How is the Flagging Whale-Votes Experiment Going?

It shows what many already knew from the code: that when those with higher SP stop voting then those with lower SP get more reward allocation power. This translates into having your vote give out more $ currency from the reward pool than before.

Source

But this is not a real solution, since whales can't vote without having a countervote flag from one or two whales running the show/experiment: smooth or abit. Whales can't vote, reward and promote the visibility of content they like. Whales have been rendered mute in their voting.

This is not a real solution to the problem of concentration of power. All it does is mask the problem over with a half-measure of a solution, something I recently talked about. This prevents the real solution from being implemented while people think the "solution" is already in place... lol.

The "flag whale-votes" experiment/ruleset only showed that the power to allocate rewards on the platform is based on having the most SP (a serious design flaw and the reason most people left in July). If you have a lot of SP, and you vote everyday, you decide how the majority of rewards get allocated, while most other votes give a few cents. There is still the concentration of power in the system, and this experiment doesn't address abusive flaggers. It's not a real solution to the concentration of power on Steemit.

What happens when a ruleset is introduced, but not followed?

There are whales that still upvote posts they want, regardless of this new rulset, and if enough of them vote, the countervotes from the two other whales doesn't measure up. They are also whales that want to flag posts, not because there is a single whale vote, no, it's because they don't like the post or author and they don't want to see it rewarded, so they flag with all their abusive power to remove rewards when no whale even voted on it.

That's how the no-whale-vote experiment is "working". Not bad at least to show how the system works with SP to allocate rewards. But even when no whales vote, some whales still flag posts because the posts come from authors they don't like.

How does that sound to you?

Does that sound like a community effort to make things right in the community?

Are these the common goals of the community solving problems together?

Do you want flags to remove rewards when no whale vote was applied?

Do you want people who vote to support authors or posts, to have their votes annulled, simply because some power-mad whale decides that post shouldn't be rewarded?

Do you want people who give 'autovotes' to have all their votes annulled so that they can't support the authors they want?

In order to bring awareness of this issue, data or information is required. I'll provide data on this issue for more people to understand what is going on.

In a real community and society like the real world, rules are created (right or wrong), the point is that there are rules and there are ways to create and modify rules, and to deal with rule breakers. Steemit doesn't have this.

In real societies, if someone is being maliciously targeted by another who abuses their authority, some people will tend to care and stand to do something about it. People have jobs to do such things. They have responsibilities to deal with injustice in society because we're not allowed to do it collectively as a community. But not on Steemit. Malicious behavior continues when the abuser has the money and power in the highly flawed Steemit system. Money = authority and power to act anyway you like in Steemit. Steemit will not grow this way.

If it's not obvious to people there is a power differential that is being abused, go look around and gather data on the situation.

Let me help:

berniesanders, a.k.a engagement (what a joke of a name, as he wouldn't know engagement if it hit him on the head as he votes up game-picking no engagement posts), thecyclist, services1/2/3?, nextgencrpyto is a fool who can't think properly. I have exposed his fallacious reasoning and false claims before when he validated flagging just because @dan or @dantheman upvoted my post once in a week while @dan could upvote other people without them getting flags. He also made himself the "view-counter police" and decides who should and shouldn't get rewards based on how many views they have (even though some of my posts have more views than other posts he votes for or doesn't flag yet have higher rewards...).

So that was a month ago. He just invents whatever reason to do whatever he wants.

What about now in the recent weeks?

(Go look at @dantheman's recent post and read some past comments on past posts about how crazed bernie is in hating dan. Dan didn't even vote for himself and whales jumped on to flag him right away to $0! Other "whales" voted after the flagging had started. The founder and inventor of the Steem blockchain wasn't even allowed to get rewarded for his post? Sheesh... so he voted himself to higher rewards than regular users were originally allocating lol.)

So I didn't post anything for a week after I first called out the BS flagging going on, then I made a post called Adventures with Linux Distros, which had 132 views, 24 comments, on 247 votes. It had reached something like $50, but that was unacceptable for the whale who targets me for BS reasons:

I post 1 post in a week, and the people who voted on it weren't allowed to reward me what they rewarded me, because a power-mad authoritarian abusive whale is out of control. Apparently the new "flag whale-votes" experiment had started, and I didn't even get voted by a whale, but he didn't care. He just likes being a malicious abuser of his power in this flawed Steemit system.

So I took another week off and waited to do more tests.

What happened when I posted again? You got it! Another flag from the madman on a post that had 176 views, 25 comments, and I guess too many votes (323) for that view and comment ratio for this power player to decide who can get what?

Is $90 for a post in one day too much? WHy is it ok for others to get $90 for one post or two posts per day when I can't for posting once in a day? So I decided to keep testing things out, and I posted one post only again the next day, still flagged even though no whale votes, 104 views, 15 comments, 274 votes:

So this kept going on:

Since I started posting again, I made 22 posts (excluding one with 'Decline Payout'), and 15 of them were flagged by this out of control whale abusing their power in this flawed system. That's 68% of my posts getting flagged. I guess he forgot to flag me for the other ones (or they were already low payout in the $6-$20 range?), maybe he was busy and they slipped by... I don't know. Anyone else see this happening to other posters, by any whale flags? I can't find any other case like this except for @dollarvigilante who seems to have been harassed for a while now.

So over 50 views, or 100-200 views, or 40-50 comments, doesn't matter, it's not about the actual views or comment engagement, it's all about certain authors posting as the real reason to flag and remove rewards. Hate-fueled vendettas are what drive this behavior.

Then I finally had a post with a low enough view count that he could comment his bullshit justification:

It doesn't matter what other people vote to reward when no whales are voting, power-mad authoritarian whales decide how things are to be... The power has them not think clearly, rationally or justly about their actions, i.e. power-mad.

And now it's just that I'm not allowed to take information from other sources, and write my own posts about it, which he moronically used as a justification on a post I completely wrote myself from no external sources... LMAO!

Here was the status of the post before he flagged (33 views, 15 comment, on 142 votes, and again NO WHALE VOTES with $22 reward):

And then after he flagged when I got back from going out today (down to $3, nullifying most of the upvotes I already received, rendering their upvotes non-existent in terms of reward allocation):

Meanwhile, he votes for others who write posts that get info from external sources... yet I'm not allowed to keep the rewards from voters who vote for my content from external sources? What? Somebody likes their power and doesn't like it being taken away, which is why he chose to disregard the "no whale vote" experiment. Also he can vote with two of his accounts, one at 1 million SP, and the other at 500,000 SP, yet only receives a counter-vote flag from the experiment that only annuls part of his sock-puppetry and the post still gets a significant SP reward allocation from his sock-puppet voting.

I will mention some authors who write posts, some get their info from external sources, and get rewarded higher than many of my posts since I got back, yet they never get flagged by this power-mad abusive whale. Why? Because this is all about targeting a few authors on Steemit that he doesn't like.

Go look at the posts for these users: kingscrown, kevinwong, sauravrungta, and others. They can post, get rewarded highly, sometime less comments or views than some of my posts, yet no flags for "low view count/too many rewards". Funny, eh?

I'll guess just start doing like @contentjunkie and others in their posts, and just copy/paste text and get rewarded whatever people award me with for doing so and get flagged anyways... yippy... fun times. At least I'll get rewarded like others for putting in the same amount of copy/paste work... rather than write my own stuff and get flagged to receive even less rewards than those copy/paste posts lol.

I have called out to whales before, looking for the "good" whales, but there are none to act against bad whale behavior according to the white-paper, at least none that came to stand and speak against the issue of flagging abuse. Some whales even joined in to support the "righteousness" of this inconsistent and hypocritical flagging for rewards as they see fit. When you got the power in this flawed system, I guess you can make up whatever rules you want, not define them to anyone even when asked to do so, and just keep doing whatever the hell you want... yeah... great community that creates...

Is this the community you all want here? Is this how you want a community to operate, and let this type of authoritarian power-mad behavior go unchecked? There is no whale to correct it in this current flawed ill-conceived Steemit system... things need to change for the better!

Would you want to promote a society in real life that operated like this, where people with the most money can do what they want and get away with it, going around abusing the power and authority they were "magically" given with a flawed systemic design?

If this is what the community of Steemit wants to tolerate and allow, then you will reap what you sow: tolerating abusive power-mad power players who act like they can do whatever they want just because they amassed tokens mining and didn't earn their position of authority that they misuse and abuse.

When there are no rules, standards or criteria established for verification of alleged justifications those with power use their power, then you have confusion and chaos of rulers acting how they want without any consequences to their behavior. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. All societies have rules. Rulers who have power others don't and abuse it isn't the creation of anarchy, but simply the creation chaos. Rulers need rules to keep them in check. The power players in Steemit don't seem to follow rules and make for bad management.

If you don't care to learn about this issue, then just keep moving along to another post. I won't bother responding to BS comments or from people who respond with "TLDR but blah blah blah" ignorance.

---

Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.

---

References:

• What Happens When No One Cares About Wrong-Doings in a Community? Nothing! Exactly!
• Community Decisions to Establish Rules vs. "It's in the Code = LAW", and the Battle for Decentralization
• The Peter Principle, Ortega y Gasset and the Self-Determination of Steemit
• Who is Best Suited to Manage a Community and Make Decisions?
• Whales upvoting chosen accounts crap for the rewards is one thing, attacking the rewards of a genuinely productive account is utter madness
• downvoting from anyone that reduces payout because they think the post isn't deserving is wrong
• Do You Want a Corporate Governing Culture, or a Socially Self-Governing Community?
• SCD #7 - Working Towards a Decentralized Self-Governance of the Steemit Community
• Why Flagging Is Bringing Down The Value of Steem, As A Currency
• All you have to do is UPVOTE CONTENT YOU THINK IS WORTHY
• Consensus exists only in equalitarian groups, where everybody has the same rights to express their will by influence and be influenced by all the others
• People Still Obey Authority to Harm Others, Shows a New Milgram Experiment Study
• Common Acceptance of Fairness and Harm Values Drive Intergroup Tolerance
• Is Cooperation Promoted by Punishment?
• What's in a Real Community?

---

_{If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting ,    Sharing or   Reblogging below.}

_{me for more content to come!}

_{Looking to contact me? Find me on Discord or send me a message on SteemKURE.}

---

_{Please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:}

_{If you are unsure how to vote for witnesses, you can put my name in the "SET PROXY" section at the bottom of the Witness Voting page which will use my witness votes.}

---

2017-03-27, 6:02pm