What you said is true.
But flagging is also the right of a stakeholder. Flagging is just voting, just like upvoting. This post is intended to bring conversation with the community.
There seem to be people agreeing with me.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@schattenjaeger I agree and disagree.
Like you said and I agree spam comments are bad.
As for upvoting your own comments and post. I think its fine as long as its allowed by the system.
As @lukestokes stated some people have invested alot of money into this platform and they should profit however the rules allow. Im a miner and I get it.
Upvoting to get higher up in the thread.
Yes so true. This is another reason why the self upvote is valuable.
Thanks
Your welcome!
I agree, downvoting is part of the system as well when there's a disagreement on rewards distribution. Many people get too upset about downvoting, but I do see it being used as actual abuse (i.e. harming an individual by purposefully waiting for the last 12 hour window so no other upvotes can impact the payout and then downvoting it to nothing because of personal feelings about the individual with nothing to do with the content itself which the network already voted on and decided to pay out).
And yes, some people will always agree when it comes to "I want that person to make less so I can make more." That doesn't always mean their position is the most rationally defensible one.
But you're calling out an individual. Have you discussed this with @crypto-p to get their side of the story?
Either way, I do think it's a good discussion to have. I do sometimes upvote my comments, but I do so rarely. I did in this case at 1% because I wanted my comment to be at the top of the list. To me, that influence is motivation to stay powered up (in almost a year, I've never powered down).
Yes, I warned him that I would start to flag him. He then threw a hissy fit, as expected.
But how is flagging then sometimes abuse in your opinion, if voting is just the right of a stakeholder? Both are just voting, done for arbitrary reasons.
But that's not even the point, for crying out loud.
The point is in the post: is this what we want Steemit to be? A joke of a platform where people spam shit like "good post" without even reading, just to self upvote?
A platform that looks like a joke that people are embarrassed to show to other people outside of Steemit?
Well, I guess that's not really a problem because people don't want other people here; they don't want other people interfering with their cash cow. The success of Steemit is irrelevant, as long the blockchain can be milked for easy bucks.
Who cares, right?
I've written about this in detail here, if you're interested to know my views.
Many people care. Very deeply, in fact. Steemit isn't perfect and certainly has many challenges to overcome. This is part of being a community and working through those challenges together, hopefully in a respectful manner.
Steemit is what we make it to be.
All due respect mate , but are you aware that the copy and pasting of other people's comments back to them is..like..really obnoxious ?
just saying. thought maybe no one had told you is all : o)
I've been here a year and have posted/commented over 6,000 times. No one has ever mentioned it being obnoxious at all. On the contrary, I think it's extremely helpful to ensure clarity in communication. One of the biggest breakdowns is when people respond to something the other person hasn't said or don't clarify which part they are responding to.
With all due respect, please acknowledge what bothers you personally may not bother others at all and since you joined less than a month ago, your perspective may not be as broad as it could be.
That said, I appreciate your intentions, trying to help me. I disagree with you because I think clarity of communication is really important. Quoting someone else, to me, is respectfully showing them you directly read what they said and have a specific point to make about it.
ok.. yep I see what your saying, however as i'm pretty old and have been interacting with people a very long time , the amount of time I have been on steemit is quite irrelevant. Wheather some one else has acknowledged this habit of yours, or not, is also relevant. As you're probably quite aware few people actually speak their mind on steemit for fear of not receiving an upvote, or even worse a 100% minus vote, I however am not. To increase clarity is indeed a noble endeavor, on that I will agree, but as I work on assisting people with methods of interaction, i find it far more important , to respectfully point out a flaw, because it facilitates clarity.
I feel i should inform you that it can be construed as obnoxious . If there is one, there are always others, just a law of nature. I take no offence, nor do I make judgement, both have no value to me, but as your clearly an intelligent person, with a great deal of knowledge to share, I decided to help you, so that you would not alienate those whom you seek to enlighten , by appearing to be obnoxious .
But you do make a judgement. You've judged my actions as generally accepted to be obnoxious.
I disagree about few people speaking their minds here on Steemit. In my experience, more intelligent mind-speaking happens here than most anywhere else on the Internet. Are there some who flag people they disagree with? Sure, but they are a small minority.
To me, clarity is incredibly important. If that's obnoxious to some people, what's the alternative?
My point exactly.
I don't agree with you, any system should be fair and if it has bugs like these the just need to be fixed. I know this might sound like a bone-headed comment but stuff needs to be simple.
Please define "fair" in this context using my mining rig analogy. Is it "fair" to get a return on one's investment? I think it's arbitrary to say self-voting of posts is fine by comments is not. Or maybe it comes down to frequency? I think it's not clearly a "bug" as much as a community expectation which is still fuzzy and being figured out.
Yes I'd make a distinction between people who buy their influence and those who earn it. Isn't that what we are fighting banks for? Money for nothing?
Now we're getting philosophical. :)
What if they buy influence using money they worked very, very hard to earn? Why should only authors and curators have rights around here? Why not investors as well? Remember, investors are the ones who give every STEEM and SBD tradable value at all.
Banks are entirely different (IMO) because they do create money out of nothing without restrictions. The blockchain money rules for creation are known to all. I'm fighting banks because they deeply corrupt and lead to violence and war around the world. The history of central banking shows this to be true.
Thanks for you thorough comments, I appreciate them.
They take time and effort, but don't get much rewards. Is that a "bug"? Hehehe.
Thank you also. I love great conversations on Steemit. :)