50 STEEM bounty for explaing basic Steem stuff to @the-resistance.

in steem •  8 months ago

In response to the suggestion in this post : https://steemit.com/the-resistance/@the-resistance/grumpycat-weekly-report-thursday-05-april-2018



I have set a 50 STEEM bounty for the best explanations of the difference in term of brain-time cost, voting power cost and and results between flagging the wrong doers instead up-voting the non-wrong doers when only micro fraction are wrong does.

Bonus points if able to explain Grumpy-compliance in simpler terms and why it's not always possible to influence vote sellers behavior by flagging them directly.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Maybe if initial messaging and approach was less aggressive there would be less drama and goals would be reached? Not sure. But here is the new revised message.

Hey Steemians! I am a big investor in Steem. I think actions by few bid-bot users have been holding the price of Steem down and hurting my stakes. There are some users who are buying votes on the 6th day for super low-quality posts with an intention of taking advantage of this awesome community. The system is set up as last 12 hours are reserved for only downvotes. I don't think that is enough time for the community to react and give a fair evaluation of posts.

Reasonable timeframe to evaluate posts should be 3.5 days. So please, bid-bot owners and operators, implement this change and don't allow the sale of votes past 3.5 days. If you have questions regarding this matter, feel free to ping me on discord or steem.chat.

In case we can't reach an agreement, I will be forced to use my stakes to downvote customers of certain bid-bots that have no interest in protecting my investment in hopes to discourage them from using non-cooperating bid-bots. I think this is the most efficient and economical way to make my point that I am serious about protecting my stakes.

We are all investors here. I am sure we can reach an agreement that will protect all of our stakes, businesses, and make Steem price rise to the Moon.

P.S. Once we all are in agreement and implement these changes I would like to use my stakes to support new and established authors and, various projects on the platform.

Love,
GrumpyCat

·

But instead he decides to be a self imposed bully vigilante who is driving his own stake to the floor with his moronic counterproductive behavior, but I bet he feels like a really big man, in the middle of his poor, lonely life.

·
·

P.S.S. Once goal is reached, innocent victims of my grumpy measures to protect my stakes/interests will be compensated with handsome upvotes.

Cheers,
GrumpyCat

·
·
·

yeah, all the people supporting him here don't know that just this week, chumpyass flagged a widow, a zero day newbie in introduce yourself, and stole from a charity that feeds orphans and disadvantaged people around the world.

But all hail to the playground bully asshole chumpycat with the unimaginative stolen trademark for a name. Pathetic little piece of feces that he is.

·
·
·
·

about the widow - How would he know that she is a widow? For him she is a bidbot user.
Authentic zero day newbies do not use bidbots, and there is an even smaller chance for them to use bidbots that he prohibits.
On your charity post - You used the charity account to flag him.

·
·
·
·
·

That's exactly the point. Grumpycat doesn't know who he was downvoting. Maybe to some, bidding to bots is just for promoting their posts, but for most minnows, our main purpose is to profit because we need it personally. Not everyone knows his rules. He might have posted about his own rules many times, but not all of us are his followers. Most people here dont know. It would be acceptable if he would give a warning first, than downvoting someone right away. That's harsh and unfair.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Agree with all that you wrote.
I oppose grumpycat's rules.
Spammers should be punished in the most extreme measures possible, but bidbots should not be limited to less than 6 days.
Even if I thought they should be limited, I would not have acted in a similar way, and would not have downvoted good posts just to apply indirect pressure on bidbot owners while victimizing good content creators.
If anything he wastes VP that could be used to fight scammers and spammers.
This rule is not any better than a prohibition of self votes.
I do not agree with him, I just had answers for sircork.
Regarding a warning first, my remark for you is it will require grumpycat to implement a database for warned users.
Doable, but it costs.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

If he can make a 'Congratulations, you're a winner!' comment, then downvote, he can simply change it to a 'Warning'. But if a person is close-minded, no matter how understandable a proposal is, he can't accept it.😞

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

This post has received a $18.18 % upvote from @siditech thanks to: @stimialiti.
Here's a banana! banana-small.png

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You got a 25.00% upvote from @proffit courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.

If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.

·
·
·
·
·
·

How are you profiting from bid bots? Please explain your math to me, because I've tried to change 1s into 2s and it still isn't profitable at all

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I bid in off-peak hours. Dawn here in Saudi. I patiently wait for the right timing. I don't profit much, because mostly I only bid cents. But I have tried my highest bid to 4steem. There are times I get less.. So it is still a gamble. The latest I bid was 2sbd and the bot gave me $3.98, minus the curation reward. It's just so little profit, but every single cent counts for me these days so I still call it a profit.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I have tutned 5 into 9 twice now from buildawhale 🤷‍♀️

·
·
·
·
·
·

Exactly!I just wrote a very time consuming post and included an image that took me hours to produce! Very harsh and unfair, considering I did not send hundreds of SBD - only my meagre 2,5 SBD to help promote my post the way I SAW FIT!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

What hurts me more is even though we are angry and been telling him what we feel, we won't win over a person who intends to be deaf and blind with all our protests.

·
·
·
·
·

Indeed I did, because I used all my accounts to flag him, but it was only a matter of "theater" given that he and his sock-puppets have around 300K in their combined wallets, not too many users can touch that in terms of damaging him. It was simply a protest flag. Since he has been robbing the charity posts of many users raising funds for @YouAreHOPE

Regardless of what I did. Any of you supporting the idea of self-elected bullies on this platform, and abiding by his arbitrary, hypocritical rules, don't really have to much going on in the way of critical thinking skills, in my humble opinion.

·
·
·
·
·

"Authentic zero day newbies do not use bidbots, and there is an even smaller chance for them to use bidbots that he prohibits."

Gotta agree with this observation. Sock-puppet, like Movietrailers is of ContentJunkie.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You got a 33.33% upvote from @profitbot courtesy of @stimialiti!
Join our team and delegate your SP to earn passive income.
Get part of 85% @profitbot profit based on your delegated SP
by clicking on one of the ready to delegate links:
10SP|20SP|50SP|75SP|100SP|200SP|300SP|500SP|1000SP|custom

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

@youtake pulls you up ! This vote was sent to you by @stimialiti!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You got a 50.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.

If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.

·
·
·
·
·
·

It's possible. There might be newbies who were already taught by those who invited them here to use bidbots. So maybe after making their first post, a friend sponsored a bot to boost his post or donated a few sbd to him to try bidding. That's just my opinion.😉

·
·
·
·
·
·

There have been cases where others have promoted the post, without the original authors knowledge, as they have seen it as a worthwhile project to support.

I'm not against the grumpycats system, but in these cases clearly it isn't perfect.

·
·
·
·
·

This post has received a $15.38 % upvote from @siditech thanks to: @stimialiti.
Here's a banana! banana-small.png

Loading...
·

I am new, so I do not fully understand the history of how bit-bots managed to become such a detriment to the community, but your comments are on target - individual steemians also have the power to downvote posts or rule-abusers until a better compromise is reached. @fcpway

·
·

lol that is not what the revised message said.

·
·
·
·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 2.257 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 2.257 STEEM from the community!

·

@geekgirl, I love this.

I made a post about it describing in length within the video, but here is the outline:

Politics on SteemIt
a. Who are politicians/Policy Actors?
b. What constitutes politics?
c. How Politics Works.
@GrumpyCat's Politics
a. Shitposting
b. Bidbot abuse
c. GrumpyCompliance
Why GrumpyCompliance Works
a. Bidbots are businesses: Profit Driven
b. No way to attack businesses without attacking revenue stream (i.e. YouTube Ad Boycotts)
c. Proven Effectiveness
Dispelling Rumors
a. Grumpy Cat is Promoting Own Bid Bot
b. Grumpy Cat is "Stealing"
c. Grumpy Cat is not a bully
Wrap-Up
a. Grumpy is not a bully, stealing profit motivated anon bernie.
b. Grumpy aims to improve the steemit community.
c. If you have been flagged, you aren't a "victim", you are a policy actor.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.014 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.014 STEEM from the community!

I'll answer as founder and developer of Smartsteem.com - biggest vote-selling market with over 3500 sellers and 2nd biggest bid-bot with over 1.4 Million Steempower:

First of all: the post-age limit of 3.5 days was a great change. The only reason some people are against it, is simply out of the fact that they don't like to be told what to do - even if it's for the better.

You want to promote your post for visibility? 3.5 days is more than enough. Afterwards you'd primarily do it for monetary gain

Now - the reason why flagging the users of services and bid-bots which allow posts older than 3.5 days is the only viable way - is because users are less attracted of using those services.

Upvoting users who are doing the right thing by using services which only allow post-age of 3.5 days or less is completely useless as

1.) the amount of users is way higher - which makes the possibility of change a lot more difficult and 2.) the wrongdoers have no reason to change their behaviour and 3.) new users have no reason to avoid these services.

Which altogether would result in not achieving the desired effect of vote-services only accepting posts max. 3.5 days old.


But .. but flagging minnows is wrong?!

Yes. But what good is the word of a man if he goes back on it?

@grumpycat told everyone that he'd downvote anyone who uses services & bid-bots that accept bids & requests for posts that are older than 3.5 days.

Nothing more and nothing less.

And regarding the self-voting: it's his stake and downvoting isn't giving any rewards.

·

as founder and developer of Smartsteem.com - biggest vote-selling market with over 3500 sellers and 2nd biggest bid-bot with over 2.4 Million Steempower...

....I am the 2nd biggest reason for the utter shite that clogs the Trending pages of Steemit?

·
·

I guess those 44 times you bought votes from @smartmarket were just a coincidence.

@abh12345, you've just lost all my respect to you.

I'm not proud about the current status of trending and I'm doing my best to change that, even though the problem is a fundamental one of how trending works, but that you are such a little bitch for using my service while at the same time talking trash about it - that I wouldn't have guessed.

·
·
·

Look at the size of my bids. I don't abuse your bot, or any other bot. Did you ever see me on Trending?

How anyone would ever vote a bid-bot owner who calls other witnesses 'little bitches' as witness is beyond me.

This is the 3rd time I will ask you this question:

What would Steemit look like if everyone chose to delegate their stake to a bid-bot?

·
·
·
I guess those 44 times you bought votes from @smartmarket were just a coincidence.

That's 44 standard – not just double standard. :)

·
·
·

LOL humans attacking each other rather than dealing with the fundamental problem...

Yeah, this will end well.

·
·
·
·

So the obvious next stage of evolution on Steem will be bots attacking other bots. Automate all that manual work of actually reading and commenting and attacking on a personal level. Farm it out to your bot army.

At least that is what Obama thought when he killed more civilians with drones than any president before him

Wow, that segway took a wicked left turn. Sorry to anyone that sprained your neck as we took that corner on two wheels.

·
·
·
·
·

LOL

It might be like...

A blogging battleship greed type game.

"My shitpost with 4 bid bots, 34 spammer leech comments, no whale vote, 1 whale downvote"

"Miss... your shitpost sunk"

My asslickpost with 3 bid bots, 340 spammer leech comments, 3 well stroked whales, 200 angry shitcunts complaining about earnings"

"Hit! You dog.. you got a $609 payout"

Hey wait..

This is already the game....

·

Way to kiss the bully's ass, nice work. Oh and nice self voting. No irony in that here, at all!

·
·
·
·
·

Hehe, Im sure this cat totally tasted like ass too, since he is the hole of one.

Basic bitch playground bully, nothing more, and everyone bending over for him is spineless.

·

I agree with your sentiment, @therealwolf. One thing though:

But .. but flagging minnows is wrong?!

Yes

Let's get rid of this idea that flagging a minnow is inherently wrong. Let's use a simple syllogism.

  1. Flagging abuse is good.
  2. Some minnows commit abuse
  3. Therefor, flagging some minnows is good.

I could go further and state how I believe it is good to flag facilitators of abuse as well.

That's just my opinion, though.

·
·

True. Regardless of Steempower - abuse is abuse.


By the way - you want to see something funny?

If that's the content I'm preventing with the 3.5 days rule - then I'm good!

·
·
·

Hahahaha...
I am just an observer and a reader.

·

Notwithstanding the separate debate about using bid bots. If a post is not worth promoting after 3.5 days then how much does it add to steem/the world? That is one of the issues of the 7 day payout rule. It reduces the incentive for material that lasts.

WRT promotion itself however - my understanding was that votes were intended to allow humans to weed out the good material where bots don't do that. They promote the material of people who can and want to pay for it.

·
·

Before the 3.5 days time-limit, abusers would buy upvotes for their post at around 6.5 days which would reduce the time services like steemcleaners would be able to remove rewards in abuse-cases.

·
·
·

Thank you for your generous upvote.

Do you know why steem stopped the 30 day payout they used to have?

I guess the truth is no matter what great thing is added or changed people will find a way to "abuse" it.

·

Is there not a global blacklist which all bots should use also, markymark them have one and some others I think but, a global one which can be updated in unison would make it all the more effective, if you are not using it then bottracker won't list you so that is a start at not getting visibility for the bots at least. Bottracker can also more visibily mark any non-compliant bots so new users are not tempted by the fuckers , if used then so be it. I vote guitar twat to be first on the global blacklist.

·
·

@penderis
I've thought about that as well, but it's a lot of work! Nevertheless, still thinking about it.

Guitar twat?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I like this post

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

for now maybe a public voting page to propose blacklists then a moderator team from the 3top bot can say yes no if yes it goes a weeks voting by lets say at least 200 users or all witnesses the list gets updated and all bots need to check that api before accepting bids. ... not sure if i would trust general users to vote though.

Thinking is just a simple api that will return a clean json reply with usernames and from there it can be expanded. Your bot can already merge markymarks list also, and with time it will be the norm.

Sorry to load the reply. But also implementing a value cap of how much something may worth, there surely is a limit to how much any post could possibly worth since the people are paying themselves, and assuming they are actually losing money on bids it still messes up visibility for legit posts. That is all sorry for the mess.

·
·
·

Blacklists and whitelists (with a fair and transparent rating system - a panel of raters that are selected in a transparent process). That's more like it! innocent until proven guilty.

·

I don't see a strong argument for limiting the time I should promote my post or upvote my own post for that matter. you're suggesting that people who promote late, are also spammers or putting out shoddy content for profit. If they make profit that way, that's their choice. Who is to say what is shoddy content? The answer is - everyone gets to say. But to allow, encourage and argue for bullying by powerful accounts which don't bother to even manually evaluate the content - merely slap a flag on it based on some vague theory? How can anyone support that approach? This sort of bullying is exactly the culture one wants to work against. To suggest that it is all right to grant a few people the right to limit the choices that other make, it is just disappointing to hear. I can never agree with it.

Steemit allows me to vote on posts until 6 days 11 hours or more. What about self-upvotes on the last day? Of course I can do it too. You can't fight junk appearing on the platform by going about flagging people who choose a business model which you don't agree with. It is just wrong. Let people flag posts as they wish, megalomaniacs included. But people will continue to resist being bullied by hypocrytes who also self-upvote their own spammy comments more often than they curate good content (be that content of their own or by others).

I am very disappointed to see steemmarket supporting such a weak idea as bullying. You guys have a whitelist, you evaluate the quality of content. These are good things to do. I hope to see you standing up against this sort of abuse or working against the problems of trending trash in meaningful, constructive ways; not this kjind of self-agrandizement by a tyrant.

·
·

Agreed, who to say what is what, be it spam or not, be it quality posts or not, be it ads or not, be it good or not, be it free speech or not, be it hate speech or not, be it this thing or that thing, etc, like you are saying, I agree, it depends on the systems we want more so, be it mob-ruling democracies or not, be it constitutional, representative, republics or not, be it a voting system which is what Steemit has it seems in some ways or to some extent, and we the people can maybe decide, maybe through voting, together, maybe, what we like and dislike, and that is capitalism, and free speech includes hate speech and spam and ads and bots and many things as included in the generalization of it all and spam can be defined differently by different people too of course. Let the free markets decide. If you like something, upvote it. That is what I do. And I may become a big whale someday. That is capitalism. Some can downvote too but I don't flag. I just upvote and stuff. Thanks for sharing, hehe. I'm Oatmeal Joey Arnold. You can call me Joey.

·
·
·

Nice to know you, Joey. It all seems so simple to me. Ad decentralised systems are all about leaving every person the rights - preventing centralised control. This argument about keeping spam etc out sounds a lot like the argument of stripping our rights to privacy and other freedoms, in the name of the fight against terror. These trolls have to be nipped in the bud and only collective awareness and resistance will end it all.

Remain vigilant. Keep our eyes on the ball, even when we organise, lest those tendencies find their way into our own efforts as well.

·
·
·
·

You are right about the content on here. Everyone should have a right to say what they want. However, everyone else has the right to agree or disagree with it. I tend to take a logical leaning, and here is the rub: if a flag is considered censorship, then a vote must be considered permission. The opposite of voting is not refraining from voting. It is flagging.

The fact is, the powerful and wealthy have always been in charge of media and communication. Steemit, regardless of its hands-off approach to content, is not going to be any different in this regard. Who gets to decide what trends and what doesn't on this platform? Stripped down, this would be the powerful and wealthy.

If the most influential people on steemit thought spam was cool, then we'd see a lot more of it. If they thought it wasn't, then it would get voted off the island. Here, it appears to be somewhere in the middle.

In the case of bot-votes, trending is a purchased conglomeration of votes meant to mimic the wealthy. And this is a middle ground that levels the playing field somewhat. However, the more powerful users can (and will) determine how these play out. They could just as easily downvote all bot votes. And they don't, largely because some of them are the ones profiting from them in the long run, partly because some of them believe these are a great boost for minnows.

Simply put, the ones who decide what trends and doesn't, whether it's in the news, on the radio, on social media, or on this blockchain--are the powerful and wealthy, with few outliers. But this is the most common human social construct.

In the case of downvoting a post from a bot-vote over 3.5 days, these are the rules someone with power made up, for reasons they believe are meant to shape the platform in a positive way. Take it or leave it. Or fight it. But those are the rules. You know the risks and so does everyone else. When you are wealthy and powerful, you can decide what the rules are. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying, that's how it is.

On another capitalist note, if we were to take an Atlas Shrugged approach and allow spam and crappy content take all the rewards and trend, then this platform would self-obliterate on its own and it would need no help from whales.

The only reason spammers have any ounce of life at all on here is because there is good content and good investment into this community to begin with. If all of the good guys left, the spammers and greedy self-perpetuating whales would be like leaches sucking scum off the bottom of a dried up lake.

I am just saying, actions like a @grumpycat downvoate, as unpopular as they may seem, do theoretically prolong the life and sustainability of the platform. From an investment standpoint, bot-votes longer than 3.5 days old are fiscally and statistically detrimental to the platform, due to the nature of the bids they tend to engender, the content they regularly promote, and the bad humor they create in new users.

The overwhelming number of users who swoop in on the 11th hour of day 6 to win the bid on poorly written and promotional posts are just as guilty of pilfering as another user is of downvoting their pilfer. Their bids 1) do nothing for the life and sustainability of the platform, 2) take advantage of unsuspecting new users who otherwise think their bot bid is worth something, 3) and their content and disingenuous behavior degrade the value of STEEM.

But other than that, they're fantastic. :0)

·
·
·
·
·

The only reason that plagiarism is cared about here is because steem inc wants people to, because they don't want to deal with cease and desist letters or other copyright issues. But the funny thing is that rehashed content and memes are what people on other social media enjoy seeing, so this only hurts the value of the platform for content consumers.

·
·
·
·
·
·

What a mess this platform has become. The CEO himself hasn't bothered posting on here in over a month. What does that suggest about the future of this place?

I see almost daily developmental updates about EOS and other up and coming blockchain projects. Smart Media Tokens? Oh yeah, we have a white paper to reference from September without further insight on the roll out status. As long as Steemit is considered the brand face of Steem, this blockchain will continue to lose market share to more dedicated dev teams.

Grumpy and others touting self-proclaimed rules of engagement embody the Animal Farm atmosphere that has run amok on this site. At first I thought Grumpy's initiative was admirable, considering the lack of guidance from Steemit Inc on the issue of voting abuse. Yet a more in depth look reveals that he himself engages in extensive self-voting, as @sircork has pointed out. It's hypocrisy, full stop. Anyone not calling it out for what it is also is a hypocrite.

And anyone supporting this nonsense contributes to the madness - it's easy to pick on the small fish, but if engagement drops further, all you're left with is a silo of sanctimonious enforcers of arbitrarily designated laws that controvert the very code that the platform was constructed upon.

Address the code and apply reform across the board equitably to everyone. Targeting users on a whim is not the way to go about encouraging a systemic quality culture. The apparent indifference of the top Witnesses to all of this, despite the oft discussed issues plaguing Steem, is inexcusable.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

To be honest though, steemit inc, the amateur blog site makers aren't in charge of the block chain at all, and EOS is a block chain, which produces information updates about its development. They are not the same thing at all.

Steemit inc makes a shitty blog site. Steem the block chain is not their responsibility.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Freedom. I love freedom. If I wanna Self-Upvote, Good. But you seem to say freedom is limited. You seem to say we should not be allowed to do certain things. Then they should disable the Self-Upvoting Feature then. Tell @Ned to turn off Self-Upvoting capabilities. Either we can or we cannot. But who to say how many self-upvotes are too little or too many? Where is the line between acceptable and abuse? Where are the rules to say what is abuse and what is not abuse? If we do not like Cat and others, we can downvote Cat, make posts about Cat, form a group to do whatever we can to stop Cat or whatever. That is our freedom if we want. We all are better off as we talk about it and as we take action to do all we can to do what we want to do.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Charity Bot, you are right. And the whole thing about what is and is not copyrighted, patented, protected, reserved, covered under fair use, what is in the public domain, what is copy right, what is copy left, what is open source, and everything else, is and is not sometimes problematic in so many ways depending on the countries you are in and depending on many factors and I heard that Walt Disney stole some ideas or drawing, allegedly, from others that worked in him around the 1920's and Disney probably stole it and copyrighted it and that means the other man could not use his own stuff and there are thousands of these stories were copyrights were actually stolen in the first time to protect the robbers and not the actual creators as the original creators are not always able to protect and copyright their work and fair use for parodies and commentaries and other things is another issue as we have Weird Al and others and that is another thing to consider and the public domain thing is another thing to consider also. All of this is very complex and more complex than most people think as it goes both ways in so many ways in the risk and in the pros and the cons of all the laws just like how taxes have problems and welfare has problems too.

·
·
·
·
·

No way. Users facing arbitrary attacks from heavily armed terrorists (a grumpycat with a fat wallet is a "gun" here) will not use this platform.

In no way is basic bitch playground bullying for ANY reason acceptable, and will not in ANY way , "prolong the platform"

·
·
·
·
·
·

I don't know. If we could determine whether it was just basic bitch bullying, I'd say I agreed with you. But I don't know if it is.

Anyone could argue that a downvote to an innocent bystander might be intrinsically bullying, outstanding facts aside. However, the real question may not be about the downvoting in itself. It appears to be about what this specific type of downvoting is meant to accomplish, what it is actually accomplishing, and whether that is worth the casualties it may incur.

Those who think the purpose is a worthy one will justify the behavior. Those who think it is not will crucify the behavior. The kind of downvoting, albeit unfair to some, takes an approach that is not a respecter of persons, but an all-or-nothing word to the wise: "Don't use bots after 3.5 days, no matter who you are. They need to be shut down."

Frankly, I'd be more interested in seeing the short term and long term fiscal impact on both the "last-minute-bot-vote-pilfering-from-babies-and-kittens," and the "arbitrary attacks from heavily armed terrorist @grumpycat downvotes," as there are casualties on both sides.

Users facing arbitrary attacks will not likely use this platform. Neither will users who are randomly pilfered out of a purchased bot-vote. The question is, which users are we deterring more of over the long term: those who contribute to the success of the platform, or those who contribute to the failure of it?

As a business model, I'd be more likely to choose the one that retained users who contributed to the long term success of the platform.

As a side note, the system that attracts users with integrity and grit is generally a system that has integrity and grit. Maybe we just sit and see which one holds out...

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

All your points are true... and yet have nothing to do with what I am upset about.

And that is the fact that we all stand by and argue about this or that side of this issue in terms of the voting and bidbots...

When the real issue, is that a playground full of people has just has one big fat kid step into it from out of nowhere and start imposing his opinion as law in a place where in fact, his opinion is nothing more than his own and had nothing to do with any kind of enforceable anything. It's just an asshole bully with an opinion, and a bigger gun than the people he assaults with his terrorism.

You know, like the mafia does when they sell "protections" to shop owners to ensure they don't have "accidents" by failing to comply with the mafia boss.

"Capiche'?"

·
·
·
·
·

Agreed, so much has been decided, influenced, managed, controlled, governed, historically, culturally, globally, by the wealthy, basically, generally, and Steemit basically has that, absolutely, or to some extent, and I like that, and we also have some ability to influence each other and to compete to become wealthy as well, eventually in the long-run, as we go up ladders to compete with whales on Steemit and everything. I promote freedoms for better and for worse. If we do not like @GrumpyCat, we may try to Downvote Cat, talk about it more, take actions maybe. Those are our freedoms perhaps. And it is also Cat's freedom to do stuff be it good or bad as the wealthy makes up the rules so to speak like you said. For me, I try to ignore it. I don't downvote people. But I don't want to stop others from making their own choices. I try to focus my time on things I like as much as I can instead of crying about things I do not like. Thanks for writing. :)

·
·
·
·

Agreed, that is freedom, for better or for worse, for the good people and for the bad people as opposed to subjective rules applied only sometimes to some people at certain times and so on and so forth as that is not what this decentralized system is really all about basically, potentially, ultimately, like you are saying, and it is our job to talk about all of this more and more and to raise awareness of stuff, all kinds of things, good things and bad things, and people too, and we can talk about Cat for example, and we can come together and downvote Cat or whatever as those are our choices perhaps. I am not going after Cat. I do not care what the cat does. The cat has freedoms. I respect those freedoms even if Cat is doing bad or whatever the case may be. I am focused on spending time around people and things I like. I upvote. I do not downvote, haha. Like smoking. I do not smoke. Maybe a store will sell cigarettes. Yes. To make money. And Grumpy Cat has the freedom to buy cigarettes even if that is bad. I will not buy any. But I will let Cat exercise freedom, freewill. Amen.

·

You want to promote your post for visibility? 3.5 days is more than enough. Afterwards you'd primarily do it for monetary gain.

And regarding the self-voting: it's his stake and downvoting isn't giving any rewards.

Minnows self voting isn't giving much of any rewards either. When they buy votes, they are doing so with their stake. The vote sellers, likewise, are also using their stake. I wouldn't be surprised if grumpy cat was a vote seller himself, or a group of them. That would explain his incentive.

The fact of the matter is, grumpy often upvotes himself on the last day. If you're saying that's ok, then minnows doing the same is also ok. In fact, minnows buying votes are also taking on risk which he is not.

Additionally, being a capitulating service, you have a vested interest in supporting his activities. By strongarming customers, he is decreasing your competition.

·

The posts on the trending page upvoted by bidbots don't deserve to be there!

That's what the real problem is, most of the people think that the low-quality posts dominate the trending page and they don't deserve to be there.


Now, as the founder and developer of the smartsteem, I know that you can't check each and every post upvoted by your service, and I definitely know that you want to make steemit a better place and help people here.

So, instead of concentrating on all the users, how about you concentrate on the users bidding for big upvotes?

I mean nobody cares about if anyone gets 1$ upvote from any bid bot( small abusers can be handled easily by making guidelines and rules, blacklisting) but the ones who make it to the trending or hot page, everyone has got eyes on them, and it is your service that will be held responsible for taking them to the top of hot/trending level.

So if you check all the users who bid big( which would be about 1 or 2 in every 2.4 hours, that makes a maximum of 10-12 posts a day), you can considerably improve the quality of posts upvoted by your service that makes it to the trending page

Everyone downvotes trending posts upvoted by bid bots because of its mediocre quality, that results in loss of the users and gains hate for your services. But if the quality of the posts is good, people will upvote the posts, it will be beneficial for both the user and your services. The scenario will be completely opposite to the current one.


You said it yourself that it took more than half a year for you to develop smartsteem, now I know that you don't want it to end in a way that people will remember it as a service that supported abusers. A service hated by a lot of people.

The whole thing depends upon how inclined you are to find a solution to improve the quality of posts upvoted by your service. That will help everyone, the investors, users. And more people will support the users in future if their post quality is good, that makes a long-term benefit for the user for the one-time investment, rendering your services more useful.

In the end, I believe that this is quite an opportunity for your service to make this a better place not just for the content creators, but for content absorbers too, as of now, most people create content, very few read it.

·
·

now I know that you don't want it to end in a way that people will remember it as a service that supported abusers. A service hated by a lot of people.

and yet here we are...

·
·
·

yepp, here we are...

·

I can have many articles that I may want to post all on the same day. I could have ten or more posts that I can work on and I've been writing over twenty years and I can spend days on it. And there is no way to know how many different things that can be posted on the same day. I love writing about politics, religion, science, education, entertainment, technology, Bitcoin, cats, travel, my time in Vietnam, gardening, history, video games, films, videos, photos, comedy, and more, hehe. Thanks for sharing, hehe. I'm Oatmeal Joey Arnold. You can call me Joey.

·
·

What does this have to do with flagging a bot-vote after 3.5 days?

·
·
·

You can publish many books or videos or posts or articles on the same day and they all can have great quality because they can all be in the making for weeks or longer and there should be no limit to how many comments and posts are to be posted and published on Steemit as the quality of the posts and comments depends on many factors and many things.

·

Observe, everyone, the bot enabler and cat colluder downvoting truthful comments that expose the truth about him.

Weak. So incredibly weak.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 2.103 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 2.103 STEEM from the community!

·

Arent we doing everything for monetary gain??

·
·

That's kinda what I thought too.

·
·

No you are here to fall in line with those who have existed here long enough to believe their own bullshit that their rules is what you should obey. BUT.. only you and those at your level.

The ones higher up and with enough SP ... set different rules for themselves.

Steemit has a long future......

·
·

Lexiconical approves of this comment.

PS - Watch out with statements of the obvious in reward-pool arguments...you'll get a pie flung at your head.

·
·
·

I'm used to worse. 😸

·

What if a whale is behind someone removing vengeance by flagging just for fun?

·

I think that everyone has a different opinion and that's the good thing about steemit that we can share it without any commitment

1b1.gif

·

lol... pretty much

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 1.606 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 1.606 STEEM from the community!

·
·

I don't understand why, but thanks.

A bounty of 50.000 STEEM has been set on this post by @madpuppy! You can read how they work here.

You spend an awful lot of time on "when only micro fraction are wrong does"

Feel like an idiot yet? Because you look like one to everyone else.

this is great :)

·

this is great :)

what is great?, did you even read the post? :)

·
·

I can't speak for the person above however I, personally, thought it was great.... primarily because we have two opposing ideas..... and it's obviously causing people to talk. I look at it as a positive. I could be very wrong however. I am new and am still learning. I any case I hope you have a great day. All my love to you and all of yours.

·
·
·

Comments like yours is what make this a great place to be!

thought it was great.... primarily because we have two opposing ideas..... and it's obviously causing people to talk. I look at it as a positive. I could be very wrong however.

I think you are right on this :)

Thinking differently is essential to our evolution, also share and care for others :)

There is many to be learn, i am also new and constantly learning :)

Thank you for your comment, nice from your part!

All my love to you and all of yours.

Thank you very much!

hugs and blessings!

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 1.154 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 1.154 STEEM from the community!

Humans enjoy positives things
A downvote is negative
A downvote war spiral is negative for steem

If you don't like the trending page, scroll. Go on another page.


People risked their life to cross the Berlin wall.
They cross all Africa without a penny to escape abusive powers.
They cross the Mediterranean sea to escape their country's nocive control.
People want to escape tyranny.

We don't want people to escape steem
We don't want your dominance @grumpycat


You don't answer yourself to @the-resistance.
You have to pay others to come with an answer.

Don't you have any argument you could expose us by yourself? That seems an emotional-backed behavior, rather than a rational judgment.


Spread love ❤️ not flags ☣️

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.501 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.501 STEEM from the community!

Since the main approach seems to be to stop the draining of the reward pool by people using voting-bots for pure profit instead of getting visibility (the noble use-case for votebots in the eyes of many), upvoting the ones who don't use them is not helping the problem in any way.

Flagging those who use bid-bots solely to drain the reward pool will give money back into the reward pool. Rewarding others for not using the bots will not put money back it the reward pool - but even take more money out of it.

Rewarding others will also not stop the abusers! - Why would it? I won't stop robbing a bank just because the bank starts to give money to homeless who beg for it as well.

Of course it also takes way more brain-power to manually curate good content than to flag the use of abusive stuff following a simple but effective script. And it's also more fair - the script most likely works on a random basis - manual curation would be biased by Grumpie's personal opinion.

Summed up, I think the proposal to upvote others is completely useless for accomplishing what @grumpycat wants to accomplish. Giving away money to some non-criminals will also not stop thieves from stealing in the real world. Why would it?

In the end, upvoting others instead of flagging would even have the reverse effect since more people would be using the abuse-usable-services again if they don't fear the flaggs.

·

Neglecting the abusers will only increase the amount of spam and trash here. As if there was any scarcity of abusers that to neglect them and let them freely abuse the system, thus motivating more and more people to join abusers as there will be no action against them.

It will lead to total chaos.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.431 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.431 STEEM from the community!

Wait...there's an xxxbot?

·

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂# THAT'S FUNNY!!! #

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.504 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.504 STEEM from the community!

I think you should flag all the bots, vote selling is reward pool rape.
It only came about after @dan got ran off, he knew what would happen, that is why he put the n2 in the code in the first place.
What he failed to do was put a 100mv soft limit in place to make the game attractive to the average users.
I think you should downvote everybody that gets a delegation of more than 100mv because 93% of newbs tell us to get bent over the whales sucking up all the rewards.

Anybody with more than 100mv in stake are going to be best served by making the game attractive to minnows so that we can get the millions to put in 100usd each.
Whether that is downvoting the rapists or abstaining from voting to avoid overwhelming the minnows in the vote pool math.
It is up to the whales to make the game attractive to the many.
When the masses park their paychecks in steem before paying their bills the whales will be in a position to not crash the price by selling.

That isnt going to happen with 800k former users telling their friends not to bother with steem because only the insiders stand a chance at getting rewards.
93% of new users tell us to get bent because 10 voters decide where 30% of the rewards go day after day after day.
Can you downvote the top 50 most powerful voters, too?
When the top 10 out of 65k daily users decide where 30% of rewards go that is not the recipe for mass adoption, as demonstrated by the 800k dead accounts.

download (5).jpeg

download (2).jpeg

download (6).jpeg

download (3).jpeg

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.363 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.363 STEEM from the community!

·
·

Thank you very much!

I honestly thought this was over. Why is this not over?

IMG_3193.GIF

IMG_3192.JPG

Okay i will give it a shot.

Brain-time cost: @grumpycat is too lazy to be nice.

Voting power cost: @grumpycat spends a lot of time measuring his downvotes in order to give him the best selfvotes. He likes masturbating in public.

Results: He is right in that people remember punishment more than nourishment. His current flag campaign would end if bots were set to reject posts after 3.5 days. As there would be no infractions. Except he wont be satisfied with that. Why? Clearly @grumpycat is very bored and lonely not to mention a work aholic? Idk.

Heres my idea/solution: ;)

Give me your delegation. I will try out the positive rewards campaign and send you 80% of the curation profits. I will upvote 10 posts per day of verified and active users. This will most likely include many of the people you flagged. If you give me a weekly theme i will uovote as per your theme and send you your cut at the end of every week. Or, you can setup a proxy and i will upvote through posting keys and not handle money at all. If you appreciate my efforts, you can reward me. Test it for a month. See if bidbot misuse goes down.

Otherwise, be a good kitty wont you?

IMG_3196.PNG

·

this is fking awesome! :D

·

Indeed I hope this war will be over one day. Love this Pic, nice work :)

·

For the first time since I met you, I have to salute you. Well said, Lima.

·

Would read again.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.288 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.288 STEEM from the community!

·
·

Bahaaaa thanks @steem-bounty ! Lol lemme take thst to the bank 😂

Finally @grumpycat did something great!! Good work @grumpycat. Gc followed the whole report and look he started a bounty, rewarding users.

Amazing work #Resist, finally Gc complied with Resist bounty proposal. Nice work everyone at Resist. Nice work @grumpycat. Good to see that every side is using their intelligence and bringing a change. Hats off to you @grumpycat!!

Love

·

You...uh...don't know wtf is going on here, do you?

·
·

After reading the post, I came to know that how good this cat is. Many bid bots owner complied with grump policy but first time I saw that cat is complying with a bounty proposals. So it's nice to see that big user like grumpy cat actually hears the thoughts of small minnows with practical approach. That's why I love steemit. That's all I know @lexiconical

·
·

He knows. He's actually pretty smart, and very very fucking funny at making solid memes or as you know I prefer to call them steemes. :D

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.195 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.195 STEEM from the community!

Loading...

Simple terms? Games theory:

If platform abusers doesn't have any punish for wrong-doing in the system, their incentive will be to keep abusing it, generating a small pool of winners and a big ocean of losers (in this case, the entire platform).

Overpromoted (overpaid) content that brings no value, must be flagged by the ENTIRE community, not just by the grumpy cat.

And lets be honest, he is funny.
D.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.132 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.132 STEEM from the community!

·
·

Ok, thanks ;)

Wow!
Okay Brain time cost : A lot . Scouring through the plagiarists, the down right weirdos and the wth were you thinking posts, it takes time and patience.
Voting Power Cost : If the carrot approach isn't working, the stick approach will.
Downvoting and flagging help bring people who are abusing the system to the notice of others.
Although I do believe that if you don't have the time, setup a team to curate for you.
Carrot and stick can co-exist
Yes, you can't expect things to be hunky-dory and forget that people will take advantage of the system.
I'm neutral about your methods but i can request you again to setup a
team like curie or OCD to help people who don't use bid bots.
You'll get curation rewards and prove your point.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.123 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.123 STEEM from the community!

Loading...

I did not know GrumpyCat was on SteemIt. Following.

·

Not the same grumpy cat

·
·

Now I am confused! How many Grumpy Cats are there?!

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.057 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.057 STEEM from the community!

nice idea, @ grumpycat

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.050 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.050 STEEM from the community!

Ohh i'm much glad and confident to place a comment on @grumpycat's post this time..

"Braintime and voting power cost and results between flagging the wrong doers instead of up-voting the non-wrong doers"

Flagging the wrong doers only leaves one with a tension in the head - trying to scold the bad guys where in fact hundreds are out there doing same, and tens springing forth every days. I get crazy when i try to chase a fly and more are showing up.

However, It's a waste of resources putting a downvote/flag on the bad guy where in fact, same vote is needed to support the good guy. Flagging takes same voting power and same recharge time as putting an up-vote.

The result is simply a fractional effect as it does not stop the activities of the wrong doers since its a decentralised atmosphere and the mentality is that "I'm an investor and so i want a good profit on my investments". Few care about the world around them. They keep waxing stronger rather than culmination. Non-wrong doers struggles to grow. They need it most.

Best way to culminate the bad guys is to give attention for the good guys. Upvoting the non-wrong doers will undoubtedly and indirectly reduce the activities of the counterparts as soon as the bid bots users begin to see the reason for them to quit.

GRUMPYCAT-COMPLIANCE: I'm a grumpycat. I seem to appear complaining too much and get upset easily. I chose to be so because people couldn't see the madness in act of selling votes.

But @grumpycat, do you know that these bots are numerous and are get more delegations daily? This is like a one man trying to invade an alien's planet. This might be suicidal. Rather, concentrate on building a better community where the worth of his power would be felt.

·

Hey @i-zappl-only love your comment, it resonates well with me.
I agree with you, we need the focus of whales to be on developing communities that supports the success of users, not petty attacks and wanton destruction of harmless accounts

·
·

Pretty much cool if they could see that.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.042 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.042 STEEM from the community!

To start flags are used to redistribute the rewards in the pool.
The compliance protocol is to prevent people plagiarising and @ 6.5 days buying a huge vote to maximize the profitability and minimizing the loss from receiving flags.
Also, when Rep is above 65 no matter how hard you flag them, until the Rep is lower than 65 the post and/or comment is visible.
The anchor tag is the main topic and the other 4 are generally other subtopics covered in the article.

Now we dive into why this also won't work.

  • You are not the master.
  • You can make stupid suggestions it is your right.
  • $50 in STEEM? Where's your supporting data on why that amount is accurate?

Hey, nice post ! I like your content. Keep up the good work! It's always nice to see good content here on Steemit! Congratulations

Loading...
·

flagged did not add any value to the topic, pure spam

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.015 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.015 STEEM from the community!

"A negative punishment in which a positive stimulus is taken away, keep the minnows at bay"?

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.006 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.006 STEEM from the community!

I'll answer as a former frequent bot-user. (Now an occasional user)

Starting from the base, @grumpycat, that we are talking about your stake, that it is big but limited, and that you are free to use it as you wish.

  • If you flag people who use the bots you don't like, you force the bots to restrict their time limit, in order not to lose clients to the competition. Because, obviously, users will prefer "safer", complying bots to bid to. It has a bigger impact because, in time, fewer people will be using those non-complying bots, so one person you flag will have a big effect because the numbers of them will be smaller every time and so, the chance of getting a flag gets bigger. Less VP necessary, less brain-time, more impact.

  • If you reward users who prefer the bots you like, you invite the people to use those bots. But as more people will be using them, because of the invitation, the chances of winning will be getting smaller and smaller. You can't reward everyone! So, you would have to select and curate more every time. And, because the bots that don't adjust their time limit would not be affected, they will still be a majority, and people will still bid on them, along with the others. So, more VP needed, more brain-time, and the impact will be minimum.

Bonus points if able to explain Grumpy-compliance in simpler terms and why it's not always possible to influence vote sellers behavior by flagging them directly.

Grumpy-compliance is a term coined by @grumpycat to define bidbots that restrict the time of the posts they can be used to upvote to 3.5 days max.

If people use bidbots to upvote their own posts on the last minute (Or even the last of the seven days period), they restrict the time the rest of the community have to flag them if they see fit. So, it could be seen as if they get a big bunch of rewards from the pool in an unfair way, no matter the quality of their content.

Grumpy established that, if he flags the bots, the effect will be temporary because the bidbots are constantly getting money (And their owners, as a collective, have far more SP than Grumpycat to recover themselves). But if he flags bidders, the effect will be permanent, because people will prefer to use "safer" bidbots and the rest of the bidbots will be forced to comply because of the competition.

So, he decided to flag users with the best content using non-compliant bidbots, even if they use them within the 3.5 days limit, in order to get the best impact and exposure with the minimum VP and brain-time cost. Which has been controversial, for putting it mildly.

I don't like it a bit, BTW. I think it is unfair and it sucks. But I am forced to admit it is actually working.

@grumpycat imho random 'rewards' to a chosen few is a nice idea but will not change a fucking thing. We need to develop a strategy that will work long term.

People say that you have invested a significant amount of your own money into the Steemit platform. If that is true and you do have a personal investment, I would have thought you would want the platform to be successful. Your actions hinder success regardless of your intentions.

If we want to change peoples behavior we need to change our behavior.

Everything people do is an attempt to meet ether a real or perceived need. Even this post by you @grumpycat and my comment are both attempts at meeting needs.

To deal with this problem effectively, we mus first understand what needs ether real or perceived people are trying to meet .
The second step is developing alternative strategies that will assist people with meeting those needs.

Its just not that complicated ! and using gratuitous violence in the form of attacking accounts which are only attempting to meet their needs is counter productive in terms of changing behavior and detrimental to user retention.

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.021 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.021 STEEM from the community!

Fisrt, I think he ( you @grumpycat ) wanted to control this platform from being flooded with none organic commenter and promoter and trying to have a balance and fair system. Not too many bionic but cut those organic aka people who doesn't have the real deal to have their comments to exist in a good contents with reliable informations and genuine articles. In the same time the bionic or the bots are still needed to dig an old hidden treasure to be expose once more because when some old treasure been stacked with millions layers of new articles or datas they tense to be forgotten but still useable as a guide. That is the far best of my understanding about the issue discussed. Please accept my apology if my comment is not related to the topic. one ( he / @the-resistance ) says just let it be free no limit or strict the other ( you @grumpycat ) says no! we should put some limit of the freedom if we want to maintain the system so both play the important roles for the Steemers

Wow, seems like that would need a very long and clear explanation. 50 SBD is a good number though so I guess it's not bad to give it a try.

I don't get why you should waste your time with this, using bots is a method of advertisement that should be used as the post is posted but the community overall has decided that a 3.5 day window is still ok for bot votes but most of the people that get flagged by you is for upvoted trash content by hundreds of dollars or people that use bots on the 6th day to rape the reward pool right?

If i had to write a short explanation for them it would be this: Community consensus, the community overall agrees to a certain extend that 3.5 days is the deadline for bot votes and if you are doing bot votes on the last day you are raping the reward pool also your proposal doesn't work because if you reward the people for behaving like they are supposed to but don't punish the people misbehaving, more people will join them in the misbehavior.

Simply put, the proposal is kind of dumb, you will end up rewarding 2 people for good posts but then a few thousand misbehaving users will continue to vote themselves on the 6th day if they see no punishment for their behavior.

Edit: Are they even worth wasting your time on? Grumpy compliance is already pretty easy to follow anyways, its basically an easy guide in how to not be a steemdick.

·

I believe that you made a very good summary here!

·

Congratulations! Your submission earned you 0.015 STEEM from this bounty. You have received 0.000 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.015 STEEM from the community!

Great work,thanks.

Great proposal brother, I think that this kind of competitions promote creativity in the community! Keep on working brother you may get very far, I hope so. Do you know if Steemit is going to get out of beta mode soon? :/

·

Stay off the endless drugs, do you have ANY idea who this is, what this about or where you are right now?

what about bots start using the same tag?

I don't use any bid bots, personally I think they are one of the things that are killing Steem, you can hardly get any votes now because a lot of people prefer to delegate their SP to these bots and get a guaranteed return without doing anything. But as this is supposed to be a decentralized, free zone I guess these people, both the bidbot owners and the people who delegate are entitled to do it. As for Grumpy Cat yes, I would much rather prefer he up vote people who don't use a bot than flag those who do use it, I have never been a fan of flags.