RE: Why the Whale War might be good for Steemit
Nope. Don't agree with it one bit. Nor do I agree with this post being downvoted to nothing.
Nor this one:
https://steemit.com/poker/@tuck-fheman/monday-night-10-sbd-usd85-usd-plo-freeroll-steem-poker-league-results
Nor this one:
Nor this one (A Christmas Scavenger hunt for Christ's sake.) https://steemit.com/steemit/@themarkymark/christmas-scavenger-hunt-win-100-steem-worth-usd330-usd
Nor this one:
https://steemit.com/photography/@maticpecovnik/the-hiking-series-part-5-resevna
All downvoted by haejin.
There are many more where those came from as I'm sure there are for posts and comments downvoted by Bernie. Still none of this is relevant to this particular conversation. The flagging actions and revenge flagging has been abhorrent. If anything, developers should focus on correcting those issues and issues with reputation.
I don't agree with Haejin downvoting or flagging either. The flagging should only ever be used for spam, plagarised or threatening content. Never for disagreement. I'm not defending Haejin on this but BS started the spat and the result is reduction to the lowest common denominator. I just hope the system is changed quickly. Does this behaviour happen on Reddit or other socal media platforms or is this simply just financially induced?
Downvoting is a necessary mechanism on the Steem blockchain in order to distribute the rewards pool. Otherwise, the rich could simply pilfer everything out of the reward pool unchecked. It's kind of the whole point of the article.
If do please look at how BS is using his bots to down vote my comments in our chat. I believe this is abuse of the system. What do you think?
I agree. It is abuse. It is revenge flagging...unless you're upvoting your own comments. Then I could understand as long as they're not made invisible.
BS is out to censor posts into oblivion. It's his tactic of intimidation. There are ZERO excuses. Maybe you should read some of the threats he's made to people, for clarity on this issue.
But I disagree. A positive upvote towards content you like had a precisely equal effect to a downvote. The downvote is meant to be used for quality of content. The idea of redistribitung the reward poll by downvoting is a massive error in an overall superb plan. The abuse (like the r vengeful censoring of my boxer short post because BS is terrified of someone standing up to his bullying) is indicative and proof of its failure to me. An account with a minus rating should not be allowed to vote in my mind or flag. Accounts proven to be bit accounts should be wiped off the system or at least disabled.
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.
And who started the flagging war? @Haejin or @berniesanders? Despite your attempt to claim objectivity you konw fine well it was the latter.
I am of the opinion that haejin and rancho's self voting and selfvoting by proxy constitutes voting abuse. I make no effort to hide that. To say that Bernie is to blame for haejin downvoting a charity and a poker games is to say that Bernie is able to manipulate haejin, which doesn't absolve haejin of any wrongdoing, even if it turns out to be true.