RE: Why the Whale War might be good for Steemit
A positive upvote towards content you like had a precisely equal effect to a downvote.
But it doesn't. An upvote to someone else spreads the effect of that upvote across all of the other claimants on the reward pool at that time. So, if I wanted to remove .17 from haejin's $450.00 post, I would probably have to upvote over 1000 times. I think that number may be more like 300k, but I'll say 1000 just to be on the safe side. Instead, I could just downvote haejin directly once.
*Note: I have never once downvoted haejin nor any of his fans though I have been downvoted by both him and them several times.
The reputation system needs to be fixed, for sure. I personally don't feel that a person who would revenge flag charities, poker games and @steemcleaners should have a 74 rep, but that's just me.
If ten people were on the reward pool of 110 Steem and each had 10 each. When you vote you can use your vote of ten to dissolve one persons account to zero (negative direct action against something you don't like) or upvote one other post by 10 meaning your favourite post eaens double which is positive action. The others will also 1/10th less of the reward pool compared to you not having voted. So you're right that if your intention is purely negative it is less direct... But the effect on the post you like is explosive making it double. So you have the choice of negating the positive upvote someone gave to a post you didn't like (is it your business to act like that?) or you can upvote to a post you like meaning the author is encouraged and visibility increased attracting attention to it of other voters. I come across countless posts Im not impressed with or interested in but I'd never use my Steem power to tread on those specific interests. There was a time that guys here were sick of pretty girls getting high rewards for posting make up tutorials. Should we all Gang up and downvote them? I think everyone should stop worrying about their self centered connection to the reward pool and concentrate on good posts and good comments for what ever audience they find and attract. Live and let live
There is a bigger issue at stake here though. @haejin is just a pioneer in exploiting access to wealth to take suach a large portion of the pool. If he was left unchecked, there would be dozens more. Can you imagine 20 haejins pillaging the pool? Rewards would fall drastically for everyone else but the rich. People would leave the platform. The currency would fail. @haejin doesn't care because he is looking to get out as soon as he can. Downvoting is a positive action in that it represents fairness. Haejin is on track to make millions and it has nothing to do his followers. It's all because of an agreement with a lone individual or corporation to simply buy the rewards pool. That type of thing can't be combated by simply "live and let live". Condoning such behavior is condoning the death of Steem.
I think when you have people stealing gold out of the back of the mine, the best way to address that is to take it back from them directly. Giving away all the gold quicker won't change the fact that you overall have less gold to give to everyone because the robbers got away with a large portion. It's not his. If he wants his share, he has to come through the front like everyone else.
Lets agree to disagree on this. For me it's a fundamental flaw in the system. For you the system seems to be right.
Got it! I missed this comment before somehow... But I completely hear what you're saying now.
PS of course noone should revenge attack posts that you mention. Zero support for that behaviour.