That's not the origin at all, the origin is your scheme and if anyone else did it I would call them out on it as well. Furthermore there are an endless amount of others who see it the same way, or are you saying they all have something against Piotr? Those are random folks who happened to see the posts as well without me having to tag them in the post.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You are one person I respected very well in this chain. As a good leader who wants the best for this chain I would love for you to listen to those trying to dialogue with you in one way or the other. The downvote on different authors post should be stop.
Please listen to the team and we all should try reach a common ground.
Hive is us and remember hive is unity. Together we conquer the challenges ahead and take the price of hive to a newer level.
They can stop the schemes that unfairly reflect the rest of Hive. I'm honestly surprised at this point in time how many of you are okay with this, it goes against blockchain ideology and removal of middlemen and having to place trust in them.
Why is there beneficiary reward in the first place? And since is like this I will suggest that there is a maximum beneficiary that can be set up. Just asking to know better
There's plenty of legitimate reasons to use the beneficiary rewards function, this is not one of them.
Ph-fund is a community account not of an individual and it is not the "ph-fund" that is asking for the beneficiary, we are the one who is setting it as beneficiary.
How come we can say it as self-vote if ph-fund is not even asking for it, we are setting it voluntarily.
Why do we ask people to "Power Up" and hold their "Hive"?
By doing this, we are not liquidating our funds and this shows our trust in the platform.
This is the same reason why we are setting up beneficiary, we trust our ph community and want to contribute some percentage
of our funds towards the growth of the community and its future endeavours.
Thanks
Why are people not voluntarily donating to it part of their rewards after posts pay out?
You're holding them ransom with the unwritten rule that they'll get the votes if they set your account as beneficiary, technically self-voting for the "growth" of the account. A quick look at the voting reflects that they mainly look for posts with the beneficiary to vote on.
Not even gonna get into the selfishness of growing the account and the amount of rewards it'll need in the future to maintain that growth along with you hoping many delegators will just be too lazy to remove the delegations if the returns that are unfair to begin with. It'd be one thing to promise delegators more rewards if that came from your own pocket, that would show actual care for the community's growth but it's another thing having the community pay for them.
It's all just a wicked scheme and somehow you've tricked a whole community to fall for it, thankfully the rest of Hive aren't as easily tricked and can see your intentions and schemes and won't tolerate it.
At the same time they close the doors to new users, what kind of selfish community is that?
Why has hive kept Rewards Payout as 50% HBD & 50% HP or 100%HP?
Why don't we have all the payout in HBD only, hive could have let individuals decide whether to convert it into HP or not?
Why is hive locking the rewards as HP, let individual decide if he want to invest back in HP?
Moreover, hive made it mandatory to lock minimum 50% HP.
Should I call it a wicked scheme?
@acidyo, you are doing great work with what you are doing with curating communities. I appreciate that.
You must also try to understand it from the perspective of a PH community member.
No one has tricked me. I am an adult and can think. Large hive power doesn't necessarily make anyone more smarter.
Today you have a large hive power and you are downvoting our posts by interpreting what we might be doing and that is just an interpretation not reality.
Thanks
Greetings @acidyo, as a member of the PH community and directly affected by this problem, I respectfully ask that while this problem is resolved please do not affect our publications with negative votes, because personally I consider that if I as a user do not object to place 50% of benefactor to PH because someone else has to do it for me, it is illogical and unfair that we are punished for something like this.
How about asking them to stop this scheme so you can go on being curated like usual for your content instead of the amount you give them back?
Excuse me, but how can I ask them to stop something that they are not forcing me to do and I am the one who decides to grant it.
My intention is not to generate more controversy nor much less to make this problem expand, for this reason if this comment generates discomfort I apologize.
Good bye.
Easy, if you don't give them half they won't vote on your posts most of the time.
At the same time they close the doors to new users, what kind of selfish community is that?
greetings @acidyo,
in one of the comments left on my article it is clearly specified by the user @pfunk
"My downvote means nothing personal about you or your post. You've done nothing wrong."
I understand the differences you may have with @crypto.piotr , but you should address them with him and not censor those who do nothing wrong, our accounts are small and we work to bring food to our families a negative vote hurts us, finally if we decided to be content creators on @project.hope , it is because of @crypto.piotr For us he is a great person with a human quality that you don't find everywhere.
It's not censorship and my issue with your leader has nothing to do with this, obviously it doesn't help as I know his intentions but it would be the same no matter who's behind this scheme.
It's fascinating watching the actual brainwashing take place and set in. The way this post is framed and the included disinformation. Then the enforcers step in to apply the disinformation:
So these other folks in the community who are directed to not speak to anyone, ask questions, or even think critically see this and think, "Oh it must be true. There's one my peers who I look up to struggling with this."
It's all one big show.
you are absolutely right "my problem with your leader has nothing to do with it", we have nothing to do with it but you are using your account to destroy the weaker ones who "have nothing to do with it", my question is if my account had 2000000 hp would you also try to censor it, you do this because you know we can't defend ourselves but by exposing our truth.
Any account attempting to cheat the EIP, proof of brain and our current fair curation I'd attempt to downvote as well, yes. Look at my posts from 2020 if you want to see proof of the retaliation I received doing exactly that after the EIP.
my question, where is the deception? you accuse me of receiving upvotes (as if that is a crime) and set up a theory based on the fact that I sold my article (without knowing the reasons for my support of the PH community) and then without verifying anything, you run a campaign against small accounts that cannot defend themselves, what you do my dear friend is called "censorship" your only purpose is to make the accounts that can't defend themselves afraid of you, I live in a country full of people with power who censor those who can't defend themselves and abuse their power that's why I understand very well people who say one thing but do another.
reflect on your actions and the consequences for those who have nothing to do with it, do not use us to try to harm the creator of the community because it only affects families with very difficult lives, for you it is a simple negative vote, for us it is the food for the day or medicine for a family member suffering from the virus.
"I repeat, we have nothing to do with your personal war, if you have something against the community, talk to its creator".
By setting your posts at some percent beneficiary to @ph-fund, you participated in the vote buying/self-voting scheme. So I exercised my stake in Hive to disagree with that allocation of the posting reward pool.
I would not downvote your posts otherwise. Just like this exploitive scheme wouldn't upvote your posts unless you pledged some % of the rewards to them, as can be seen by the posts that don't do that.
"By setting your posts at some percent beneficiary to @ph-fund, you participated in the vote buying/self-voting scheme."
if what you say is true, can you explain why this article that does not have the % set to ph, received positive votes (Master mind)
Which other vote buying/self-voting scheme will accuse me in this case?
what you do is called censorship and the only purpose is to harm the creator of the community because of a personal war you have, for you the small accounts are only means with which you hope to reach an end (that only you know), or at least that's what your actions show..
Finally, while you from the comfort of your homes hurt people who have nothing to do with your private wars, we will continue to stand firm in our support of the community, as doing so does not imply that we are breaking any rules. set a% of our articles for a user or a community. "We don't do it to get favours from anyone", we do it because we want to support that community or user.
It's no coincidence that post wasn't upvoted by PH accounts, because you didn't set it to pay 50% to ph-fund. That's the heart of the matter. I wouldn't have downvoted that post and I haven't been downvoting posts that aren't paying ph-fund a cut.
The rest of your comment is nonsense. Piotr is a crook but I didn't downvote the PH community's posts until I learned of this scheme. And I'm not trying to take the posts to zero either. As a stakeholder in Hive, you're welcome for the rewards you've been earning from the inflation of my own stake. I realize if you don't understand how Hive works, it's easy to be ungrateful. But the glass-half-empty attitude is not really the way to look at it.
"Endless"!!! Serious???
Wow man, your obsession is making you lose your sanity.
How many outside of your community who aren't in on this scheme are defending you?
They are not an "infinite" list, and at least, I know their names.
But you tell me about a huge number of complaints against PH, but you don't show me a single name (don't tell me that you must protect their identity, it's a folly).
I haven't said anything about complaints, I'm sure there are but that's not what drove me to disincentivize this scheme. Obviously it's not infinite, silly, it's a figure of speech. Now please stop this facade or I'm just going to assume you all are in on this and not just too ignorant to know the difference.
The levels of arrogance of certain people never cease to amaze me.
Let's see:
You start your sentence by saying: "Now please stop this facade or ..."
this sounds like a threat.
Then you say: "... not just too ignorant to know the difference ...."
this is a clear insult.
So if we review your "concern" about the "abuse" committed by PH, we will find a speech riddled with threats, hatred, and insults.
"Violence is the weapon of those who are not right"
I think I've been patient enough these past few days, I'm done now.
Do you see it?
More threats.
What's your opinion about posts upvoted by pH fund that's is plagiarised? You seem to be inept at sanctioning a user that have been caught plagiarising within your community. Even tipu is being use to compound those gains for ph fund.
On a daily basis, our anti-plagiarism team reviews the posts that are published within PH.
Sometimes we must silence many of these posts for various reasons, including plagiarism.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your vast wisdom to do our work better and thus stop being inept.
https://peakd.com/@jessica999/what-to-consider-when-starting-a-business
Lacks interaction from the comment section, basically a profile that talks about a topic they have no mastery, content churned out spells that they just copy snippets off the Internet.
This isn't an isolated case. Not that you are responsible to what your community members does all the time but showing you are capable of sanctioning users that do crap on your turf shows effective moderation.
There have been responses on the post and @crypto.piotr can't seem to be bothered to comment on it even if his vote was in on it.
You're not curating for quality posts but using posts as a front to give people some pats in the back for trying their best. Which is fine in noble intentions but also a big slap to other creators on the platform that actually put in the work researching, having actual expertise on the subject and aren't giving generic content taken bits from Google searches.
I would drop some posts I find fitting the category but I already reached a threshold to how often I could be mean, for now anyway.