I'm sorry but the real problem with a post like this is it's pandering to one of the main crimes of the mainstream media. It's called Outrage Marketing. The idea is you try and whip up a frenzy of emotion in order to a) sell more newspapers or b) get more views/votes on Steemit. The post could just as easily be framed as a question, as in 'why's @dan doing this?
Now that might not engender such a large response, but at least it would be the start of a civilised discussion, rather than a pile-on.
Now I apologise profusely if that was not your intention, but from where I'm sitting that's really what it looks like.
To me one of the most poignant parts of this discussion is the fact that it demonstrates just how fragile our concepts of 'trust' are nowadays. Someone has taken time and effort to create something which he believes is/will be of value to the world, and releases is to early acclaim. But then, immediately he tries to polish/improve, it's considered to be a threat or an attack. At this time an imaginary threat at that.
So what is the threat? That @dan or someone else will use the new power to 'completely void the voting capability of other users'. Is that really true? And if so, would he use it to ruin the community spirit or to try and improve the quality of the platform in some way? I don't understand why he would do it for the former, rather than the latter.
Anyway, the arguments can rage back and forth ad nauseum, but I would suggest that we try and maintain a credo that has served our civilisation well for a long time.
"A person is considered innocent, until proven guilty".
Peace out!
I actually think this improvement is indeed an improvement. I don't think anyone except bot operators benefit from bot voting. It is also affecting the content that makes it up to trending feeds. Bots have destroyed the ability of people from earning curator rewards. I think this is better than a bot detection system that throws up CAPTCHAs because it lets people do it. Ok, so now maybe the bot-game players will start playing the downvote but then there will be a countermeasure for this as well, and this measure goes towards this. By downvoting bots we can bring the process back to natural human beings and stop the gaming that is adversely altering the rankings and reputations especially of those who are smaller in their position, working their way up.
I'm tending to thing you may be right. I don't understand enough of the game dynamics behind bots and whales to make an intelligent guess, but at the moment I would rather trust a founder's perception and motives than not. :)
Valid criticism... I honestly thought that people would recognize Charlie Chapman and realize that I was being intentionally over the top and tongue in cheek.
Oh now it's my turn to apologise if you were trying to be funny. I pride myself on normally spotting that, but this time clearly I failed. Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking post anyway. :)
No need to apologize. It didn't work for a lot of people. Probably didn't help trying to have a substantive conversation at the same time.