I have a problem with your reasoning. Right now my vote is only worth $0.010. Most people could care less about my vote at this stage. I voted on most of those post that were flagged. Any reward I would have gotten is pretty much toast. If I vote I comment. Some of those comments Michelle found good enough to vote on, so that means I will get a reward.
Now you are telling me that when my vote eventually rises to $100.00 (if that's possible), and I really liked a post that it would be a waste of my time to vote what I think it is worth because you are going to come along and adjust it to what YOU think it is worth? Please tell me why I or anyone else should vote on anything if it is only You and transisto that are capable of deciding what a payout/persons vote should be worth?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You’ve done several “discussion fouls” in here. First of all where do I imply that I and transistor are the only one who can adjust the payout? EACH AND EVERY INVESTOR (stakeholder) can do that. Michele had early voters on her and value of her post was every time too high for you to get anything out of curation from her posts at your stage. If you want to understand why feel free to check this tutorial. The fact that she has voted for your comment is absolutely irrelevant. Good for you I guess, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the post and with what people think about its value. If you accept the upvote you have to accept the downvote too Its really that simple:). I do not have the right to suppose that I know what is good for the system, but you neither dear Steemit user. Your comment is more or less and emotional outburst without any valid argument…
I've seen that quoted so often, without it really having a meaning that makes sense to me.
No, it is not that simple, not just because you say it is. Upvoting is a way for us to say to someone, thank you for sharing with us, and we give as we can or as we wish. That is our right - or are you saying we do not have that right? That only a bunch of you with the power and influence have the right? I have tried to see how it is that upvoting can be abuse, but I have not succeeded.
As for downvoting, it can only be of a positive nature when preventing other kinds of abuse, the kinds that are criminal, not the kind that cater to anyone's whims or tastes. Downvoting, unless it can be appealed (not to the downvoter) it becomes a wonderful stick, a whip, to force others into following your wishes.
It also sounds as if you are saying that the advantages of a capitalistic economy are not acceptable here, that it is not a marketplace where we each get paid according to what we are perceived to have offered in return? Oh, people can reward us if they want, but if you think they paid too much, you do not make them take back some of the money, nope, you take the money!
So, they are not two sides of the same coin, as you try to make it appear to be and there are more ethical and moral questions in force that you do not seem to be willing to even consider, for then it means you and your friends might have to relax some of the controls you feel you have over us. That is sad.
.
You made some good points (even though I would love to engage in conversation where people do not create their own stories of what i think) and I’ll try to explain myself even further.
Have you read the article I linked? It is pointless to add anything further (to the upvote/downvote being the same thing), since it’s perfectly explained in the article.
Explaining this could prove helpful I guess. So for example there was a account that created 3 sub accounts. He then used @minnowbooster to by tons of SP on the 3 sub accounts. He then created content on the first account and upvoted each and every post he has written to 150 bucks himself. This is one of the examples that explains why downvote is a crucial tool. But this is not CRIMINAL. It also is not tasty to a wealthy investor that has found out that this is happening. The same goes to michele. One investor found out that she is receiving around 400 bucks per day due to one voter and he decided to remove some of the influence of the voter.
Exactly that! You are paid what you are perceived to have offered according to the investors (they have their money at stake and they are the reason that you, me and everyone else can earn money through Steem and that it isn’t a worthless token). But everyone can adjust the payout either positively or negatively. Again, it’s pointless to add anything in this regard, if you haven’t done it yet, go and read the linked article in the previous comment please.
You’re right that there is ethical and moral problem there. Micheles case was tricky in particular. We have actually engaged in a discussion and understood each other. I partly support both sides. Any investor can flag her, but I think it would be better if he approached her first and told her about the problem he has with her. She could have adjusted and avoided the flags if that was the case. Me and my friends? Im fucking minnow too lol. I work hard for about a year here and I plan to have it as my main job. I spend well over 200 hours to learn about all the Blockchains I support. I came to an understanding that this is all possible due to people investing tons of money into the platform. They have tons of money to lose here and they can adjust the payout (positively or negatively) a lot. I haven’t invested anything, I just worked for the Blockchain the best I could and luckily, investors thought Im doing a good job. Still I can add or remove only 15 cents (don’t make me angry or you will feel my wrath lol...joke obviously:)) That’s just the way it is.
Do I use my power here over people? I guess yes. I ruthlessly flag spammers (same comment at each blog, follow for follow, etc.) You call it "have power over people" I call it "helping the platform to grow, because I have almost all of my money in SP and I will not see it die if I can help it".
You write well - and thanks for explaining.
Since I wrote my above comment, I came to understand better what the 'reward pool' is, so most of my arguments have had their legs cut off from under them.
Whatever the common sense of the situation is, I still think it works against the platform when a good poster has money taken away for reasons that have nothing to do with spam or other criminal activity. It makes all of us feel that we are working for nothing, that if we actually do achieve earning a decent income, we must then live with the fear that our money will be removed before the week is up.
You see, you are mainly basing your argument on the case argued on this page, whereas I am including the argument with (@berniesanders) and his puppy, who killed a posters earning because that poster presented a live interview he had managed to have with the doctor who provided the technical (medical) info used in the movie Vaxx. He directly said he hates those who are anti-vaccinations and those who write articles against pedophiles (pizzagate).
That is as clearly ABUSE with capital letters, for it tells us we DO have censorship (if you take my rewards away, it is a form of censorship - whether it is if a strict interpretation of the word is used, we also should take into consideration what is the practical effect). What can be done to stop people like him?
Lastly, you mentioned that he should have discussed it with Michelle so that she makes whatever adjustments are necessary - to do what? if I may ask? To earn less? Surely if he had a problem with another investor favouring her, he should have spoken to that person, instead of attacking a less powerful poster?
fingersik - thank you again and I hope that someday I become successful enough to be attacked, so that I can have a bunch of decent people like you stand up for me.
I agree and that is why the money on the post is not your money. It is potential reward. So basically there is a weeks’ time span when investors can evaluate, either positively or negatively, the work you have done for the Blockchain. Your money can’t be taken by anyone of course. When wealthy investor upvotes, no one really cares. It’s “normal” right? It makes people happy so why would anyone care. But when wealthy investor downvotes, people care because it makes them mad. They see “supposedly” their money taken away.
About Bernie. I was puzzled too when he downvoted the Vaxx article. He’s one of the biggest investors here. One of the reason we all can earn money. He is the one who destroyed the scammer who upvoted himself as I described in my previous comment too. Not only was he partly the reason that Steem is a prosperous place, but he is daily returning over 400 bucks in rewards back to the reward pool. Sometimes he is blunt, that’s just the way it is. From some peoples perspective his “directed wrath” is off. One always flags something when he strongly disagrees with what is happening in the particular article right? It can be plagiarism, it can be reward pool rape, it can be promoting of stuff that you’re strongly against. Censorship is when you CAN’T say what you will. If anyone finds enough support, he can be visible again. Also what you write can never be removed from the Blockchain. It partly is censureship yes. Everyone on Steemit starts “censured”. No reputation, no stake, no potential reward on posts, no visibility. Upvotes “remove” this state, and downvotes bring you back to that state.
Well…both ways are possible. From the downvoters perspective, there was problem in the work itself (that should be discussed with author). Also the problem never was the valuable upvote, but the amount of them on the amount of posts daily (my assumption). That can be discussed with both. Author can either start posting less and still have the valuable up vote ready, just not that often, or he could have contacted blocktrades. Well I think we will agree that morally it would be right to contact someone right?:D
You sure have strange wishes:D I hope that you will not be downvoted…