Ever pre-order a game then get mad when it turns out not like you expected? Well some users are currently undergoing that here on Steemit and some are voicing their opinions in a very aggressive manner.
Personally, I originally came with the intention of exploring a new platform, but also for the risk/reward of potential profits investing in the currency. Both of these came with the full understanding that Steemit is in beta and likely will have many kinks to work out.
One of the early difficulties I had with the platform was being able to follow users. There was no good way to be able to track the actions of users that I wanted to follow. So what did I do? Did I create a post calling @dantheman Hitler because he hadn't put in the feature yet? No. I created SteemitX.com to try and help the community.
So when I see posts like "Dan needs to be stopped" from a user who has a significant audience, it upsets me quite a bit. Voicing concern over the the direction a product that is still under development is completely acceptable and beneficial. But when you choose ad hominem attacks (especially the lowly Hitler reference) instead, it helps nothing.
In this situation, Dan and Ned listen to the community and base many of their decisions on suggestions and interactions with Steemit users. If people have issues with the direction they are planning on taking, voice your concerns by all means, but preferably like users have done on GitHub in a civil manner with their own ideas.
REMEMBER - This is still in beta! Changes will be made and should be expected! Either join the effort and discussions of progressing the platform, or not. But name calling based off of poor assumptions doesn't help!
EDIT: I just noticed the framed needlework in the picture and it is very fitting:
Give me patience when
little hands
tug at me with ceaseless
small demands.
Give me gentle words
and smiling eyes,
and keep my lips from
hasty, sharp replies.
That when in years to come
my house is still
beautiful memories
its rooms may fill
This is a work in progress and we actually get to make suggestions that might help? Seems like we should be happy about that! Sure does get frustrating though. I keep seeing people express frustration, leave, cool down, and come back. I get frustrated too from time to time.
I think user frustration levels (while not quitting) may be a better barometer of 'user engagement' than standard metrics.
Engaged and annoyed is still engaged.
Good point, and perhaps since money is on the line this is adding to user's emotions.
I'd like to emphasize on this:
Honestly, I think a lot of the dissent comes from users who are just angry that they haven't gotten rich on Steemit yet. This isn't always the case and certainly there are valid criticisms. But a lot of what I see seems to be envious Steemians whining.
While I agree that some users get a little out of control, Steemit should try to learn from the mistakes of similar platforms like Digg and Reddit.
Digg allowed a small group of power users control the content that reached the front page. That place imploded after users revolted and left for Reddit.
Reddit is now an epic dumpster fire. Brigading, mods who censor content they don't like and even the admins are tweaking the algo to make sure links that don't fit their social or political narrative never reach the top of r/all.
You got to work with your userbase.
is that picture you or dan? because between the black cat and the weird grin, that guy does look kind of evil. Im just sayin'
anyway, personally, i don't support calling people hitler under any circumstances. Because its cliche. and kind of ad-hominemish.
That said, using a "democratic" system to strip voting rights away form people that you disagree with (which is what dan is talking about doing) is something that comes directly out of mein kampf. So if somone is really looking to avoid being compared to hitler, maybe whacky schemes to disenfranchise voters who are voting in a way you don't like isnt exactly the best strategy.
Even if you give dan complete BOD concerning his intentions and the effect of his proposals, at the end of the day, hes still talking about fucking around with peoples right to vote. And for good or for ill, thats something that, in our political culture, is going to invite some unflattering comparisons.
side note:
this is a description of a benevolent dictator. Benevolent, yes. But still a dictator. I don't think thats necessarily what people had in mind for the "new paradigm" of blockchain based socail media
IMO, dan and ned get way way way way way way way more latitude and intellectually dishonest praise than unwarranted criticism.
But then you go on to say you don't support ad hominem behavior?
No, this is the description of people trying to run a company. The front-end may be open source, but they still own and are operating a business. We as users are not automatically assigned rights to tell them how to run their company. If we stop enjoying the product, aside from complaining, our only option is to choose another platform.
replying here due to nesting
I don't necessarily want a completely decentralized or leaderless system. Im not saying you in particular do this (i only recently started following you, so i dont know how you think), but in my opinion there are many here who try to defend manifestly bad decisions as "the free market" or the "wisdom of crowds", and who try to hype steemit as something fundamentally new.
That is to say they take a fundamentally centralized, corporate system and wrap it in the flag of decentralization and the free market
The post below is certainly not the only example of this, but its a great one.
https://steemit.com/steem/@cryptogee/introducing-steem-the-first-anarchy-mined-coin
I agree with everything you said about it in this post. I only hope you'll find the article less upsetting by thinking of it as Steemit's own growing pains.
I remember having a shocked reaction when I heard that "friends" might be added as a feature. I had a little tantrum and then realized that of course many features will be added and many changes made. I remember a member getting really frustrated because they'd been in early and had been sharing non-original content with no problems and then suddenly it was being policed aggressively by angry newcomers and this person felt like they'd done nothing wrong. It was a heated situation. The "Dan Needs to Be Stopped" article reminds me of it because the insistence on keeping things a certain way seems too attached to something that is simply going to continue to change.
So, while I'm glad you called it out, I hope you'll not take it to seriously. People get attached. It's a good thing. :)
theres a big difference btw a change in content policy and "changing the matrix" to make certain peoples votes not count. Implementing a policy of "dan gets to decide who can vote and who can't" is not the same as a tweak or adding a feature.
I actually don't agree with the GitHub commit implementation and think the comments there hit the nail on the head. We'll see how Dan reacts to this whole negative backlash from it, but my point was lets not call him Hitler for suggesting it.
Good point on how it does show the commitment and attachment users have to the platform. Also, I am by no means innocent of ever having an emotional response too. But I guess it was the Hitler imagery that provoked me to post this...
If this is you provoked, I think we're all very safe. :)
How dare you sir! I would have you know that I can be quite ferocious! =P
Oh My!
I hereby acknowledge your claim to the value of pacificity in the face of the unanticipated woes brought on by this generation of narcissistic bastards with their overindulgence in multitudinous grievances- a generation bastardized of their divine potential. Such emanations of disdain and disregard for the noble creators of this cryptological entity ensue from a generation of socially, morally and intellectually inept parasites.
In the burgeoning sphere of cryptocurrencies and emerging blockchain technologies, an equally progressive and vociferous protestation in opposition of any mechanism inferior to complete decentralization advertently or inadvertently detracts from, confounds and befuddles the otherwise noble endeavors of our enterprising chieftains. The premise that a complete putrification of all central power can be achieved is a false interpolation of the parameters of this conscious paradigm we experience through spectrum of intellectual and emotional processes known to humankind.
The interconnections and societal fluctuations inherent in the psyche of human race necessitate flexibility in the development of the network itself. The illusory paradox of this audacious attestation is manifested in the following exemplification: The perceived requisite for decentralization on the Steemit platform is not synonymous to the indubitable criticality of safeguarded autonomy of the Bitcoin core code.
Our prodigious chieftains, Dan and Ned, continually engage the constituents of this cryptographic community and curate the preeminent benefactions of such.
Let the detractors contemplate the futility of conjuring up the hope of deriving financial and social enrichment from foreign provenances.