On Guilds and Managing Expectations

in #steemit8 years ago (edited)

steemit_184349.jpg

There have been some discussions of guilds lately that have left me quite unsatisfied, to say the least.

I have read the criticisms and I’ve seen the responses. I’ve been involved in several discussions myself, both publicly and privately. I’ve spoken with guild members and those who have critiqued them. I’ve looked at the user statistics and I’ve seen the effects of curation. I’ve even posted several times in the past about the problems that continue to plague Steemit.

There is a discussion to be had. But first...

A Quick Word

Before I get into the arguments about the guilds themselves, I’d like to address something that I continue to see when any discussion like this begins.

The most disappointing aspect of a lot of the issues discussed on Steemit is the near instantaneous reaction to anyone asking questions – and the consequent framing of the discussion as “good” users vs. “bad” users. The attempts of some of the guild members to portray anyone with doubts about the effectiveness of the guilds as “jealous,” “trolls,” and “witch-hunters” is certainly nothing new. However – as I have mentioned several times in the past – this reaction is actually more toxic than the users raising the actual questions.

There is no way to have a healthy debate about a topic when the first reaction is to call people names and to try to impugn their character. By framing the argument as, “You’re just jealous,” or “We actually care about Steemit,” is – quite frankly – a coward’s response. It is nothing more than an attempt to silence or denigrate others. There is no value in it and there is no redeeming quality among those who insist on arguing in this manner. So can we please stop with the notion that differences of opinion are necessarily “trolling,” that everyone who disagrees with you is “jealous,” or that interpreting the available data is actually a “witch-hunt?”

When such accusations are made, especially against respectable, highly-reputable, and long-standing members of the community, it doesn’t actually help anything at all. It’s divisive, it’s childish, and it’s completely unnecessary. If nothing else, it only adds to any suspicions and invites further criticism. Your best bet is to have an honest and open discussion. If you’re simply not capable of doing that, then kindly excuse yourself from the interactions.


A Critique of Guilds

Before I begin, I want to make this clear:

Any user can use or delegate their stake however they wish. I have never advocated forcing anyone to use their stake in any particular manner. Any arguments made are simply arguments for the purpose of discussion/debate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking things through and finding a general community “consensus” on a given issue.

So, please spare me any retorts about “It’s their stake and they can do what they want.” Yes. We’re all well aware of that. That does not mean that we can’t discuss anything. And as long as the discussion does not devolve into personal attacks and flag wars, I don’t see how it does any harm to any individual users or the platform in general.

That being said, let’s have a look at one of the original statements about one of the main guilds – in this case, Steem Guild. This is from their initial post that announced their project back in early October:

Steem Guild was formed primarily to support established creators of quality content who still need assistance to generate their own following.

Project Curie is able to find great content creators and support them. But after those first votes, Curie must move on to support other new authors. What happens to those who continue posting great quality content on Steemit, but are not able to make more than $5-10 per post? Many authors become frustrated because there is a gap between Curie and becoming fully established.

Steem Guild hopes to bridge this gap. Authors whose previous posts have complied with Project Curie guidelines and who continue creating good content can receive ongoing support through Steem Guild. We believe this will help with retention and morale on Steemit as well!

The stated intentions of Steem Guild were to support authors of “quality content” that were not “fully established” and needed help to “generate their own following.” On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Finding valuable content and rewarding the authors of it is a noble effort for any user. I don’t think anyone would really dispute that. After all, that’s what pretty much any person on the platform does on a daily basis.

The goals of Curie and Steem Guild have been to find content and authors that have been overlooked or otherwise lost in the crowd. It’s great that people want to dedicate time and resources to doing this on a routine basis. But how exactly are they defining the terms being used here?

What constitutes “quality content?”

What do they mean by “fully established?”

How do they “generate a following” and how large must a following be in order to be sufficient in the eyes of the guild?

Furthermore – why was there even a dollar amount discussed in the original post? Who is to say that the content deserves more than $5 or $10 in the first place? Why are those prices the threshold? Is there a minimum post value that users ought to receive? Is $5 or $10 per post not sufficient for any given content that is deemed “quality” by some users?

In a decentralized free market, these statements don’t even make sense. We know that value is subjective. We know that Steemit was created based on free market principles and stake-weighted voting algorithms. We know that there will never be equal outcomes for rewards. We know that social media is largely based on the size of your following and the ability to market yourself to the masses. Not everyone can do that. This is understood. It’s one of the reasons that most bloggers don’t make much money from blogging.

But in the guild’s quotes from above, they seem to be trying to either ignore these factors or they are trying to combat them. A lot of time and resources are being devoted to the project, with the ultimate goal being: “We believe this will help with retention and morale on Steemit as well!”

So, what about retention and morale?

Currently, Steemit has over 132,000 accounts. Only about 9,000 of those accounts have been active over the past week and over 13,000 have been active over the past month. Most of the accounts in these figures are automated voting accounts and other bots. The active authors per day is near 800 for the last 30 days. Based on current Steemd.com data, in the past 24 hours, there have been around 5200 active accounts and under 900 of those are authors, according to steempunks.com. So, only approximately 15–17% of the active accounts are authors.

In their most recent post, Steem Guild claims the following:

Several staff members spend 10+ hours a day to help the 350-400 authors we are supporting on a regular basis.

If the average number of authors per day over the last 30 days is 800, then the guild is supporting approximately half of those authors – assuming that they are the same active authors and that the guild’s list isn’t being actively updated to remove inactive authors. Think about that for a moment and what the stated intentions of the guild are.

They are supporting half of the active authors on the platform. And it should be noted that this is only one guild.

If the guild’s list is being actively updated to remove the now inactive authors, then their goals of user retention are not being met. Why would these authors be leaving if the guild is actively supporting their content? Perhaps the issue isn’t entirely related to money.

So the effect of guild voting on user retention appears to be insignificant. The number of Steemit accounts continues to increase, but the active user base is not. Despite Steem Guild being active for the past four months and Curie being active for about six months, user activity has shown no improvement. If I’m not mistaken, it has actually declined over this period.

Morale is another question altogether. I don’t see any evidence that the post rewards from the guilds have any significance on the overall morale of the active user base. Sentiment seems to be the same as it was in the fall – after the relatively large STEEM price declines. There are still many of the same issues being discussed and many of the same concerns, most of them unrelated to prices and payouts. Other than anecdotal evidence from some of those users receiving guild votes and others that find little value in the guilds, there is no reliable data to prove this one way or the other.

Subjective Value and Gatekeeping

In their announcement post, Steem Guild provided a list of guidelines for their votes. Here is that list:

  1. Authors must be producing consistently good content which improves Steemit
  2. Original content with no material that is plagiarized or generated by word spinners
  3. Authors must have low lifetime rewards
  4. No Steemit related posts
  5. No controversial posts
  6. No polarizing themes or subjects (such as politics)
  7. No posts that are just one photograph
  8. Must cite sources for any non-original content (text, photo, video, etc.)
  9. Maximum rewards: 1 post per day per author
  10. Preferably people who have been in Steemit for at least 1-2 months

Looking at this list, I can’t help but notice the completely arbitrary/subjective criteria for voting. It has me asking more questions.

What is “good content which improves Steemit?” What is the criteria for measuring this “improvement?”

What exactly is the number being used to measure/compare “low lifetime rewards?”

What constitutes “controversy” and “polarization?”

These are arbitrary/subjective criteria for evaluating content. It would be easier and more straightforward to simply say, “If we don’t like it, we won’t vote on it.” And there’s nothing wrong with that. But on a platform that touts itself as being censorship-resistant and decentralized, what value is there in stating that any arbitrarily-defined “controversial” or “polarizing” content will not be rewarded? How can one definitively state that such content isn’t “good” and won’t “improve Steemit?”

The notion that controversial subjects and good content/improving Steemit are mutually exclusive isn’t a good precedent to set. But by the nature of their own guidelines, this is precisely what Steem Guild is telling the user base. If you write about certain topics or have an opinion that isn’t mainstream or popular, then you will not be supported.

The retort here from Steem Guild is that the largest stakeholder supporting their efforts – the CEO of Steemit, Inc. himself, Ned Scott – doesn’t want to attach his name to controversial posts. That’s certainly understandable, but the question remains: What does this tell the community when the CEO of Steemit apparently believes that unpopular or controversial topics aren’t worthy of his support or the support of the guild? I’m not saying that this is what he necessarily believes, but this is how the guild and their guidelines are perceived. When you attach your name to it, that is the inevitable result.

Having this arbitrary criteria also allows guild members to simply ignore certain users – regardless of the individual posts that they create – and deem the users themselves as “controversial,” thus not adding them to their curation list. They can essentially act as gatekeepers, selectively ruling out an entire class of users or those who these few guild members simply do not like. Again, I’m not saying that this does indeed happen, but to believe that it doesn’t happen or can’t happen is a bit naïve. All of us have our own feelings and preferences on both content and users.

The guidelines aren’t just a matter of who gets upvoted. It’s the perception of the guild backers and how their delegated power is used that becomes part of the discussion. When it involves the CEO of the company behind the platform itself, the voting can be perceived as much more influential and an indicator of what type of content is approved of and rewarded. It can actually distort the market and dictate preferences, given the automation in the system and the endless returns sought from curation.

Having an author list adds to this distortion, since the odds of a certain user’s post being upvoted by the guild increases in their favor once they are added to the list. Curators will see this as an easy way to increase their returns and upvote the content, regardless of other factors. And there is no indication that Steem Guild actually avoids posts that have already been upvoted by other whales, so it’s easy for such whales, trails, and/or other curators to preempt the guild votes.

So, depending on the content of their selected authors, the guild can actually stifle growth in certain categories and make other categories that would otherwise be unpopular – because most people don’t find them interesting – a much more lucrative investment of one’s time. In other words – the guild’s voting guidelines and behavior can create artificial demand for content that just isn’t popular. This can actually make Steemit less attractive to potential new users and the existing user base, thereby counteracting their stated goals.

Again, this makes the guilds the de facto gatekeepers of “success.” It isn’t organic growth or natural discovery/popularity of users and content. It’s actually centralized or “corporatized” growth (literally, since the CEO is the main backer of Steem Guild). The power to practically make or break users or topics on the platform is held in a few hands...and it’s completely subjective by its nature.

Volume and Quality Content

As stated earlier, the number of votes per day vs. the number of active authors is one of the main issues. The fact that so many authors apparently “need” guild support is more of an argument for the arbitrary distribution of the daily rewards pool than it is about retaining users or finding quality posts. There is no compelling argument that there are hundreds of posts per day that are “deserving” of a specified amount of rewards.

As far as I know, Steemit was never intended to be used as a universal basic income for all of its users. In fact, the stake-weighted voting system and the voting algorithm explicitly demonstrates that it was intended to be the exact opposite. Everyone isn’t going to be a “winner” and we aren’t supposed to be. Not everyone produces great content and we know this. Not everyone likes the content that is popular – and we know this as well.

Regardless, Steem Guild has been regularly voting on about 150 or more posts per day. Some of these posts haven’t been very good, subjectively speaking. That’s not surprising, given the number of votes and the number of active authors and posts.

The sheer volume of Steem Guild votes not only appears to unnecessary, but it crowds out a lot of other curators seeking curation rewards. Furthermore, the frequent early voting of the guild doesn’t even give curators a chance to actually curate content before upvoting the authors. If the idea was to support those who are slipping through the cracks, then the guild is denying any opportunity for this content to be discovered organically in the first place by voting early on the posts. Recently, Project Curie has adopted new guidelines for finding “undervalued” content, which allows them to vote on posts beginning at 45 minutes. Based on their intent, these voting practices from the guilds are contradictory. They don’t appear to be in line with their stated goals for discovery and rewarding content.

If selected authors are continuously voted by guilds within an hour of posting, then they’ll never have the chance to actually receive reliable feedback about popularity, value, and follower growth. They won’t know if their success has been achieved because the user base actually enjoys their content, or if it’s simply a result of curation reward-seeking due to reliable guild voting.

In my opinion, the volume of guild voting appears to be far too high, given the user statistics.

A Very Sticky Situation

Now we get into the aspect of self-voting, which has been a very touchy subject, for obvious reasons.

One of the main objections to Steem Guild’s operations has been the self-vote for the “staff” of the project. Naturally, any discussion of this rouses the emotions and it often ends up with name-calling and hurt feelings. Nevertheless, I’m going to dive right in. There are some things that need to be said and opinions/options that ought to be considered.

How much should curators be paid?

This is something that is addressed in the code. Every user is able to curate content. Every user’s curation rewards are based on how much stake they have in the platform, as measured in Mvests, or Steem Power. The more stake you have, the more rewards you can earn through the curation of content. This is hard-coded and applies equally to all users. If you want more curation rewards, you can increase your Steem Power or you can improve your curation tactics. Your payment for upvoting posts is a percentage of the final post payout and is based on your stake and the timing of your vote.

The curators for guilds believe that they deserve more money for their curating efforts. I’m not claiming that they do or do not. I only want to address the arguments that they make for this and the options that have been chosen.

In several discussions with Steem Guild and Curie members, the common justification for deserving more payment goes something like this:

We spend a lot of time on curating because we have guidelines to follow. We couldn’t do this without being fairly compensated for the extra work.

I completely understand what it’s like having to abide by certain guidelines. I do that myself as a manual curator. In fact, most of my curating habits are similar to those of the guilds. I spend a lot of time on Steemit and read/curate a lot of content. But here’s the problem:

These guidelines are self-imposed.

The guilds themselves have created these guidelines and they willingly choose to abide by them. Imposing rules on yourself and then using that as justification for needing extra pay makes no sense. In the case of Steem Guild, this pay comes from the rewards pool in the form of self-votes from the guild on the individual members’ content. What they are essentially doing is collectivizing the costs of their own project. You, the average Steemit user is “paying” for their efforts, regardless of whether or not they are supporting your content and regardless of whether or not you support their project. You have no choice in the matter as a non-guild user.

In the case of Project Curie, the guild publishes one daily post which is then upvoted by the community - which may include its members/supporters. While it’s still not ideal and may include collective participation, it’s only the one post per day that gets upvoted.

This is the glaring difference between the two projects: The Steem Guild staff has been benefiting individually and directly from self-voting with the guild’s power. This voting has been consistent and has occurred on multiple staff posts per day. And while voting at approximately 25% power on nearly all guild-selected non-staff posts, they frequently voted at 80–100% power on their own posts. Each of the main members of the guild were pocketing hundreds of dollars per week as payment for curating content – something that virtually no other user on the platform can pull off from curation.

To highlight just how much this has benefitted them individually, please take a look at this image captured from Steemwhales.com:


steemwhales_30d_leaders_2-10_2a6968.jpg


As you can see, five of the top six earners on the platform over the past month are Steem Guild members. This is a direct result of their self-voting. And it isn’t an insignificant amount of rewards either. They are doubling the rewards of the users just ten places below them on the list.

It has been stated that this is the agreement made between them and the whales who are backing the project. As I said at the beginning – that’s their prerogative. It’s their influence and they can do what they want with it. But the question to ask is: Is this right?

Can these types of “payments” be justified, given everything that has been pointed out here? Are they returning that much value to the platform to justify turning them into whales themselves? Is it right for the CEO of Steemit to delegate his power and upvote these specific users in this manner? I’m not saying that this is abuse – I’m asking if there is a better alternative and if these “payments” are really necessary for the curation work being done.

One more thing I’d like to touch on is related to the guidelines from the guild. I want to revisit this one in particular:

Original content with no material that is plagiarized or generated by word spinners

One of the unfortunate consequences of self-voting for payment can be pressure to create posts in order to receive their “fair share” of compensation. It’s no surprise then that the quality of content can be diminished over time, or even result in unoriginal or plagiarized content. This was exactly the case for one of the Steem Guild members not too long ago – as demonstrated in this post: The problem isn’t that life isn’t fair, it’s that we believe it should be!. (The title is ironic, considering that the guilds are trying to make rewards distribution more even or fair.)

This is not an attempt to call out or shame this specific user. I actually think that it was handled relatively well. But at the time that the plagiarism was caught, the post was sitting at the top of the trending page and around $250 for the pending payout – and still received over $50. The question here is whether the payment options put too much pressure on the members to produce content, whether the content is actually deserving of the payouts, and whether self-monitoring can be trusted when that much power over rewards is involved.

These are the kinds of issues that demand attention, whether you agree with the overall effectiveness of the guilds or not. However, this is one of the most sensitive issues to discuss because one side sees the discussion as an attack on their potential earnings and the other sees the behaviors as a form of abuse. The good news is that a reasonable discussion can in fact take place.

Yes – I do Have Solutions

It’s not all criticism. I do in fact have an answer to the payment issue for Steem Guild, which, as stated, is probably the most controversial aspects of its operations. Of course, some people may not like this idea because they’re used to receiving relatively large amounts of rewards. But here is one solution that can be implemented right now and is the most equitable and “fair” solution for both sides. This was actually suggested to @ned by me – ten days ago. This is not a direct quote, but the overall suggestion is the same.

Stop the self-voting of guild members, especially at voting powers above what is used for nearly every other staff selection that is upvoted. If they’re going to vote at 25% for other users, then they shouldn’t receive more than 25% votes for their own posts. Ideally, the guild members should set up their own voting trail so that they can front-run the whale votes from the guild. The staff will be earning curation rewards just like every other user on the platform, but with their own stake and the stake of the whales that follow, they should be able to earn a relatively large sum of SP per week. This will also incentivize them to not upvote content that has already been upvoted by other whales and guilds – which would mean that they are truly discovering the content and authors that need the most help.

The other suggestion would be to pay the members directly from the guild’s whale accounts. This can be based on the SP that is gained per week. Currently, Ned’s account alone earns anywhere between 150 and 400 SP per day. Add in the other whale accounts, and any payments for curation should easily cover the efforts. This can also be used in conjunction with the preceding idea of front-running the whale votes.

These changes alone would probably end much of the criticism.

Regarding the volume of votes and quality – they can simply reduce the amount of guild voting. The user numbers really can’t justify the volume. What would be better than trying to upvote every dissatisfied user would be to manage their expectations on the platform. A new user without a following shouldn’t expect huge rewards, especially if their content isn’t attention-grabbing and of a particularly high quality – and especially if they aren’t making much of an effort to connect with other users and market themselves.

This is social media. It requires being social. It also requires being popular if you want more attention and rewards. The guilds can’t make everyone popular and rich. It’s unfortunate, but it’s reality. As users, we need to acknowledge this and stop pretending that the relatively minimal amount of daily rewards can be equally shared.

If we want equality, then we’d each be receiving about $2 per post, per day. If that’s what we all prefer, then let’s change the code and make it happen. If you can understand how that would never succeed, then we need to accept that payouts – like life – won’t be fair.

This is Getting Too Long

I invite any comments – whether you agree or disagree. Let’s have a civil discussion and see if we can’t figure out better ways to tackle user adoption, retention, and any perceived unfairness of the platform. The current methods don’t appear to be working, despite the efforts of guilds. Earnings may not be the actual problem. So, what is?


I have not proof-read this. It’s mostly off-the-cuff. Please excuse any typos or rambling. I might edit.

Follow me: @ats-david

Sort:  

I would like to emphasize a point that you made, because I have experienced it personally. This is unique to Steem Guild in particular, though it might be endemic to all curation initiatives.

The Steem Guild rules say that the guild is not to vote on controversial posts, which is understandable. But apparently that extends beyond any particular post. There is a subjective judgement made about whether or not a given author is a "controversial person" who is unworthy of the support of the guild without regard to the content of their posts.

I know this is the case for myself, because I was told this by a guild member...

you come with a past reputation of controversial posts.

So, I'm essentially blacklisted by the main curation initiative that was intended to benefit similarly situated users. I've never been Curie eligible, because my rep was too high from the very beginning. However, I have struggled to get my work recognized at times.

So I agree with your concerns about guild members acting as gatekeepers. I have direct experience of being excluded from consideration for SG upvotes, due to some sort of character judgement or apparently disqualifying conduct that predates SG...

It's pretty frustrating, to be honest.

The Steem Guild rules say that the guild is not to vote on controversial posts, which is understandable. But apparently that extends beyond any particular post. There is a subjective judgement made about whether or not a given author is a "controversial person" who is unworthy of the support of the guild without regard to the content of their posts.

This is an inevitable consequence of managed voting. Think of it this way. Imagine some super controversial topic -- say abortion. So you have one high quality pro-choice post. One high-quality pro-life post. And an animated gif of a cat falling asleep.

The cat gif is what gets the guild vote. Becauese voting for the pro life post will potentially offend the pro-choice guild backers. And voting for the pro-choice post will potentially offend the pro-life guild backers.

I know what youre thinking -- vote for both. Equal time. But thats just going to offend both groups (or at least some of both groups).

The cat gif probably adds more value (in drawing users to the site). People love cats. Can't resist them. Meanwhile people have been blogging about he same tired pro-choice pro-life argument since the 90s, and since that time do you know what happened? Popular (i.e. non-celebrity) blogging mostly died, and was replaced by modes of interaction people actually enjoy, like sharing cat pics or comments about their day.

People who love cats are misguided (and, dare i say, probably witches). But i don't think the cat gif winning out is a bad thing (necessarily). Just that its an inevitable consequence of voting delegation/management schemes. With each level of separation between the person doing the voting and the person bankrolling the voting, the material that wins becomes more general, more vanilla flavored, more centrist.

Its like the kenysian beauty contest. At the first level, youre voting for the prettiest girl. Then youre voting for the girl you think everyone else thinks is the prettiest. Then, youre voting for the girl you think everyone else thinks everyone else thinks is the prettiest.

That said, my point would have been better served with an example not so tailored to personal tastes in content.
Say an impassioned argument from a trump supporter about militarism (or whatever the hell trump is supposed to stand for), an impassioned argument from a bernie sanders (the political guy not the steem guy) supporter, and a cookie cutter, middle of the road don't offend anyone Hillary clinton talking point press release. The clinton thing is the worse, and would probably get the least amount of votes if people were judging quality directly (at least in my opinion)

But as the source of the voting power gets further and further removed from the people actually casting the vote, i think Hillary gains ground against her two divisive competitors.

Maybe thats a good thing. but its a thing.

Its like the kenysian beauty contest

Which in a lot of ways, arguably, runs the world. Steemit can either join the train, or try to be about "real quality", and miss the train. At the moment we are largely missing the train (actually doing neither since the quality is mostly shit, and content that might actually attract a broad audience is shunned as too lowbrow).

I wasn't disputing your point about voting anomalies.

There is a subjective judgement made about whether or not a given author is a "controversial person" who is unworthy of the support of the guild without regard to the content of their posts.

I suppose that this is inevitable when personal preferences are involved, but I thought that the guilds were supposed to evaluate content more objectively - that they were supposed to evaluate the quality of the posts, not the authors. It is the content that should be rewarded, if I'm understanding their goals correctly.

I don't think it's right for a guild that has been delegated the CEO's voting power to intentionally exclude certain users, particularly if the posts themselves are not controversial. This represents a real problem with those who have been delegated that kind of responsibility. But I don't think you'll get an answer from the guild members about that. Perhaps @ned can comment on it?

Im waiting for HF 17 to comment as I've been entirely hands off on voting guilds. :) Blockchain level vote power delegation is coming....

Fair enough.

But it is your power being delegated to Steem Guild right now. And the response/reactions by some of its members and supporters is troubling.

That is excellent! I remember the idea floating around, but I didnt expect anything to come of it. Glad to learn it is on the way.

I am not sure it is fair to say you are hands off, if your voting power is delegated to the guild.

Eh, give the guy a break. It's clear what he meant. He has refrained from commenting, due to the upcoming changes he mentioned. After voting power can be delegated on the blockchain level, this will be a moot point.

once the abuse is institutionalized, it won't be abuse anymore? BEcause we can only assume that the same practices everyone is concerned about now (SG upvoting their own shitposts as payment for reading steemit) will continue.

Although I understand his point and yours, I disagree it isn't an issue right now. As, it is a creditability issue for SteemIt, and he is a Founder.

I would say it "appears" it is not a hands-off approach. Appearances matter.

I didn't burn him at the stake. ;)

There are tools which can measure how popular specific content published on steemit is in another social media: youtube, facebook, twitter, etc.

It would be great if there will be a guild, which would actually used those metrics as way to judge what should be supported on the platform.

Recently, Project Curie has adopted new guidelines for finding “undervalued” content, which allows them to vote on posts beginning at 45 minutes. Based on their intent, these voting practices from the guilds are contradictory. They don’t appear to be in line with their stated goals for discovery and rewarding content.

This is false. Curie now more than ever has doubled down on its goal for discovering, rewarding and retaining new authors on Steemit. You misunderstand the new guidelines. They were designed to absolutely decentralise submissions to the community. We were finally able to do that with our automated frontend.

In the case of Project Curie, the guild publishes one daily post which is then upvoted by the guild and its members and followers. While it’s still not ideal and still requires collective participation, it’s only the one post per day that gets upvoted.

Also false. The Daily Curie posts are not upvoted by the guild or @curie, and have not been for well over a month. All votes are from the Steem community. You can tell from the comments that there's overwhelming support for the project and it has helped retain hundreds of not thousands of users on Steemit. It's no surprise that they happily save a vote for @curie every day. The Daily Curie posts will be completely Payout Declined shortly after Hardfork 17 - we hope to fund the project entirely through SP delegation.

I would appreciate it if in the future you ask for a comment in #curie
on Steemit.chat before writing a post like this - we would be happy to clear your doubts. It's a public channel open for discussions so everything's on the record. You can scroll back through the history - you'll still find accusations from @noganoo - we don't delete discussions (only submissions). It hurts the community if you misrepresent basic facts.

I have no comment to the rest of your post - to each his own. I'd just like to add one point you seemed to have ignored completely. Indeed, the most important aspect about curation guilds - the community. The community of curators on Curie makes it the most engaged initiative on Steemit. These folks are dedicated and diligent and spend as much effort and time; and arguably bring as much value to Steem as content creators. Indeed, this is Steem's one true USP - rewarding curators, which could ultimately lead to a better platform than Reddit, which has a massive problem of content being lost in the void. The curator community in Curie is vibrant and thriving; in fact of late they are starting to greatly outnumber the influx of new authors. We hope the outreach and marketing initiatives take hold soon - Curie is primed and prepared for a massive influx of authors.

Most of all, I'd like to see more curation guilds founded. Plenty of unused whale voting power. I see you have formed your own independent guild with @tombstone, and I greatly appreciate that. I also notice you have exactly the same funding model as Steem Guild - I have no problem with that either, it's the free market in action. I would just like to see more guilds open up soon. Comment curation particularly seems like an obvious and also lucrative choice.

PS: Just to re-iterate, Curie's sole aim is to discover, reward and retain new authors on Steemit. As simple as that. Please feel free to criticize the project based on those grounds.

This is false. Curie now more than ever has doubled down on its goal for discovering, rewarding and retaining new authors on Steemit.

The previous submission times were limited to six hours, were they not? Just seeking clarification. I was also told by someone close to the project that curators could in fact vote via Streemian at the 45-minute mark. Other than that, the threshold is 150 minutes, or 2.5 hours. Is this not correct? (I will edit the post upon clarification.)

Also false. The Daily Curie posts are not upvoted by the guild or @curie, and have not been even once in 2017. All votes are from the Steem community.

I stand corrected. I will make the appropriate edit. However, I would like to note that this wasn't really the point. It was mostly a comparative issue to what Steem Guild does for payments.

I would also like to point out that this wasn't necessarily a critique about Curie. Most of the recent issues have been about Steem Guild and that was the focal point of this post. The other general comments about the effectiveness of the guilds can apply to all guilds, however, regarding the adoption, retention, and morale of the community. There isn't growth and the attrition rates are still high, despite the efforts of the guilds. And that is not to say that such efforts are bad - it is merely an acknowledgement that they aren't working...that other issues appear to be a bigger factor.

The previous submission times were limited to six hours, were they not? Just seeking clarification. I was also told by someone close to the project that curators could in fact vote via Streemian at the 45-minute mark. Other than that, the threshold is 150 minutes, or 2.5 hours. Is this not correct? (I will edit the post upon clarification.)

The new Curie system is a decentralized submission platform where everyone is free to discover and submit posts. The standard guideline is 150 minutes. However, the top 12 curators by Curators Score get access to the 45 minute point. Each week the top 12 curators shuffles by the performance of the curators the previous week. You are invited to submit posts by new authors at https://streemian.com/guild/curie. You are a valuable curator and I have no doubt you will rise to the Top 12 pretty quickly. The finder's fee of 8 Steem per approved post is available for everyone.

The reason why there's a tiered system is to avoid unnecessary spamming and streamline reviewing. This is why the previous guideline was 6 hours as our moderators had to check for guidelines manually in #curie, but with our automated frontend, we could reduce it down to 150 minutes and 45 minutes.

I would also like to point out that this wasn't necessarily a critique about Curie. Most of the recent issues have been about Steem Guild and that was the focal point of this post. The other general comments about the effectiveness of the guilds can apply to all guilds, however, regarding the adoption, retention, and morale of the community. There isn't growth and the attrition rates are still high, despite the efforts of the guilds. And that is not to say that such efforts are bad - it is merely an acknowledgement that they aren't working...that other issues appear to be a bigger factor.

Curation guilds have nothing to do with growing the platform. This is a major misconception. That's the area of outreach programs and general marketing. Curation guilds have an impact in improving visibility of good content and retaining authors. They have been a remarkable success in this area. There's enough anecdotal evidence for this - you can see hundreds if not thousands of authors make it clear in as many words - "We would have left Steemit long ago were it not for X curation guild". Indeed, pre-Curie, there were only 20-30 authors which were getting all the votes, and the bots were swarming them. There were hundreds/thousands of authors which exited the platform in August/September. Maybe of them returned in December with HF16, and I'm happy to report that Curie has managed to retain many of those returning authors.

Indeed, the platform has been growing since the troughs pre-HF16. The daily post count is now 50% over the trough (averaging 1200-1300 now versus 700-800 at its lowest) and active voters has more than doubled. Yet, much of that is due to the positive sentiment around HF16 - that's the kind of thing that grows the platform. Crucially, the posts are much higher quality and Curie has to constantly raise its quality bar to adjust. You'll notice that the platform has not been shrinking this time, unlike in July, and successfully retaining the influx of users in December. This is where the curation guilds are succeeding admirably.

I did say to each his own, but I hope my additional comments here broadens your perspective to the real impact of curation guilds.

Now, I'm looking forward to outreach programs and some of Steemit Inc's roadmap of growing the user base and bringing in new authors. I promise you it will not be a repeat of July 2016 where thousands of users came and thousands of users existed. This time, we shall retain them.

If we fail to do so - then I shall be Curie's greatest critic.

Also false. The Daily Curie posts are not upvoted by the guild or @curie, and have not been for well over a month. All votes are from the Steem community. You can tell from the comments that there's overwhelming support for the project and it has helped retain hundreds of not thousands of users on Steemit. It's no surprise that they happily save a vote for @curie every day. The Daily Curie posts will be completely Payout Declined shortly after Hardfork 17 - we hope to fund the project entirely through SP delegation.

ive been downvoting these, but am taking them out of my downvote list. I was unaware of this. That said lets be realistic. The daily curie posts aren't the only vote-funding for curie.

Interesting that you cut off the list at # 10. Guess who is # 13? That would be @ats-david who upvotes himself on every post (in addition to upvoting many comments to make it look like others agree with you) with the @tombstone account, which is one of the Top 15 SP-holding accounts on Steemit. And you pop on a few dozen more votes with your trail, again to make it look like people agree with you. Haven't been too transparent about that, have you? Aside from your ongoing hypocrisy and the fact that you seem to think people working 10 hour days should do so for free, it's a worthwhile discussion.

Interesting that you cut off the list at # 10. Guess who is # 13? That would be @ats-david...

Yes, that is correct. I am at 13. I provided the link for everyone to see. I have nothing to hide.

...who upvotes himself on every post (in addition to upvoting many comments to make it look like others agree with you)

I very rarely vote on my own comments, and usually only upvote them if I have been flagged. When I do upvote for other reasons - which is rare - I mostly upvote at 1%.

...with the @tombstone account, which is one of the Top 15 SP-holding accounts on Steemit. Haven't been too transparent about that, have you?

Yes, actually, I have. But it should be noted, I am not in a guild and I am upvoting for my own reasons. I do not profess to upvote "for the good of Steemit" or to "balance out post rewards" in order to make things more "fair."

Aside from your ongoing hypocrisy and the fact that you seem to think people working 10 hour days should do so for free, it's a worthwhile discussion.

Thank you for highlighting the very thing I talked about at the beginning of this post. If you have nothing of value to add to this discussion, I would ask that you kindly excuse yourself from it.

Yes, actually, I have. But it should be noted, I am not in a guild and I am upvoting for my own reasons. I do not profess to upvote "for the good of Steemit" or to "balance out post rewards" in order to make things more "fair."

It doesn't matter what one professes, the model is precisely the same. The only differences are that Steem Guild is a collaborative effort while your guild is an individual effort and Steem Guild has much more voting power (again, makes sense as there's far more manpower involved). Otherwise, the model seems identical. You vote on your own posts and de-facto get a vote by your trail including @tombstone.

I have absolutely no problem with that and greatly respect you for going out and convincing a whale your curation is high quality. Kudos to both you and Steem Guild!

In many ways @liberosist is correct. It might not be precisely the same thing, but it is similar in many ways.

The key difference is that @ats-david votes for himself presumably because he believes that the content that he is posting meets some subjective critera of "good". TITS he votes for the content, not the person.

SG curators get their whale vote as a reward for work allegedly done in the service of SG. Getting whale upvotes for low quality posts (many of which are borderline plagarist or barely coherent) which, presumably, would not otherwise receive them is part of your model, and its not a part of @ats-david s. (and as i noted in the thread with smooth below, when your stated purpose is to increase the exposure of good content, but youre funding the endeavor with undeserved (based on quality of content alone) upvotes on relatively low quality posts, then it really begs the question: what are you really trying to accomplish?

Personally i think ATSD's posts are normally of a high quality, even the ones that cover topics like sports that don't interest me particularly. If ATSD got a bunch more whale followers like the vals and the michaels, and if he started posting incoherent plagiarist drivel 4 times a day and self-upvoting it as a reward for his curation efforts on other posts, Then yeah, hed be almost as bad as SG. Still no threats (that i know of) or downvoting critics (that i know of) but almost. Then again without the "for the good of steem" rhetoric that SG uses, hed probably lose most of those whale followers if he did that.

It doesn't matter what one professes, the model is precisely the same.

It actually is not the same. My model is based on ROI. The goal of my trail is to maximize my SP rewards. It has nothing at all to do with better distribution of rewards. I do not seek "undervalued content" and I do not curate based on "the good of Steemit." As I have stated before, my votes are based on the following:

  1. I vote for content that I like.
  2. I vote for content by authors that I choose to support.
  3. I vote for content that can maximize my curation rewards.
  4. I vote for content that has been overlooked - if it can maximize my curation rewards.

Or any combination of those four.

I am not a guild and my votes are given almost entirely based on my self-interest. My trail is open for anyone to join or to leave. I ultimately have no control over that. I have not been delegated any specific SP for any stated purposes of "improving" Steemit or finding specific content.

I was also approached by Tombstone. He thought it would be an interesting experiment. I did not seek out any particular whales. It is entirely coincidental. I have curated almost exactly how I was curating before all of my followers joined my trail.

So, in short - I am not at all like the existing guilds. The fact that I upvote my own posts - like any other users - is to be expected. When Steem Guild upvotes each of their members' posts at a much higher voting power than the rest of their selections (which was 3-4 times as high), it's an entirely different ballgame. The Steemwhales.com image demonstrates the effects of that.

Of course, we are getting into semantics here, but for me you are by definition a delegated curation guild. A very different type of guild, sure, but the same model applies. I'd call it an individual curation guild. You could call it whatever you want - but you have a whale and several other accounts following you trail. You get paid both by curation rewards and by author rewards from votes on this trail. You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow. Don't do that, by the way! You should definitely get the rewards for your work. It's a free market.

I recognize your criticism of Steem Guild, but that's purely a matter of magnitude.

A very different type of guild, sure, but the same model applies.

I will reiterate that it is not the same model, for the reasons explained previously. The stated goals are different, the delegated power is different, the procedures and criteria are different, and the results are different.

Yes, there is a difference in magnitude, but this is practically irrelevant. The differences in the above-mentioned factors are what separates what I do and what guilds do. The fact that people receive a larger payout than my single vote is literally the only similarity between me and the existing guilds.

If Tombstone was not part of my trail, that would not change my curation habits. But I would venture to guess that if the members of Curie or Steem Guild had no whale backing, I doubt that they would be curating as they do now with the guild and its guidelines. Their voting habits would likely be different - or they simply would not exist. And this is due to the fact that the purpose of their existence is entirely different from mine and functions in an entirely different manner.

I recognize your criticism of Steem Guild, but that's purely a matter of magnitude.

It's much more than a matter of magnitude, as I explained in the post. There are many reasons for me to be against what they're doing, and some of those reasons haven't even been fully explained, due to the length of the post as it stands now.

You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow.

I don't think he should not self-upvote. That said, IMO it would be a really good thing if streemian had an option to exclude vote following for self upvotes.

[tree limit] It doesn't matter what your purpose or intent is, or what you call it. And it doesn't matter if you have a whale following. Steem Trail doesn't, for one.

To quote myself again -

You could call it whatever you want - but you have a whale and several other accounts following you trail. You get paid both by curation rewards and by author rewards from votes on this trail. You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow. Don't do that, by the way! You should definitely get the rewards for your work. It's a free market.

Let's leave it at that, shall we? You can call it whatever you want, but the above facts don't change.

I checked you out on steemdb after you flagged my comment with my own followers' voting power. Do not attempt to take the moral high ground here. You vote every one of your posts with 100% power of the guild, then vote other ones considerably lower.

And you flagged my comment which was between you and I alone with my own followers' voting power against their wishes.

You are not honest. Do not pretend to be because it's unbecoming.

Gaming the system is one thing. If there are vulnerabilities within the system that can be exploited, then until they are resolved this sort of thing is expected. Such is why I never mentioned this before today.

Trying to pretend you're not gaming the system whilst accusing others of doing so is much worse than the abuse itself. Be a fucking man and own up to your actions. This is embarrassing to read.

You earned that flag. I don't hand them out without careful consideration. I see that you haven't learned much since then.

If your only plan is to try to insult me, you may earn yourself another one.

If you have anything useful to add regarding my post, feel free to comment on that.

You earned that flag. I don't hand them out without careful consideration. I see that you haven't learned much since then.

If you're only plan is to try to insult me, you may earn yourself another one.

Your mistake, David, is believing that I am in need of whatever lesson you are trying to give me. I don't care if you flag me. 1 flag, or 1,000,000 flags. I really do not care.

You're actions are far from honourable, and I will say this regardless of your pathetic attempts to threaten me with a flag.

My goal is not to insult you, that gets us nowhere. That is merely a byproduct of me having absolutely no respect for you. I have always said what is on my mind since I was a child. I see no reason to hide my opinion, especially when that opinion pertains to someone who is hurting a community that I have grown to love.

The point of my message is to highlight the hypocrisy of this post and the dishonest nature of your words. Shame on you.

It's an economy. You somehow want to make it a socialist state and dictate what others can do with their voting stakes. These people are working hard and those who have justifiably accumulated large SP stakes have chosen to 'employ' them to do the hard work of tracking 400 authors and making sure their best posts get rewarded. If you add similar value, perhaps someone will see fit to reward you. Oh, that's right, the 14th largest account on Steemit already does, plus you use your trail of trolls to vote on your posts and comments to make you seem important. Are you just upset you didn't make the Top 10?

You somehow want to make it a socialist state and dictate what others can do with their voting stakes.

I would suggest that you actually read the post. Here is a direct quote:

Before I begin, I want to make this clear:

Any user can use or delegate their stake however they wish. I have never advocated forcing anyone to use their stake in any particular manner. Any arguments made are simply arguments for the purpose of discussion/debate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking things through and finding a general community “consensus” on a given issue.

You're continuing to look extremely foolish. I would advise trying to be more respectful and perhaps users would be more willing to have an honest discussion with you. But the choice is yours.

Honest discussions? Give me a break. You've dismissed everything that is not self-serving to you and the curation rewards you earn from voting @tombstone and trails on all of your posts and many of your comments. Honest discussion would involve comments that do not get upvoted by your whale and trail. That practice is sleazier than anything about which you have complained. I challenge you to go back and look at how many discussions you have falsely steered in your direction through that dishonest obfuscation. "The community" does not include your itchy finger.

@ats-david is it true? Every post? I mean look at the hypocrisy!

Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion?

Answer the question, don't be evasive.

True or false, you are the biggest hypocrite in here upvoting yourself with @tombstone while pointing fingers?

Didn't we had this conversation back in Curie when you realized I never took a single dime and you backed off? Or was it another one?

But is @steemship correct? Are you showing huge signs of hipocrisy? Do you or do you not upvote ALL your posts and point the finger?

Do you or do you not upvote comments (the toxic ones with dangerous accusations) with people's train without their consent to start trouble?

You know, like sociopaths do?

Do you do that? or is it false?

Didn't we had this conversation back in Curie when you realized I never took a single dime and you backed off?

We have never had a discussion in Curie. And I never had a reason to "back off" because I have never attempted to "attack" anybody. I have been respectful, including in my conversations with @donkeypong, @hanshotfirst, and @ned.

Now, if you feel the need to continue trolling, I would suggest that you reconsider. You're not exactly making yourself look good here. If you would rather prefer to have an honest and respectful discussion, I would appreciate that.

And you voted the Wingz comment with your trail instead of this rather less flattering part of the tree. So it looks like that one has 65 votes. Steem Guild members have NEVER been that sleazy. You are the one who owes this community some transparency and accountability. Well played, David, sir.

I am respectfully asking valid questions. Trolling is something else.

Trolling is when you use people's vote trains to vote on toxic comments, that is trolling ;)

I'm all for honesty. Since we are on honesty.

Do you abuse people's vote trains AGAINST their consent to vote on toxic comments?

You see that is not very honest, now is it?

Is @steemship correct with the massive hypocrisy question or is he wrong? Do you vote ALL your posts while pointing the fingers?

I rest my case.

@ats-david I love that you wrote this, and it brought back many conversations we had when users, including myself were questioning steemvoter and ozcharts.. It is the same conversation. Bots voting up the same users every day, sometimes multiple times a day.

The end result is SteemIt isn't lotteryish at all. We can all guess who will trend tomorrow. The community grows weary, and we rinse and repeat. I guess it doesn't matter what "side or group" you are in. It just feels scamy.

We have never had a discussion in Curie. And I never had a reason to "back off" because I have never attempted to "attack" anybody. I have been respectful, including in my conversations with @donkeypong, @hanshotfirst, and @ned.

lol i think hes confusing you with me. Back when curie first started up, i commented on a post that i was skeptical about the effectiveness of the model because the way it funded itself (curie posts and curie founders getting thousands in rewards for statistics and self congratulation) worked at cross-purposes to its stated intent (getting more money to those producing quality content).

The response was a slew of profanity, threats and assorted nonsense in both chat and the thread. Including threats of a blacklist (which were later deleted and revised. Apparently in whatever language they speak on the alien's home planet the word "blacklist" means "mute-button". Who knew.)

When another user (who quit soon after) saw the absurd rant in chat, he posted about it, but was pressured by curie to remove the post.

@the-alien I would have preferred you to answer the criticisms leveled against Steem Guild rather than go straight on the offensive. Whether hypocrite or not, @ats-david has raised some issues which I'd like to see discussed. That's fair isn't it?

Sure, all the answers are here.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/steem-guild-another-important-update

Now, let's go back to the subject.

Using people's voting train AGAINST their consent to start trouble on toxic comments, and voting himself all the time while pointing the finger. That's huge!

I would like to see an update or a post about why he does that.

They don't seem to be interested, obviously.

Do you or do you not upvote comments (the toxic ones with dangerous accusations) with people's train without their consent to start trouble?

You know, like sociopaths do?

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

If ATSD's followers don't like what hes upvoting, they can tell him with their feet.

Indeed. He apparently does not know how Streemian trails work. Rather than find out, he chooses ad hominem arguments.

Wow! What planet do you come from anyway?
@ats-david just wants to have a discussion.
Tranquilo amigo

You know, like sociopaths do?

Maybe we should leave making a diagnosis such as sociapathy to the professionals. We probably don't have the data to back up such claims and it could look a lot like flaming. Just my best advice here, not picking sides.

Someone who wanna focus on small loose words to divert for the context...

for great justice, take off every zig?

I'm sorry that semantics overshadowed the context for you. But I agree, it's just semantics, and in case someone is a grammar Nazi, or god forbid, someone who wanna focus on small loose words to divert for the context...

You're right that is no data to back that up. Luckily, you are not pick up sides here, and we have plenty of data to focus on, data about:

Massive lies about retention and otherwise, deceit, abuse of vote trails to make certain comment trend, tremendous hypocrisy... And that's just the surface.

Thank you, and have a good weekend.

I'm sorry that semantics overshadowed the context for you.

It's not that it did for me, but it might for other readers is what I'm saying. Ok, a great weekend to you too.

Have a great weekend too!

You know, I would never have mentioned this had I not seen this post which is in extremely bad taste. But, this person also downvoted me with a voting trail in a personal dispute between he and I, using my own followers' voting power.

I spoke to one of the followers who's power was used to downvote me and he told me that he never gave permission for his power to be used in such a way,. especially not to down vote me who he has had many positive interactions with.

Furthermore, I then asked how he came to give his power to @atsdavid and I was told that he was approached in a steemitchat room by david himself and convinced to sign up to streemian and give his power to atsdavid.

I personally find this to be disgusting behaviour and a serious abuse of power that is gifted by those with the intent of doing good. I find this post to be ripe with hypocrisy, and it as at times like this I am somewhat ashamed of being human.

I think a better example ought to be set, and I shall be doing what I can to ensure that exactly that happens.

This is the problem with a one-man curation guild (with whales and other vote trains following). There are no checking mechanisms. Let me copy and paste my reply for @abit's comment below when I explained about the way Curie works (and SG too I believe):-

It's not just up to the whims of one person to vote on anything anytime. For example, I have friends who joined Steemit but I'll personally avoid suggesting / voting on any of them.

Even if I were to help out by always suggesting their stuff, another one or two person still needs to vouch for it - I can't just submit a friend's crappy posts and get them voted on that easily. It's a way to reduce chances of insider help and avoid abusing voting power given by the whales.

Imagine whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators coming up with good looking sock-puppet accounts to vote on them easily. Without other parties to vouch for such posts / accounts, such an arrangement could very well be abused.

Even without sock-puppets, there's still potential for whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators to abuse their votes in many ways. Unless people are okay with it. I'm not saying that's what @ats-david is doing. But I hope we can agree that solo curation is basically for self-interest, as expressed by OP himself.

Edited: personally I'd say that OP himself is doing good curation, but the point is that it doesn't exempt the fact that such an arrangement (being followed by whale / trail votes) for solo curators could be abused. Backers would need to be diligent and check on each and every triggered votes themselves. Under a guild like Curie (and i think SG works that way too), we make it worry-free for our backers.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@kevinwong/the-truth-about-guilds-and-individuals-illustrated

Even without sock-puppets, there's still potential for whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators to abuse their votes in many ways. Unless people are okay with it. I'm not saying that's what @ats-david is doing.

I have never made any promises to my trail followers that I would never flag any posts or comments. Regardless, as I stated, I very rarely flag content anyway. I made an exception in his case, because as you can see, this user quickly becomes defensive, then aggressive, and begins to hurl insults. You can see his true nature below - in the comment that you actually upvoted.

I'm actually surprised to see that you endorsed that.

To talk about "honor" and the "disgusting behavior" of others while leaving commentary like that is the ultimate hypocrisy that he speaks of when attempting to condemn me (for "abuse" that isn't actually abuse). We can all see who is actually engaging in the disgusting behavior. And yes - I will flag that, trail or no trail.

I have never made any promises to my trail followers that I would never flag any posts or comments. Regardless, as I stated, I very rarely flag content anyway. I made an exception in his case, because as you can see, this user quickly becomes defensive, then aggressive, and begins to hurl insults. You can see his true nature below - in the comment that you actually upvoted.

I'm actually surprised to see that you endorsed that.

Fair enough. Although I'm not one to throw insults etc, I'm also not one to punish anyone if I feel insulted / offended. But I'll remove my vote seeing that it seems that your disputes are running deeper than what I'm seeing on the surface.

I flagged your comment after several in a row by you trying to do nothing but insult me. The flag was well-deserved and extremely rare.

Also, trail followers have their own settings. They can choose whether to follow flags or not. There is nothing "disgusting" or "abusive" about it. Please learn how the trail functions work before commenting on it, if you're not sure.

Also, trail followers have their own settings. They can choose whether to follow flags or not.

This is a key point in this exchange. ATSD's followers elected to follow his downvotes as well as his upvotes. Presumably because they trust his judgement.

Another key point is this: there is a built in protection against ATSD abusing his DV following. If he does so, he will lose that trust (and as a result, his following). FWIW, i am seriously skeptical that most of his (or anyones) followers would consider DVing a comment where someone drops the C-bomb on him (or the N-bomb on his mom) an abuse of the DV.

if the follower really didn't know that he was following downvotes, then it seems to be a caveat emptor issue. He could have easily opted out of downvoting.

I flagged your comment after several in a row by you trying to do nothing but insult me. The flag was well-deserved and extremely rare.

I am a man of truth. If I call you a cunt, it's because your actions were that of a cunt. I believe it was actually a suck up I referred to you as though-- which your actions backed up. I told you I didn't want you messaging me again, also true.

I don't care if I had called you a smelly, homeless nigger with a whore for a mother. What I said to you is irrelevant, because it was said to YOU. And as such, if you felt it warranted a flag then you should have flagged me with your own account. Not with other's.

Considering I spoke to one of my followers and asked him if he was aware his voting power was used to downvote me, to which he was appalled and ended up revoking his power from your curation trail, I would say that it is obviously not clear enough that the voting power will be used for flagging.

He said he did not know it would be used for such purposes, and considering you personally approached him in steemitchat and convinced him to sign up to streemian and give you his power, it is on YOU to inform him of the possibility of his power being used to flag posts that you personally deem worthy of a flag.

As I said, I am a man of truth. If I call you a cunt, it's because you're a cunt. And you are a cunt. You have no right to the moral high ground, so stop attempting to claim it.

Steemit has so much potential, but the likes of you are tainting it and holding it back from progressing.

I'd agree with your point about the misuse of trail downflagging for personal matters.

Steemit has so much potential, but the likes of you are tainting it and holding it back from progressing.

However, I'd disagree here. I think @ats-david has good intentions despite the dispute you guys are unfortunately having.

Well, I hope that I may bear witness to these good intentions in future, because that is certainly not what close observation has revealed to me thus far.

Just for the record, most of that trail was me

Fair enough and thanks for mentioning it. Personally, I find that to be a very sleazy practice (using dozens of votes from people who have entrusted you with their voting power) to make it look like they agree with your opinion. No one on Steem Guild has ever used the votes they represent in such a manner - not once have they upvoted one of their own comments or any Steemit-related post with other peoples' accounts. It is a flagrant misuse of peoples' voting power and it skews public opinion very inaccurately.

In my case, I did not give consent or ask anyone to follow me. I just found out one day that 30+ votes followed my own. Therefore in terms of trust... I'm not really beholden to anyone.

I rarely vote on my own comments, due to respecting that forced 'responsibility' - but felt in this instance that I'd like to be heard.

Why not?

There is an enormous false premise here being spinned. That "the goals of retention are not being met."

If we have been upvoting the same authors for months, and they are still here... So how did we exactly fail to retain them?

The goals of retention in the Steem Guild are consistent, as @kevinwong mentioned below, day in, day out.

I would respectfully suggest to Mr. @ats.david to ease out on the false comments.

None of us can prove how many users left frustrated from watching the same people get rewarded day after day. One of the accounts in question was trending when they ADMITTED to just rewriting the article .. (not enough) and still kept trending the very next day!

fyi, in case you wonder what impact that has on people, it makes me feel like if I were to invest in SteemIt, my money would be redistributed to whales, sock-puppets, and friends of the whales. It makes me feel the site can't be trusted and the largest stakeholders can do what they want. If anyone speaks out or even has a question, they are threatened, teased and attacked mostly by those who are benefiting from collusive voting.

That is how SteemIt feels. There are many who want to earn posting, who can't speak out about it.

Personally, I had higher hopes for SteemIt than some rewards from a post. I can't even believe it is being justified... To upvote the curator's content at a higher level than the content you are curating? Are you really defending that? I haven't once seen you or the others say. "Maybe that wasn't a good idea.". Carry on.

Are you really defending that? I haven't once seen you or the others say. "Maybe that wasn't a good idea."

At best, I have only heard them say, "We don't really like the idea, but it's what the whales want." Frankly - I don't find that to be a very compelling argument, especially since I have personally spoken with Ned about this very subject. There seems to be a lot of attempts at justification and passing the buck, but no actual acknowledgement about how users actually perceive it and feel about it. This doesn't help the situation.

And there is almost a complete lack of any discussion about the arguments raised in this post. I'm wondering if some of them even bothered to read it.

If anyone speaks out or even has a question, they are threatened, teased and attacked mostly by those who are benefiting...

Yes - as I stated at the beginning of this post, it is the M.O. of many users to simply attack and attempt to silence, deflect, or project. You can see in this very post how some of the guild members and their supporters have decided to act. I attempted to have an open discussion about legitimate points of criticism. What have I received? Flags, personal attacks, and trolling. And a lot of it is coming from the very people who have been entrusted with the CEO's delegated power. Ned, however, seems to believe that claiming to be "hands off" (which he is certainly not, due to his involvement with the guild and its members) is the best way to handle it.

Nobody wants to assume any responsibility, let alone act civilly.

When I read the comments here, I want to put the "self-voters" on mute.
However, @ats-david, I happen to think it reads about the same as it did during the steemvoter, steemsports, ozcharts, debates. Just different people taking different sides.

I still say as long as the voting seems fixed, it makes SteemIt look scammy.

Thank you for your post and the discussion.

Plus, retention is elusive. We can't expect people to be glued on Steemit 24/7, some will take off and do their own stuff and maybe come back later. This is the true test of a good social platform and it's hard to measure.

All in all, the point is that guilds are distributing far more votes than a few whales could possibly achieve themselves. I personally don't see what all the accusations about "centralisation" of power are about.

without getting into a debate about the success of the retention program, I just have to point out that this is super convienient (and also super bad) "logic"

Obv, the ones that youre still voting on are still here. otherwise, you wouldn't still be voting on them. The question is how many have been lost because even scraps you throw them (while retaining the lions share of the reward pool for the under-the-table funding of various projects all run by the same group of people) aren't sufficient to keep them interested.

you can't both claim that youre retention efforts have been successful, and that measurement of such success is elusive.

Yup definitely not arguing about whether or not guild efforts have been successful retaining people. We can't control anyone. The point is helping whales distribute far more votes. There was a period back in middle 2016 when the zipfian distribution was heavily skewed only for the few early adopters. Now the tail is fatter.

I don't necessarily agree that zeta is the most relevant stastic to measure rewards, but i think it would be interesting to see a real statistical analysis of late july zeta. vs zeta right now.

A more valid stastical metric for the success of reward distribution between mid july and now would be weekly lists of users, grouped according to standard deviation from the mean for rewards, and how much of the reward pool went to which standard deviations.

I suspect (though i havent yet been able to figure out how to pull out the information in an automated way) that neither metric would support your position.

I'd like to see that each one of the guild member leading one whale's vote, but not all of the members leading all of the whales. This will smooth out the reward distribution.

guilds are distributing far more votes than a few whales could

This is arguable. One whale can hire one curator to vote 40 times a day, 5 whales then there will be 200 times in total, it's similar to the number of votes cast by the guild everyday.

Yup, that would work too, although it's slightly different for a guild like curie. There needs to be 2-3 vouches for a single post to get voted on (I believe this is the case for SG too).

It's not just up to the whims of one person to vote on anything anytime. For example, I have friends who joined Steemit but I'll personally avoid suggesting / voting on any of them.

Even if I were to help out by always suggesting their stuff, another one or two person still needs to vouch for it - I can't just submit a friend's crappy posts and get them voted on that easily. It's a way to reduce chances of insider help and avoid abusing voting power given by the whales.

Imagine whale-powered solo curators coming up with good looking sock-puppet accounts to vote on them easily. Without other parties to vouch for such posts / accounts, such an arrangement could very well be abused. @abit

Also to add - it's not going to be possible for one curator to cover such big grounds, especially if the # of posts are gonna be growing. It's easy to vote 40 times a day, but it certainly takes way more time to check through pretty much all posts of the day and decide where the 40 will go to. (in terms of Curie's generic curation).

Certainly arguable, but I hope you see that it's not that straight-forward.

Edited to add this part:-

I'd like to see that each one of the guild member leading one whale's vote, but not all of the members leading all of the whales. This will smooth out the reward distribution.

If you're unaware, we don't frontrun whales by voting with our personal accounts.. we'll always use a non-personal account. Our personal account votes will never trigger anything from the whales.

(added: by the way , what you've mentioned is better suited for comment curation).

Thanks for the reply.
IMHO that's just how capital/market works. Everyone give out their opinions, of course different people will have different opinions, at the end, the ones get positive feedback from all voters get the most rewards, the ones got less positive feedback get less rewards. If I understood correctly, your approach is more like communism, only reward the ones that you all agreed to reward, as someone pointed out, it's less likely to scale well.
By the way, when I used the word "leading", I meant that one member vote with a whale's account, but not necessarily mean front running, from an author's point of view it's no difference.

[tree limit..] @abit

Ah yeap, leading / frontrunning (not accusing of any intent to cheat backers btw hehe - you're right there's no difference).

IMHO everything that happens is what happens in the free-market, no matter if things look like capitalism or communism or socialism. I've got nothing against solo or group curation - everything has pros and cons. That said, different parts of the free-market will quite simply, develop different structures until it dies off or evolves according to market sentiment at any moment in time.

So how Curie works at this moment is anyone will be able to suggest posts on Curiesteem.com, and there are about 6 of us on the approval side of things (looking to "decentralize" our approval powers too). So there is no account list to support. The only "list" is any account below a certain reputation (level 62 at time of writing).

There's also a curator score / approval rating system in place too to promote great curators and reducing spam / low quality submissions. In that, I believe Curie will be able to scale very well since the "workforce" is essentially the entire community itself.

It's a community project now that incentives accurate, quality submissions - https://steemit.com/curation/@curie/curie-and-community-an-open-invitation-for-all-to-be-part-of-our-curation-works-powered-by-streemian

(Many may not have read it since I guess there's some bad name for guilds in general, so just linking it here for your perusal and consideration - imo, Daily Curie list is getting much better these days)

SG on the other hand is rather different with its growing fixed set list of authors to support (basically selected authors from level 63 and above, at time of writing).

(wrong reply). supposed to be for @son-of-satire

Loading...

When replying to such a long post its difficult to form the right kind of arguments. I'll try and reply to the ones that were most relevant to me.

Looking at the top trending authors of the last month and seeing that they pretty much all come from the Steem guild and are self voting is a red flag.

Anyone that's on top trending consistently for too long on a bot list evidently reduces the quality of their posts. We've seen it play out multiple times on Steemit.

I think the guild members started out on high quality posts, but some of them are pumping out poor quality posts lately.

The argument that those members are worth that % of the reward pool is nonsense. That they're entitled to a developed economy's middle class 'pay' is ridiculous.

What matters is the % they siphon from the reward pool and the perception that siphoning has on future growth.

6 months ago I saw this developing, when steemed announced his author list - it may apply to this situation...

https://postimg.org/image/406k6xrgt/

It brings me to an appropriate Orwell quote "All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others"

Power eventually corrupts.

Anyone that's on top trending consistently for too long on a bot list evidently reduces the quality of their posts

I think that's actually a bit broad. When I had a bot list I noticed that some authors milked it, and some authors continued to produce good content without even increasing their frequency of posts. As with everything there are good apples and bad apples. I noted this because I received complaints and evaluated them. Sometimes I agreed with the complaint and took the author off the list, other times after evaluating the authors contributions I did not agree and saw no decline in quality. Ultimately it is up to the stakeholder to decide if their votes are being used constructively, whether they are being done personally, with a bot, or via a hired guild. If that doesn't work then the system rules don't work, at least not with the stake distribution that was created here. That's a plausible argument.

Ultimately it is up to the stakeholder to decide if their votes are being used constructively, whether they are being done personally, with a bot, or via a hired guild.

agree with this completely. I think arguments to the effectiveness (and the unintended consequences) of guilds like the OP are generally aimed at changing the large stakeholders minds about their support of these guilds.

Very true, not in all cases but in most from my perspective the last few months I've been here.

I don't think it's about good and bad apples in general. Just people getting wrapped up in their ego in the face of perceived high rewards vs a 'normal job'.

I think we both realize this system is potentially plagued within a tragedy of the commons context.

I don't think it's about good and bad apples in general. Just people getting wrapped up in their ego in the face of perceived high rewards vs a 'normal job'.

its not even really about ego. Its about common sense. If im going to get paid 100/post regardless of quality, its really really stupid of me not to post the maximum number of posts allowed per day (at least from an economic standpoint).

The same thing happened with cars in the 70s in the united states. US car manufacturers were producing shit that couldnt compete with japanese manufacturers. So the government subsidized them. ANd what did they do -- they just doubled down on the shit.

Yeah, i might lose my support if my quality declines significantly. But there's certainly no evidence that will happen on steemit. Especially since its fairly obvious that many (not all) whales don't even read the posts they upvote... they just set their bots and continue to upvote as many posts as the author cares to write.

All things being subjective, and whether or not if anyone's in agreement with the results of guild curation works.. there's a level of objectivity in the work performed by SG members with their routine - you can see them distributing votes to the folks in SG list day in and out. Now what else is there to say when most who are not associated with guild works are also earning pretty decently, including @ats-david who seems to be doing well too just being a solo-operator with no objective, obligatory work so to speak.

I will remain with my opinion that SG should either revise their fees or just try to stay away from occupying top trending all too often from self-upvotes. Personally, this is the only valid problem with SG that I'm seeing in the entire dissertation that @ats-david has put forth. Whether they're overpaid or not, I hope they'll discuss it with the whales that have delegated their voting power to see if its fair compensation. I'm sure they've discussed it in length.

So to answer @ats-david

I invite any comments – whether you agree or disagree. Let’s have a civil discussion and see if we can’t figure out better ways to tackle user adoption, retention, and any perceived unfairness of the platform.

I will recommend everybody to check out the post that I've put up a few days ago regarding this. Blockchain communities are a VERY new thing (even the metrics are so elusive) and I hope if anyone's serious enough in trying to help the platform, please read and study up, or hire the consultancy firm stated in this post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@kevinwong/building-and-evaluating-the-value-of-blockchain-communities

Anyone that's on top trending consistently for too long on a bot list evidently reduces the quality of their posts. We've seen it play out multiple times on Steemit.

I noticed this a while ago. Its a classic liquidity trap, though i don't believe its actually fair, or accurate, to call it corruption. Its simple self interest.

The argument that those members are worth that % of the reward pool is nonsense. That they're entitled to a developed economy's middle class 'pay' is ridiculous.

I think that's the most ridiculous aspect of this as well. You have a handful of users who believe that their curation efforts deserve a weekly wage of hundreds of dollars, while everyone else's curation efforts get them a very small amount of SP rewards - a few dollars per week, if they're lucky. And as I pointed out - the time and energy that they have to put into curation is entirely due to their self-imposed guidelines. If the curation rewards are not worth the effort, then don't do it. But collectivizing the costs so that they can essentially have a "living wage" is absurd to me.

Steemit isn't supposed to replace your full-time job, unless the price happens to rise and we all get rich, or you earn enough Mvests to curate and power down your weekly rewards to live off of them. Other than that, you probably shouldn't quit your day job.

Looking at the top trending authors of the last month and seeing that they pretty much all come from the Steem guild and are self voting is a red flag.

That's one of the first things that I noticed after speaking with one of the guild members and seeing the first update post. Then I realized why I was hearing some of the grumblings behind the scenes. It was just a poor decision in general to make that the "payment" structure and to continue it, especially coming from the CEO of Steemit and the things that had transpired last fall and the recent issues with Dan's flagging. It just doesn't look good - and perception is reality, unfortunately.

On a micro scale I've had some some great conversations with the Steem guild guys. On a macro this just looks wrong. I mean 'payment' for curation to the extent that you're in the top 10 of rewarded authors?

Not an appropriate response, if anything, Steemit Inc should provide a cut of curation rewards as you stated above. The trending page is one of the only marketing tools available. Stepping back from what I know, it looks like there's something wrong at first glance.

I mean 'payment' for curation to the extent that you're in the top 10 of rewarded authors?

Curation should absolutely be on par with writing in terms of payment. In fact, at its inception thats exactly how the reward system worked. Curation and blogging rewards were equal.

Now, the ratio is something like 8:1 in favor of blogging. (its 3:1 theoretically, but actually much more lopsided than that in reality because a big part of the curation reward goes to the reverse auction).

The problem isnt that the curators are getting too much, its that theyre being paid in a dishonest way.

I mean 'payment' for curation to the extent that you're in the top 10 of rewarded authors?

And also, payment thats being represented as rewards on a post. That is to say, its represented as endoresment of the quality of the content. If that content is relatively high quality (and @hanshotfirst is a great example of this) thats not so bad. If its the wikipedia entery for giraffes cut and pasted and on the top of trending, then yeah thats pretty bad.

[nesting]

--note (some of the beneficiaries of this are pretty cringeworthy. Some are pretty OK... but even the good stuff, the point of the program and votes as pay for curation is that these posts are getting votes that they otherwise would not merit based on their quality in a vacuum. This must work at cross purposes to the stated goal of these guilds)

In other words, since this is all widely known and has been for some time, the actions reveal that the stated goals are not an accurate description of the actual goals.

Can't agree that payment on a post is 'represented as endorsement of quality'. It isn't always. It is simply expression of a view that the post or author should be rewarded by stakeholders. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for a post reporting on work that adds value to Steem to be deserving of rewards even if the post itself is poorly-written (in fact I find such a post more deserving than a well-written post which does nothing else to add value to Steem other than grace us with its presence, which I doubt adds much value, if any).

As you mentioned elsewhere it may be that these Steem Guild 'payment posts' are in some way dishonest, in that they don't simply say "vote for this post to support my work as a Steem Guild staff member". That's another question, but I wouldn't find anything wrong with the latter approach.

For example, it is perfectly legitimate for a post reporting on work that adds value to Steem to be deserving of rewards even if the post itself is poorly-written

I see your point, though i think there's a difference between a post being rewarded because the author is describing the desirable actions he took (for example, the dude that put up that billboard last summer) and a post that gets an arbitraty upvote based on the author being entitled to a freebie.

As you mentioned elsewhere it may be that these Steem Guild 'payment posts' are in some way dishonest, in that they don't simply say "vote for this post to support my work as a Steem Guild staff member". That's another question, but I wouldn't find anything wrong with the latter approach.

Well, to be really honest they would have to say something like "ned gave me his vote to use on anything i want to support my work on steem guild, and im using it on my own post because thats just how i roll."

That said, honesty aside. Yeah, a whale can absolutely upvote bad content to reward good actions that are entirely unrelated to the merit of the content you're upvoting.

And yeah, a whale can absolutely support quality content on steemit.

But not at the same time. At least, not as long as the reward pool is fixed. Which is the whole problem with these guilds. theyre paying curators to cast small percentage votes on other peoples good content by casting large percentage votes on the curators bad content.

The result is a net loss for the good content.

--note (some of the beneficiaries of this are pretty cringeworthy. Some are pretty OK... but even the good stuff, the point of the program and votes as pay for curation is that these posts are getting votes that they otherwise would not merit based on their quality in a vacuum. This must work at cross purposes to the stated goal of these guilds)

On a micro scale I've had some some great conversations with the Steem guild guys.

Same here. And they have been quite respectful. However, not all of them appear to able to conduct themselves appropriately.

I mean 'payment' for curation to the extent that you're in the top 10 of rewarded authors?

Right. And it's not just one account. It's five...and they're in the top six over the last 30 days. I don't know how much more obvious this issue can be.

That's one of the first things that I noticed after speaking with one of the guild members and seeing the first update post. Then I realized why I was hearing some of the grumblings behind the scenes. It was just a poor decision in general to make that the "payment" structure and to continue it, especially coming from the CEO of Steemit and the things that had transpired last fall and the recent issues with Dan's flagging. It just doesn't look good - and perception is reality, unfortunately.

It doesn't look good because it isnt good. And it really never has been.

At the end of the day, whether its an automated "bot list" or "featured author/hidden gems" or steem sports (old version) or whatever, the problem is that its a redistribution and management scheme where the redistributors take most of the money.

I'm here since September and I've been following very closely how things work here, especially all this matter regarding the guilds, trails and curie. In my first days here I was just experimenting and trying to understand the platform. Right now I'm focused mainly in the art field, I produce electronic music as well, but that's just a mere hobby.

Since I start posting original art on Steemit, I've been receiving good support from Curie. It was a great incentive to be consistent.

Unfortunately, four days have passed and I've received no support from Curie. One of my works "Tribe" received $6 thanks to @abit, but no Curie. I went to the curie channel and asked to one of its members what could be happening. He said there was nothing wrong, but my posts need to be more "distinguished". It was something that left me thinking because my posts have been following Curie's guidelines and curators always submit my works to them, but now I suppose I'll no longer receive support from Curie because my works are not "distinguished" enough (?)

As I already mentioned, I do art. There's no a "step-by-step" process to be explained or a "cool" story behind my works to be shared. They're just spontaneous, I just grab my mouse and start painting and drawing stuff. If you like what you see, you can whether support me or at least give me a feedback; but if you don't like it, it's just fine. I mean, it's art!

Well, I don't want to add fuel to the fire. I'm getting into deep waters with this comment, but I just wanted the community to know my situation. I believe it can get better over time.

I'll appreciate any advice from you guys. Thank you.

@ats-david Great article.

You have to understand the perspective of our curation. We look at PLENTY of posts everyday. I understand what you think because I also appreciate artists who don't offer any coloured-commentary for the sake of the rawness of their art. I'm an artist too. But please understand we're merely advising on what you can do.

Plus we have no way of knowing authenticity other than work process being expressed / articulated. What will people think if we're always voting on just a simple pic in a post? We wouldn't want to be a guild that blindly gives away votes on something that's thoroughly gameable. Maybe a step-by-step or progression of the art coming into life is a good way to show it.

That's not to accuse you of anything at all, but try to put yourself in our shoes.

And this is just one guild, it's also up to others to do their voting.

I hope this sheds some light into what we do, we're not just lemmings voting on stuff blindly. And notice there's no contract or obligations in any of these at all.

NO way! The dude that ran the Super Bowl Contest wrote this post??? IMO, this has been the most informational and correct assessment of my attitude towards the platform.
Total Newb, I am...but how the hell can I write something funny, fresh and relevant and get no love??? Because I am a Newb...that's how. In fact, I only just now learned that there truly is a CLASS of users being propped up. It came as no surprise to realise I ain't in it!
@ats-david gets it. I buy in completely to what he says here. And in all honesty, I have lost any "raving fan" excitement of the platform as I have been watching some of these retarded posts going off. Some of these are just long-winded re-words of something that just popped up on buzzsumo. But they drop a couple pics in between boring text and it gets more votes than Gary Johnson and Jill Stein combined.
Bottom line, I am the type of guy this platform wants. I want the playing field to be level. To know that it isn't just says that Steemit ISN'T decentralised, making a mockery of the blockchain and what it stands for. I salute the author of this post for having the cajones to lay it all out. Again, to me he was the "football guy", as I haven't been on here a month. But I pay a debt of gratitude for having at least one cool and intelligent person on here.
So, I don't feel so lonely on here anymore. It isn't just a bunch of sycophants all clicked-out upvoting each others' schwag. I am relieved to see how much support this post is getting, because it is deserved. So, apparently this has struck a chord with the user base and I hope it warrants real change. I have all kinds of stuff I'd love to write about. Just had four days in Prague - off the hook! Certainly merits a post - but mmmmm nah! Not worth the time to upload photos and actually make it readable. I am not a writer, I am someone who can make people understand and feel experiences, but who cares?
I would love this platform to get legit...kill the guilds. How can STEEMIT call itself decentralised and market-driven when it is nothing more than affirmative action for shitty writers? My two cents, tho it won't see that.

NO way! The dude that ran the Super Bowl Contest wrote this post???

I know, right? A sports guy that can string some coherent sentences together and formulate a somewhat proper critique? It's unheard of! (It's actually funny that you wrote this because I often wonder if people think that...and now I know that they do.)

And in all honesty, I have lost any "raving fan" excitement of the platform as I have been watching some of these retarded posts going off. Some of these are just long-winded re-words of something that just popped up on buzzsumo.

Yeah, it sure appears that way - and you're also not the only person who notices this. It has consistently been one of the most criticized aspects of the platform when it comes to content/rewards. A lot of it is just a disagreement on preferences, but there is a considerable amount of criticism that is based on artificial popularity and voting "collusion" among larger stakeholders. And I happen to think that there is a lot of merit in those criticisms - as I pointed out some of it in this post.

Again, to me he was the "football guy", as I haven't been on here a month. But I pay a debt of gratitude for having at least one cool and intelligent person on here.

To be fair, there are several cool and intelligent people here. There's me...and there are my alt accounts. :)

Before I move on, I just want to say that was a joke, before anyone accuses me of arrogance, hypocrisy (again) and/or nefarious behavior (again). I'm looking at you, Steem Guild staff.

Just had four days in Prague - off the hook! Certainly merits a post - but mmmmm nah! Not worth the time to upload photos and actually make it readable. I am not a writer, I am someone who can make people understand and feel experiences, but who cares?

If you share it and it's not a complete mess, you'll get my vote! I love seeing (and feeling) worldly experiences. Make sure you send me the link if you post it. (You can find me on steemit.chat - username is "ats.david" there.)

How can STEEMIT call itself decentralised and market-driven when it is nothing more than affirmative action for shitty writers?

That's a fair point. It completely goes against everything regarding how the platform was supposed to evaluate/filter content, according to the whitepaper.

Thanks for the comment. I really do appreciate the sentiment. You should scroll back through my older posts if you want to see more stuff like this.

I downvoted, since this post is strewn with a plethora of wild assumptions mischievously woven into straw-men.

To many straw-men to even begin a productive discussion... would take a week to unpack and quite frankly I have wasted enough of my time already on this with ATSD.

As is well known, there are none so blind and deaf as those who do not want to see and hear.

I really didn't expect anything different, given the prior reactions from your cohorts on this post.

@steemed has another good response to your previous critique, which I will link here. It seems that you would prefer to socialize the free market and tell accountholders how to use their voting power (which you clearly are abusing yourself; see my previous comment).

https://steemit.com/steemit/@berniesanders/dan-still-trolling-ozchartart#@steemed/re-ats-david-re-gonzo-re-berniesanders-dan-still-trolling-ozchartart-20170206t191554902z

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 59943.96
ETH 2421.71
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.43