You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit – We Need To Talk
Where is the discussion from the curators in which the 3.5 line was determined? Shouldn't the bot owners also have a say in that discussion? Also, why limit such a target to bots? Don't regular users like sweetsjj or whatever her name is do the same thing? What about solutions the bots have already implemented such as a 5 day limit? Is 12 hours enough time to get word to the bot owners themselves? I would think so. Has grumpy enlisted their help before trying to bully them into submission?
I am a curator and did discuss it with myself.
Self-curator discussing things with yourself?
My point exactly. You haven't proven yourself to be a rational decision maker in a vacuum. You need help. Just ask any of your victims.
His idea to stop the abuse is rational. His decision to take matters into his own hands, when nobody is doing anything about it is also rational.
Or are you saying that doing nothing is rational?
Once again. sticks head in sand
It is irrational to damage others in order to damage an entity you haven't tried to engage with to come up with a solution to your perceived problem.
I think those who believe nobody is doing anything about it are the ones with their heads in the sand.
Okay, so seems you know who is doing something about it.
So who is it?
Who's spending every waking hour monitoring the abusers so that they can flag their abuse 12 hours before payout?
And since you say that there are people working on it, does that mean nobody else can?
He did try to engage. He came up with a solution. It's called taking initiative. A lot of people agreed with his rule. If they didn't, there would be zero bots complying with his new guideline.
People were doing stuff about it. I do believe that. They weren't doing enough though.
If I am flagging abuse as a minnow, and my 0.07 SBD upvote at 100% charge is most certainly not enough, then the abuse is being mostly ignored like a social experiment.
And rightfully so! We have stuff coming up in the future that will really help eliminate abuse.
Don't worry, the posse is formed. Give us a minute. ;) It doesn't take too long to skin a cat.
I am certain that there are much greater forces watching everything unfold. It wont end well for those that think they're getting away with it. That's for sure. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment!
Well, @themarkymark was instituting actions such as curation teams long before grumpy started throwing his weight around. I've seen collaboration between the bots involving sharing of blacklists between themselves and steemcleaners, consulting with patrice. Recently I learned about the @abusereport bot/tool/whatever which started posting when upvotes occur on the last day. In fact, looking at that, in the case of sneaky ninja, it occured twice in the last 2 days for a total of $15.92. By contrast, grumpy's selfvotes over the last two days total more than 1106.86 (I stopped counting). To me, grumpy is a far greater abuser than the bots.
Yeah I've been observing @abusereport bot myself. It's easy to go unnoticed for a plagiarist though to maybe vote on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th day at this point though.
In my opinion, the @abusereport bot is only helpful to a certain extent.
I don't disagree with you that grumpy is unjustly paying himself and abusing the rewards pool. With all the abuse already going on, it certainly doesn't help. It would be nice to know the motive behind it.
This is like turning into politics, and I hate the approach that some of these whales are taking because it greats a divided community much like politics does with their left wing and right wing bullshit.
Suggesting something positive to help clean up the platform, all while doing whatever you can to abuse it or perform the same abuse that you claim to be cleaning up. I don't much care for the upvotes he gave me either. I like them, don't get me wrong. All I'm going to do with it is power up, which ultimately helps us all, but it's whatever to me because I don't agree with how he's going about this.
If you were paying attention you would realize that plenty of people are in fact doing a lot about it. Those of us that are have even offered countless times for him too join us in the fight against bot abuse. Proof? Read sneaky ninjas last post.
Two things about the time limit...
First, there are simply not enough people curating good or bad posts for it to make a difference.
Second, as grumpy has hypocritically pointed out, it shouldn't be the communities job. It's the responsibility of the bot owners themselves.
Why make you guys spend countless hours combing our lists when we could simply keep an active and shared blacklist? Thus preventing the community from wasting so much time on something that is our job to clean up.
Had grumpy or anyone else bothered to talk to us, they would have found out that before he started his rampage, we had collectively started working on just that.
If you care to know that is finally very close to becoming reality. I've just picked up a list of over 25k abusive accounts from steemcleaners, added it to my blacklist and passed it to any bot owners willing to use it.
The issue here is that all our hard work goes un noticed unless we post about it. Grumpy crusade actually slowed that down because now the community is in an uproar and I'm now having to defend myself instead of work on the issue.
If you took the time to look you would notice that this point is already nearly mute because our lists of bidders has been cleaned up significantly. This is due to all the work that myself and other owners have been doing behind the scenes that we have not had time, or felt the need to post about.
By not feeling the need to post and/or talk about the abuse, it appeared as though no one cared. I've also been given reason to believe that people that can truly help stop the abuse are not because of future updates that we might get.
You're right, why make us spend countless hours combing through bidders. I've done it. It's tedious. I'd rather do anything else.
I never agreed with his approach. I've asked him to stop the flags and talk about it too. I'm glad you guys are doing something about it.
I still think that the 3.5 day limit is not too much to ask for, but this is just my opinion. I highly doubt it matters, but it is what it is.
I've been watching themarkymark make some pretty extensive digging into blacklisting abusive users. It's not like I haven't been paying attention. I have.
I can see bidbots getting cleaned up a bit. I don't see the abuse or the arguing going away.
I also don't see grumpycat stopping his unjust flags either, so it seems like a lose/lose.
I actually looked at some of your comments after writing that.
I wanted to apologize for taking your one comment out of context when you had clearly made more and were clearly more understanding of the issue than that single comment made me feel at the time.
I think it will go away... for this issue lol.
Who knows what is next lol
As far as 3.5 days I still feel this it's a matter of choice. The choice of the person bidding.
I'm now paying attention to @abusereports, they are showing all votes on day 6. I've vowed to look at any votes coming from my bot on sixth day to determine if they are spamming/scamming or not.
If they are abusive ill be removing their vote, if not then ill let them be. So far there have only been 2. Both ok
We'll find resolve here I know it!
Thanks I really appreciate this! I can see where you took my comment out of context. No harm done!
I've been watching the @abusereports posts myself and don't see a whole lot of activity coming from @sneaky-ninja but I have seen abusers voting early. This really helps them blend in with the crowd. If I run into these users I'll be sure to point them out to you.
All of this brings a lot of attention to the sixth day and it's not the only day that abuser takes place.
I'm sure that it'll get figured out as well, I just don't want more innocent authors getting flagged.
Yea, not much activity there from ninja.
It's good that someone else is noticing my point about abusers just starting earlier.
I will really appreciate you pointing out abusers that you do see using my bot. (not asking you to waste your time looking, but if you do see any I can get rid of them.) So far my blacklist is only the worst abusers, not the copy pasta for example.
I am working on helping some of the innocents that have been flagged also.
Although I can see the humour in the comment, do you think its worth 76 bucks?!
Did you know it takes 4000 100% self-upvotes to get your investment back instead of power down? Do you think @grumpycat should've invested the over 300k in SP into something else, a voting bot for example, to get more return from the scammers? Do your math, and stop complaining about self-upvoting.
Well it's been an on-going debate/discussion for at least 2 months now. He obviously didn't give a sufficient warning as even to this day not everyone has heard of this new unofficial rule. Let's just call it a guideline with more potential as opposed to a rule. People around here seem to hate rules of any kind.
If I really spent the time I could find countless articles (as well as upvotes, indicating "hey, I agree with this" where people are saying what grumpycat is doing is both good and bad. Even I have said it. Yup, the bully approach sucks. I don't agree with it.
Seems any approach is frowned upon though....
When people are nice about it, the abuser typically laughs while he runs off with his unearned rewards.
When people are mean, wow he's so mean. How dare he act like this.
Sticks head back in sand
So if we as a community (or you) (or the bot owners) (we can exclude me if you want) can't come up with some kind of agreement, then this platform is screwed.
Don't change anything to 3.5 day. Everybody ignore the millionaire cat.
Just ignore the reasons, ignore the abuse. Ignore everything.
Just let him flag and maybe he'll go away after a year or two.
Here’s the thing, though — @grumpycat flat out refuses to work with anyone else to collectively address these issues and find viable solutions.
The abuse is most certainly not being ignored. As far as I’ve seen, no one disagrees that the problem he’s combating is significant — most everyone takes issue with how he’s doing it, particularly his insistence on self-voting.
If the ultimate success of this platform is truly a motivating factor, then why so stubbornly insist on doing it alone? Why refuse to even consider combining forces? When has that ever worked, historically?
I said something nearly identical to your above words just yesterday, in a comment to @berniesanders : if we can’t figure out how to unify around our shared goals, than I fear Steemit’s days are numbered.
Good point! Thanks for your response, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees that we need to be more unified. Great minds think alike!
I was being sarcastic when I said ignore the abuse or that it is being completely ignored.
We all have an issue with how he's doing it. I can also say I had an issue with how it was being handled before @grumpycat started his...campaign.
It's a lot of bickering back and forth. If we want steemit to be taken seriously, we need to get serious.
I wasn't fully aware that he was unwilling to work with anyone.
Work with us who are at least willing to work with you, @grumpycat.
I should clarify — he’s (or possibly she) unwilling to work with anyone who doesn’t blindly agree with his approach. As well, if you read my other comments on this thread — we’re inviting him to join a live panel discussion — a healthy debate — so that these things can be openly addressed. Everyone else is ready and willing... @grumpycat flat out refuses. I also invited @berniesanders, whose response was simply ’meh.’
So — we’ve got at least a couple powerful whales championing their causes alone, complaining that no one else is willing to properly address their chosen battles, yet patently refusing to discuss the issues openly, in any kind of productive manner.
Instead, we have all these disjointed, peripheral threads of petty flag wars and mudslinging — like we’re in fucking high school.
To the less seasoned Steemians among us, it just looks like a buncha insecure teenagers, all vying for king of the mountain, shoving everyone else aside as they jostle their way to the top.
Why even read this.
I'm afraid you miss my point...again.
Reading something written by someone is not the same thing as working with them. Nor is responding inconsistently, relying more on memes and catty one-liners than meaningful discourse.
Why are you so opposed to gathering like adults and talking about all this in some kind of productive manner? I know @MichaelDavid has reached out to you directly – why not answer and acknowledge his sincere attempts to work with you?
There's no fun in that, right? I'm guessing it's far more entertaining to be the scowling rabble-rouser than actually align yourself with others. More exciting to be the controversial, high-profile, self-proclaimed 'hero' than simply one fragment of a team, working towards a common goal.
...and more profitable. You got a little haejin over here. Milking comments at $80 a pop, raking in thousands in a matter of days masquerading as some sort of defender while he does far more harm than the problem he's trying to fix.
He can't discourse like an adult because his mom took his cell phone and laptop away for being an insolent little piece of shit.
So if you're willing to work, what's the hold up? Don't you think that you could convince them to drop the post age limit to 3.5 via a live discussion? I think that if we all got our opinions in, perhaps a good vote will solve it.
Just as it wouldn't hurt the bot owners to try your 3.5 day suggestion, it also wouldn't hurt to discuss it in a live panel.
Better yet, who are you willing to work with?
I understand that you discussed these things with yourself, but then it's time to let the rabbit out of the hat and reveal either who you are, or who exactly you've discussed this with, or are willing to discuss it with.
We all want Steemit to survive. We all want to make it better. It's going to take a community effort to do it, not just your own.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There is quite a lot to read when it comes to this topic so I've been bouncing all over the place as it all unfold.
I wasn't fully aware of the invitations to the live panel discussion until late last night/early this morning.
I've mentioned the comparison to high school drama in the past.
It doesn't surprise me that those hiding behind popular names are reluctant to be a part of any healthy debate.
It's either their way, or the highway it seems, and it is indeed childish.
All parties have what I consider valid arguments, and those that are actually willing to talk it out are waiting on what appears to be the "bullies" taking the "bully" approach.
At one point or another, someone's going to have to budge. At one point or another, we'll have to meet half-way. What is the half-way point?
Well now that you've brought it to my attention, I guess the live discussion is as about half-way as it's going to get.
It kind of makes me feel like I have foot-in-mouth but alas, what's been said has been said. I still think that the idea of a 3.5 day bot limit is justifiable, and it can help. And of course, the approach being taken sucks.
It's unjustified. I feel that it's theft.
It would be so much more effective to flag plagiarists than innocent bidbot users.
It doesn't surprise me that neither of those two want to join the discussion. It doesn't make the situation any better though.