I'm sorry that you feel targeted by this, I think right now there is just too strong of a case of stealth self-vote abuse from the main 3 account that consistently upvote you and only you in the last few hours. It would be great if you could disclose your relationship with these people, @snowflake@freeyoumind and @someonewhoisme.
My problem is no so much that you self upvote, that you self upvote through sock-puppet or that you self up vote through sock-puppet is a stealth way just before payout.
Yet your explanation for downvoting revolves a lot around self voting.
@snowflake@freeyourmind and @someonewhoisme are all managed by me, @mindhunter is definetely not my account else I would have voted this account long before. It's very obvious that I am not self voting and that @mindhunter is a different person. Have a look through my posts please.
Hey @snowflake, sorry to side-jack this comment here but you just verified via your comment that you are controlling the @someonewhoisme account also. I didn't know about @freeyourmind but I will follow it as well.
I messaged you on SteemIt.Chat about possibly getting your witness support. You seem quite knowledgeable about what it takes to be a worthy witness and I feel quite strongly if you took a few minutes to investigate my current offerings as well as future plans for steem you wouldn't move showing some love.
Mindhunter pays you a share of the reward from your upvotes. That mean you are not actually curating anything but voting his content regardless of quality for profit, which is what I define as selfish pool raping.
On his side @Mindhunter is producing a many post of dubious quality because he knows he's going to get it up-voted irregardless.
Mindhunter pays you a share of the reward from your upvotes. That mean you are not actually curating anything but voting his content regardless of quality for profit, which is what I define as selfish pool raping.
That's the same issue with @randowhale@booster @bellyrub @discordia and all others. They all do the same. They upvote automatically any type of content. If you want to fix the world you should start from the top - the bigger pool drainers
So he is effectively buying votes from whales, not different from all the vote buying scheme on steemit..everyone is here to make money and preventing the biggest stake holders to earn is a stupid thing to do.
If investors can't mine without getting their 'machine shut down' then they aren't going to invest in the first place. Remember blogging is the new mining, some people just want to mine they don't care or don't have time to post life stories on a social media site...
"If investors can't mine without getting their 'machine shut down' then they aren't going to invest in the first place. Remember blogging is the new mining, some people just want to mine they don't care or don't have time to post life stories on a social media site..."
Seems to be working for stocks, other cryptos, and various and traditional other investment vehicles, through the time honored mechanism of capital gains. Steem was actually mined for a brief time prior to the creation of Steemit, so mining the rewards pool isn't really mining at all.
Do let me know how selling votes is mining? Actual mining increases the amount of currency, whether gold coins or cryptohashes. Selling votes simply redirects currency into the wallets of those concerned.
As for those that just want to drain the rewards pool, and lack interest in actually contributing valuable content, well, I await with bated breath the opportunity to avoid them in their droves.
Steem is around ~$1 presently. BTC is ~$4k. Were Steem to reach but 1% of BTC's valuation, investors would realize 4000% returns on present holdings of Steem. Since I reckon the most salient factor in why Steem doesn't rapidly appreciate and exceed the value of BTC is the perception of unfairness and rampant scamming of the rewards system, it is exactly profiteering such as you are conducting that is preventing the vastly superior returns capital gains offers investors.
I just want the censoring and propaganda mills like Gargle, Fakebook, and Twatter to die, so that free speech, and the felicity of good governance that informs, can ensue.
I reckon that more valuable to me than mere money.
Mining essentially means creating new money. Witnesses are the block producers so technically they are the one putting these new coins into existance but steem users allocate them.
They are competing to earn those new issued coins, exactly like miners do. And the more they invest the more reward they receive.
and lack interest in actually contributing valuable content
So you think only users who contribute valuable content are entitled to rewards?
The flaws of Steemit were not all apparent to the developers, who are only human after all. Certainly they envisioned an imperfect distribution of rewards, intending for ~90% of rewards to inure to ~30% of the accounts.
Instead, their inability to perfectly predict human behaviour has resulted in ~99% of rewards inuring to ~1% of accounts. This was not their intention, and they clearly state that in the white paper.
"So you think only users who contribute valuable content are entitled to rewards?"
That is exactly the purpose of rewards, according to the white paper, which explains why the developers set things up the way they did.
Valuable content, and the curators that promote it, are rewarded, as the very and sole purpose of rewards on Steemit.
The rewards pool was not envisioned to be a form of dividend for investors, but rather they state in the white paper that the greater ability to curate good content, per the subjective and personal preferences of those with substantial holdings of SP, was the intended reward.
They specifically state that the perception of financial manipulation - and clearly vote selling is exaclty that - is an existential threat to Steemit.
Miners do not compete for issued coins. They compete to ISSUE the coins. Mining did occur on Steem, and is the source of the majority of Steem today. Those mined coins are intended to be distributed through curation.
Really? Because I am actually enjoying sharing my creativity.....in a place where I'm actually meeting tons of people who are "like minded." So much drama and this is the problem that money creates......why can't it just be about everyone getting a fair share of the pie and live in harmony?
I think right now there is just too strong of a case of stealth self-vote abuse
Please present your full case. This platform is riddled with 'I thinks'!! Even if it was self-voting it's not abuse. Those who sow on this platform are entitled to reap. They have invested heavily in the platform, so who are you to judge them?
Reward pool rape and the TRUE abuse of Steemit is where whales Power Down and load 100K+ Steem onto the market. I think your 'I thinks' would be better targeted at them - IMHO.
BTW I'd be interested in learning more about how Steem is anywhere near "Socialist" and how Steem is a democracy. Would definitely reward one of your post trying to explain that.
I'd say Steemit is a progressive libertarian platform with elements of the hard left and the hard right in its outer fringes. Call me an alt-progressive - but don't ask me to explain that! 😛
It is self voting then? In other words, do you control those accounts? Just read @snowflake 's comment, never mind 😅
"Reward pool rape" is generally held to mean exactly what @transisto is accusing you of here - collusive voting taking large rewards. What you're talking about is just dumping.
The reward pool rape is a misconception based on a flawed assumption that rewards in the pool are scarce and finite.
Your voting power allows you to use a certain portion of that pool, it's basically 1SP = 1RPP ( reward pool portion) there is no 'rape' and there is no 'taking large rewards', your rewards are pre determined by the amount of steem power that you have.
The real people raping the reward pool are those dumping steem on the market not allowing the reward pool to grow in value.
That would only be the case if every account voted once in a certain time period with the same weight. But that obviously isn't the case.
The reward pool is finite, it is precisely calculated, you can get this number from the blockchain. I calculate it regularly in my calculations. It is given by the following formula:
reward_pool = reward_balance / recent_claims, where reward_balance and recent_claims are available values from the Steem API.
You can see it here at @penguinpablo 's SteemNow calc (explanation) and read about the reward pool (also by him) here. TLDR; it's about 48,029.695 a day (depending on a few factors).
The more that large stakeholders vote, the more they use because rewards are proportional to the total vote reward shares (rshares in the code) which are currently pending (i.e. before payout).
So this is what is meant by reward pool rape. Problematic term but widely used none the less.
If you knew this already I do not mean to be patronizing, just exact and clear.
This is all not to say that people dumping steem is bad for the price, which effects the market value for the rewards and thus reward pool, it's just a different thing.
The reason steemit is working today and users are being rewarded is because investors like myself are putting money into the system.
Obviously we investors expect a return on our investment. Similarly someone might buy a lot of steem power to advertise a product or get more visibility. Are we going to downvote every investors because we don't like their content? Unfortunately people like transisto fail to understand where the initial value comes from, the investors. Without them steem is worthless.
Like mindhunter said, people should be able to use their voting power as they see fit without being flagged otherwise investors will not buy steem. @transisto You are targeting the wrong people man, go after those who are dumping thousands on the markets, those are the real ones raping the reward pool. I havn't powered down a single penny for well over 6 months and have kept pouring money into steem.
You've been mislead to think the reward pool is scarce when in fact it is abundant, so go flag people who prevent the reward pool from growing.
Why don't you selfvote youself 100% directly instead of using what look like obvious sock-puppet to upvote yourself 100% always in the last hours of post payout ?
My problem is no so much that you self upvote, that you self upvote through sock-puppet or that you self up vote through sock-puppet is a stealth way just before payout.
But because the content isn't worth at all what it's earning.
But because the content isn't worth at all what it's earning.
This is were we disagree. I don't think a few whales based on their subjective opinion should decide what this and that content is worth. The content is worth what people have voted for, period. Downvoting should be used only for offensive content, trolling,pedophelia,etc.. basically things where there is majority consensus against.
Unfortunately the 'stake police' element of Steemit will always exist @snowflake, and once you confront them with this kind of behaviour their flawed logic becomes apparent very quickly.
I've commented to @transisto on several occasions to speak with me on this flagging issue, but I've had no reply - a typical response from a sociopathic whale from the hard right.
One you unpick the flawed logic of these people, they appear to disappear down their rabbit holes very quickly. If you ask them for alternatives to their modus operandi, the room is already empty. Enough said.
At the end of the day all we can do is to try and MINIMISE these flagging incidents and hope the rest of the community supports our stance - which any sane person with logic should do.
Thanks for the reply @transisto - I've now got @fulltimegeek on my case now too. At least he is jovial and fun during the flagging Fest! My Steemit.chat handle is: chat_mindhunter
Agreed. Downvoting power should not be stake-based, it should be based on consensus. Only upvoting power should use stake, this needs to be changed as it's going to get worse when steemit becomes mainstream.
I don't agree with that. Voting on Steem should be symmetrical. Anything else and you:
a) reduce the utility of SP
b) imbalance SP's influence on the reward pool
By the way, I've heard several complaints about these late votes on mindhunter's posts. I haven't agreed with the people saying they're abusive. It's peculiar that they are done when the posts are 6 days old, and that alone looks a bit defensive, but they're all by the rules. The same set of rules allow anyone who has stake in Steem to use their downvote. Or call out those downvoting them :)
I don't agree with that. Voting on Steem should be symmetrical. Anything else and you:
a) reduce the utility of SP
b) imbalance SP's influence on the reward pool
I disagree. People are buying steem power mainly to increase their voting power, they don't care about downvoting power.
The reason is that when you downvote you basically get a penality, you effectively lose money which is why hardly anyone uses this function.
I will be publishing an article in the next few days about this so we can debate more then.
It's peculiar that they are done when the posts are 6 days old, and that alone looks a bit defensive
They are done just before payout window closes because I don't want my upvotes to lose value. If I give someone 20 bucks and that 7 days later the payout is only 15 bucks I wasted 5 bucks, it's a pretty simple concept :-)
People are buying steem power mainly to increase their voting power, they don't care about downvoting power.
The reason is that when you downvote you basically get a penality, you effectively lose money which is why hardly anyone uses this function.
Not so. It is an open vote until the payout window closes. That most people up vote is because of the eternal good natured spirit of humanity, and the fact that up votes are a more effective use of voting power, i.e. in curation rewards and in goodwill.
Remember that it's called pending payout before payout. Honestly I blame the UI for misleading folks to the conclusion that the money is given before payout.
I will be publishing an article in the next few days about this so we can debate more then.
Looking forward to this.
They are done just before payout window closes because I don't want my upvotes to lose value.
I think you must misunderstand how it works. The up votes do not depreciate in value, it is the reward pool that changes dynamically over time before payout. If you do know about it then you're just tricking yourself if you think that.
The whole whale flagging issue in one of the biggest sores on the side of Steemit alongside minnow spamming.
DV flagging is currently the best worst solution we have to control spam etc., but it's in bad need of an overhaul with a consensus model before Alpha like you say. I've always thought this was the only flaw in @dan's otherwise flawless creation.
The search for the silver bullet continues on ... as unfortunately do these 'stake police'!
What if everyone down-voted everything that made more than $40, would this be good for the platform? Would it mean more rewards for those of us that barely get a dollar for a post?
I agree that flagging / down voting is contentious and is likely to remain so. You can't escape the human psychology of it, though I do think a UI change could go along way (not much support for that at STINC at the moment though).
If there were a better way I would support it am I open to ideas.
@fulltimegeek didn't self vote that comment, so it was @ats-david and @bacchist who thought it was, and you contributed to the valuation by down voting / flagging. All is well.
I am so disappointed about you @mindhunter and sad to read all your comments to justify . I remember you as a decent member and friendly guy. I rarely see any so called famous whales passing by on my profile but guess what, I still do quite well without cheating the community just for a few dollars you split with some big boyz. Is money really that important to you guys, to trick us honest people? Shame on all of you! It's hard work to earn your rewards, especially for new people here on the platform. Stop fooling all of us please!
Is this echo chamber mamma?? Are you SJW #2?? Whales or anyone can vote for me anytime they want. Why are you using guilt and shame to control that? I would've expected you to have my back on this issue mamma, but I can see your a progressive collectivist like the other flagging whales. I'm not going to say your a disgrace to this platform, as I don't stoop to SJW naming and shaming tactics like you!
Oh dear! This kind of reply gives me a very good idea who you actually are. I was blinded by your charming kindness. I have my preference how "man" should act in a healthy, caring community. Sleazy methods can't survive for long and if they do, we will see a "chaos" of other nature later.
I don't think that will ever happen. It's too public, and the rewards go to the same people. I tell people the truth of my earnings and that isn't enough to convince people to come over from Facebook.
I have been sitting here reading all these comments while eating popcorn...I was once told: A wise man sits in silence while in a room full of wiser men.
I'm sorry that you feel targeted by this, I think right now there is just too strong of a case of stealth self-vote abuse from the main 3 account that consistently upvote you and only you in the last few hours. It would be great if you could disclose your relationship with these people, @snowflake @freeyoumind and @someonewhoisme.
Yet your explanation for downvoting revolves a lot around self voting.
@snowflake @freeyourmind and @someonewhoisme are all managed by me, @mindhunter is definetely not my account else I would have voted this account long before. It's very obvious that I am not self voting and that @mindhunter is a different person. Have a look through my posts please.
Hey @snowflake, sorry to side-jack this comment here but you just verified via your comment that you are controlling the @someonewhoisme account also. I didn't know about @freeyourmind but I will follow it as well.
I messaged you on SteemIt.Chat about possibly getting your witness support. You seem quite knowledgeable about what it takes to be a worthy witness and I feel quite strongly if you took a few minutes to investigate my current offerings as well as future plans for steem you wouldn't move showing some love.
Mindhunter pays you a share of the reward from your upvotes. That mean you are not actually curating anything but voting his content regardless of quality for profit, which is what I define as selfish pool raping.
On his side @Mindhunter is producing a many post of dubious quality because he knows he's going to get it up-voted irregardless.
Doesn't take a genius to figure the scheme out.
That's the same issue with @randowhale @booster @bellyrub @discordia and all others. They all do the same. They upvote automatically any type of content. If you want to fix the world you should start from the top - the bigger pool drainers
So he is effectively buying votes from whales, not different from all the vote buying scheme on steemit..everyone is here to make money and preventing the biggest stake holders to earn is a stupid thing to do.
If investors can't mine without getting their 'machine shut down' then they aren't going to invest in the first place. Remember blogging is the new mining, some people just want to mine they don't care or don't have time to post life stories on a social media site...
Seems to be working for stocks, other cryptos, and various and traditional other investment vehicles, through the time honored mechanism of capital gains. Steem was actually mined for a brief time prior to the creation of Steemit, so mining the rewards pool isn't really mining at all.
Do let me know how selling votes is mining? Actual mining increases the amount of currency, whether gold coins or cryptohashes. Selling votes simply redirects currency into the wallets of those concerned.
As for those that just want to drain the rewards pool, and lack interest in actually contributing valuable content, well, I await with bated breath the opportunity to avoid them in their droves.
Steem is around ~$1 presently. BTC is ~$4k. Were Steem to reach but 1% of BTC's valuation, investors would realize 4000% returns on present holdings of Steem. Since I reckon the most salient factor in why Steem doesn't rapidly appreciate and exceed the value of BTC is the perception of unfairness and rampant scamming of the rewards system, it is exactly profiteering such as you are conducting that is preventing the vastly superior returns capital gains offers investors.
I just want the censoring and propaganda mills like Gargle, Fakebook, and Twatter to die, so that free speech, and the felicity of good governance that informs, can ensue.
I reckon that more valuable to me than mere money.
Mining essentially means creating new money. Witnesses are the block producers so technically they are the one putting these new coins into existance but steem users allocate them.
They are competing to earn those new issued coins, exactly like miners do. And the more they invest the more reward they receive.
So you think only users who contribute valuable content are entitled to rewards?
The flaws of Steemit were not all apparent to the developers, who are only human after all. Certainly they envisioned an imperfect distribution of rewards, intending for ~90% of rewards to inure to ~30% of the accounts.
Instead, their inability to perfectly predict human behaviour has resulted in ~99% of rewards inuring to ~1% of accounts. This was not their intention, and they clearly state that in the white paper.
That is exactly the purpose of rewards, according to the white paper, which explains why the developers set things up the way they did.
Valuable content, and the curators that promote it, are rewarded, as the very and sole purpose of rewards on Steemit.
The rewards pool was not envisioned to be a form of dividend for investors, but rather they state in the white paper that the greater ability to curate good content, per the subjective and personal preferences of those with substantial holdings of SP, was the intended reward.
They specifically state that the perception of financial manipulation - and clearly vote selling is exaclty that - is an existential threat to Steemit.
Miners do not compete for issued coins. They compete to ISSUE the coins. Mining did occur on Steem, and is the source of the majority of Steem today. Those mined coins are intended to be distributed through curation.
Not through botnets, selfvoting, or vote selling.
Thank you!!!! I agree
Really? Because I am actually enjoying sharing my creativity.....in a place where I'm actually meeting tons of people who are "like minded." So much drama and this is the problem that money creates......why can't it just be about everyone getting a fair share of the pie and live in harmony?
Please present your full case. This platform is riddled with 'I thinks'!! Even if it was self-voting it's not abuse. Those who sow on this platform are entitled to reap. They have invested heavily in the platform, so who are you to judge them?
Reward pool rape and the TRUE abuse of Steemit is where whales Power Down and load 100K+ Steem onto the market. I think your 'I thinks' would be better targeted at them - IMHO.
BTW I'd be interested in learning more about how Steem is anywhere near "Socialist" and how Steem is a democracy. Would definitely reward one of your post trying to explain that.
P.S. Hey @transisto, can you take me off your @newflash Steemvoter? - it's still downvoting me -5% on some posts. Many thanks :)
I'd say Steemit is a progressive libertarian platform with elements of the hard left and the hard right in its outer fringes. Call me an alt-progressive - but don't ask me to explain that! 😛
It is self voting then? In other words, do you control those accounts?Just read @snowflake 's comment, never mind 😅"Reward pool rape" is generally held to mean exactly what @transisto is accusing you of here - collusive voting taking large rewards. What you're talking about is just dumping.
The reward pool rape is a misconception based on a flawed assumption that rewards in the pool are scarce and finite.
Your voting power allows you to use a certain portion of that pool, it's basically 1SP = 1RPP ( reward pool portion) there is no 'rape' and there is no 'taking large rewards', your rewards are pre determined by the amount of steem power that you have.
The real people raping the reward pool are those dumping steem on the market not allowing the reward pool to grow in value.
That would only be the case if every account voted once in a certain time period with the same weight. But that obviously isn't the case.
The reward pool is finite, it is precisely calculated, you can get this number from the blockchain. I calculate it regularly in my calculations. It is given by the following formula:
reward_pool = reward_balance / recent_claims, wherereward_balanceandrecent_claimsare available values from the Steem API.You can see it here at @penguinpablo 's SteemNow calc (explanation) and read about the reward pool (also by him) here. TLDR; it's about 48,029.695 a day (depending on a few factors).
The more that large stakeholders vote, the more they use because rewards are proportional to the total vote reward shares (
rsharesin the code) which are currently pending (i.e. before payout).So this is what is meant by reward pool rape. Problematic term but widely used none the less.
If you knew this already I do not mean to be patronizing, just exact and clear.
This is all not to say that people dumping steem is bad for the price, which effects the market value for the rewards and thus reward pool, it's just a different thing.
I meant to say everyone has the same reward potential relative to their steem power.
The reward pool's value isn't.
I have shown that it is, as long as it continues to be used. It is bounded.
The reason steemit is working today and users are being rewarded is because investors like myself are putting money into the system.
Obviously we investors expect a return on our investment. Similarly someone might buy a lot of steem power to advertise a product or get more visibility. Are we going to downvote every investors because we don't like their content? Unfortunately people like transisto fail to understand where the initial value comes from, the investors. Without them steem is worthless.
Like mindhunter said, people should be able to use their voting power as they see fit without being flagged otherwise investors will not buy steem.
@transisto You are targeting the wrong people man, go after those who are dumping thousands on the markets, those are the real ones raping the reward pool. I havn't powered down a single penny for well over 6 months and have kept pouring money into steem.
You've been mislead to think the reward pool is scarce when in fact it is abundant, so go flag people who prevent the reward pool from growing.
Why don't you selfvote youself 100% directly instead of using what look like obvious sock-puppet to upvote yourself 100% always in the last hours of post payout ?
http://www.steemreports.com/incoming-votes-info/?account=mindhunter
http://www.steemreports.com/incoming-votes-info/?account=snowflake
Most of @mindhunter's post are gathering about ~30 views then suddenly earn 75$ from @snowflake @freeyourming and @someonewhoisme
My problem is no so much that you self upvote, that you self upvote through sock-puppet or that you self up vote through sock-puppet is a stealth way just before payout.
But because the content isn't worth at all what it's earning.
This is were we disagree. I don't think a few whales based on their subjective opinion should decide what this and that content is worth. The content is worth what people have voted for, period. Downvoting should be used only for offensive content, trolling,pedophelia,etc.. basically things where there is majority consensus against.
Thanks, I've voted that the rest of Steem content was on average more deserving.
Wow, just wow,,,
Unfortunately the 'stake police' element of Steemit will always exist @snowflake, and once you confront them with this kind of behaviour their flawed logic becomes apparent very quickly.
I've commented to @transisto on several occasions to speak with me on this flagging issue, but I've had no reply - a typical response from a sociopathic whale from the hard right.
One you unpick the flawed logic of these people, they appear to disappear down their rabbit holes very quickly. If you ask them for alternatives to their modus operandi, the room is already empty. Enough said.
At the end of the day all we can do is to try and MINIMISE these flagging incidents and hope the rest of the community supports our stance - which any sane person with logic should do.
Not sure what your definition of sociopath is, I'm not responding to your replies because they are all mixed within post replies spam.
Just get to me in one of the 12 discord server I'm in or steemit.chat
Thanks for the reply @transisto - I've now got @fulltimegeek on my case now too. At least he is jovial and fun during the flagging Fest! My Steemit.chat handle is: chat_mindhunter
Agreed. Downvoting power should not be stake-based, it should be based on consensus. Only upvoting power should use stake, this needs to be changed as it's going to get worse when steemit becomes mainstream.
I don't agree with that. Voting on Steem should be symmetrical. Anything else and you:
a) reduce the utility of SP
b) imbalance SP's influence on the reward pool
By the way, I've heard several complaints about these late votes on mindhunter's posts. I haven't agreed with the people saying they're abusive. It's peculiar that they are done when the posts are 6 days old, and that alone looks a bit defensive, but they're all by the rules. The same set of rules allow anyone who has stake in Steem to use their downvote. Or call out those downvoting them :)
I disagree. People are buying steem power mainly to increase their voting power, they don't care about downvoting power.
The reason is that when you downvote you basically get a penality, you effectively lose money which is why hardly anyone uses this function.
I will be publishing an article in the next few days about this so we can debate more then.
They are done just before payout window closes because I don't want my upvotes to lose value. If I give someone 20 bucks and that 7 days later the payout is only 15 bucks I wasted 5 bucks, it's a pretty simple concept :-)
In spite of seeing that "snowflakes are useful idiots", I am now following you. I am interested what you will say in this future post. :)
Not so. It is an open vote until the payout window closes. That most people up vote is because of the eternal good natured spirit of humanity, and the fact that up votes are a more effective use of voting power, i.e. in curation rewards and in goodwill.
Remember that it's called pending payout before payout. Honestly I blame the UI for misleading folks to the conclusion that the money is given before payout.
Looking forward to this.
I think you must misunderstand how it works. The up votes do not depreciate in value, it is the reward pool that changes dynamically over time before payout. If you do know about it then you're just tricking yourself if you think that.
I meant to say I don't want the posts that I vote on to lose value.
The whole whale flagging issue in one of the biggest sores on the side of Steemit alongside minnow spamming.
DV flagging is currently the best worst solution we have to control spam etc., but it's in bad need of an overhaul with a consensus model before Alpha like you say. I've always thought this was the only flaw in @dan's otherwise flawless creation.
The search for the silver bullet continues on ... as unfortunately do these 'stake police'!
What if everyone down-voted everything that made more than $40, would this be good for the platform? Would it mean more rewards for those of us that barely get a dollar for a post?
I agree that flagging / down voting is contentious and is likely to remain so. You can't escape the human psychology of it, though I do think a UI change could go along way (not much support for that at STINC at the moment though).
If there were a better way I would support it am I open to ideas.
P.S. @fulltimegeek has now flagged this post - at least he is a TRUE sociopath unlike @transisto!
You seriously think your shit post was worth ~$70 before my flag? I'll be keeping an eye on your account now that I see you're being overly rewarded.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention @mindhunter.
A true sociopath that speaks. @transisto the King is dead ... long live the King @fulltimegeek! :)
I might grant you the honorary title of knighthood if you play your cards right.
Did you seriously think your comment was worth a whole dollar before my 2 cent flag?
@fulltimegeek didn't self vote that comment, so it was @ats-david and @bacchist who thought it was, and you contributed to the valuation by down voting / flagging. All is well.
Glad to hear @fulltimegeek
I am so disappointed about you @mindhunter and sad to read all your comments to justify . I remember you as a decent member and friendly guy. I rarely see any so called famous whales passing by on my profile but guess what, I still do quite well without cheating the community just for a few dollars you split with some big boyz. Is money really that important to you guys, to trick us honest people? Shame on all of you! It's hard work to earn your rewards, especially for new people here on the platform. Stop fooling all of us please!
Is this echo chamber mamma?? Are you SJW #2?? Whales or anyone can vote for me anytime they want. Why are you using guilt and shame to control that? I would've expected you to have my back on this issue mamma, but I can see your a progressive collectivist like the other flagging whales. I'm not going to say your a disgrace to this platform, as I don't stoop to SJW naming and shaming tactics like you!
Oh dear! This kind of reply gives me a very good idea who you actually are. I was blinded by your charming kindness. I have my preference how "man" should act in a healthy, caring community. Sleazy methods can't survive for long and if they do, we will see a "chaos" of other nature later.
I wish you well in your own skin.
I don't think that will ever happen. It's too public, and the rewards go to the same people. I tell people the truth of my earnings and that isn't enough to convince people to come over from Facebook.
This is a very good point. Cant argue with it logically.
You know, you can't call an account a sockpuppet account when he has publicly transferred steem to it. xD
If people would really want to sockpuppet they wouldn't be that dumb to not transfer them through an exchange... :P
Publicly or privately transferred it's still a sock puppet to me i.e not his main account. Thank God we have made peace anyways :)
Good point. I suppose you would call them alts then 🙃
Why doesn't anyone suck my poppet? Sounds like fun😃
Hope you get it sorted.
Me too!
I have been sitting here reading all these comments while eating popcorn...I was once told: A wise man sits in silence while in a room full of wiser men.
Pass me some popcorn will ya :)
Consider the bucket passed. If you wouldnt mind taking a look at my recent coffee related post, id like to hear what you think. Do you use a Keurig?
Removing Downvotes will save us from abuse
A new system of consensus over staking will indeed save us!
Thanks for sharing this ..
So strange !!!
By the way I came back from my summer holiday
Hope that you are fine Brother..
https://steemit.com/travel/@lordoftruth/steemit-holiday-eforie-nord-part-iii
Wow, nice post @mindhunter
Please help my article ,, i beg you ,, i know you can