring to themselves as in "me, myself and I" and I don't see any reason to approach that differently.