You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Flag Wars?! Ohhhh I'm Coming 2x as Hard for ALL of you!! **PLEASE WATCH STEEMIANS**
@broncnutz. This is who you down-voted
Now I didn't down-voted you. I do not follow any down vote trail. But dude, may be you want to pick a flight with someone close to your size? Just saying...
PS. Up-voted for visibility
I only down voted because he followed a down vote trail and didn't think for himself. i will continue to do so. you can down vote me, i don t care, just make it your own idea. i see you like your own comment A LOT....guess your missing the entire point that this post is about. its funny @acidyo is not over here to help "regulate theft" from the rewards pool like you just did.
Let me edit that.
PS. Upvoted for visibility. This is a popular post. Your comment section is a mile long, man! Which is a good thing.
discussion is good about this. i am not against flags....just giving away your power to make this centralized by ocd.
You were initially downvoted by curangel, and the downvotes we give are decided on by all delegators, not centralized. The only thing that's decided centrally is if a downvote isn't executed, which has never happened so far, they all brought up good reasons so far.
If people decide to follow that because they agree with the direction it is going, who are you to blame them?
It would be fairer if all the accounts on this downvote trail were genuine accounts though.
What do you mean by genuine? They are all genuine people, no clones :D
Or do you mean they should vote manually? If someone supports the mission statement of a project, why can't they get fully behind it? If the project does something they don't agree with they'll remove their support again. Nobody is forced or even incentivized in any way to follow the trail.
It is necessary to bundle power, because the accounts grouping up to trade votes have a stake way higher than any individual that wants to counter the trading. It's only possible to make an impact on them together.
@pharesim
These are what I would call not genuine.
@antiretroviral, @shtup, @TagFlagger, @spirfu, @milky-concrete, @blockways, @joshmania, @dicetime, @roadstories.trib
3 posts in total have been made across all of the accounts listed above... all on your downvote trail.
But they obviously have an investment in the platform, and thus an interest to make it work and the same rights to use their stake as anyone else. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use their votes only because they don't post? Not everyone is a content creator!
I really don't see the problem. Do you think they should offer the possibility for retaliation or not participate in the reward distribution at all? Would you say that they are allowed to upvote, if yes why?
I know one is an alt of someone who is more active with posting, but still, why does that matter?