Fair enough, I can see why you may have thought it was spam. His intro was a little short, but the second post seems an earnest attempt to create content. To be honest, I've been listening to this debate between Schiff and Voorhees for the last hour or so and that .gif that he posted pretty much sums up exactly how I feel.
I don't know who is right or wrong in this debate. Whether or not to anticipate excitement or dread with respect to the future success or failure of bitcoin. I'll tell you this much the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the banks are the enemy. Big question is long term viability and who is right, time will tell I suppose.
UPDATE: 1535 CST
"I flagged on 1% (or something like that, I was on my phone) for the purpose of lowering its visibility on my post."
Yeah, initially you flagged at 1%. Since making the above comment you reflagged at 11%.
So? lol.
I was responding to your criticism and saying that what you were concerned about was a 1% flag.
After that, ya, like I said my motivation for flagging was to clean the litter and not make it visible in my post's comments. So when I saw that it was visible I changed the flag.
Not sure what you liked or wanted to reward about a pointless spam post, but that's the chain of events.
Well, if the comment wasn't spam (and I think that it was not), then you effectively soft-censored what he had to say on platforms like Steemit who dither and hide posts that drop below 0.00.
It seems to me like an uncool way to treat a newcomer to the blockchain. It's your ship though, sail it how and where you please. Most people are leaving the major platforms because of the censorship tactics.
Collectively it would be wise for us Steemians to use the flagging tool in such a way where we don't become in any way similar to them.
Before you had said fair enough. So your only gripe is the 11% aspect?
I don't really get it. It's obviously spam to me. Maybe I'm wrong, you're entitled to your impression of his post. But it seemed like spam so I click d flag.
::shrugs::
I'm entitled to my impression of it too. If you care about the platform, I'd suggest respect that someone who has used it for a longtime and is invested in the platform can throw a flag at what seems like spam on their posts.
It wasn't spam, the .gif(t) of an image that you were given was on the topic of your post. He was showing some love by taking the time to interact with you.
Now if I went to his account and looked into the comments that he made and the same image was posted repeatedly, In a case like that it would be legit spam.
I don't know, maybe we just have different ideas about what spam is.
Apparently.
I guess things like "nice post . resteemit done" wouldn't be spam either to you, since you could just imagine that they really meant it and then start hassling someone who regarded it as spam.
However you want to define spam, I'm really confident that he didn't read my post and sincerely want to express that. (Most likely it was a canned response to it being tagged 'bitcoin'.)
It's hard to perfectly know what their intentions are, sure. But that's why it's okay to yield to others and not act like they did something wrong if they have a different impression than you.
If you don't think there's at least a pretty reasonable chance that that isn't a sincere user making a sincere interaction, then I think you're making a pretty bad read of the situation.
I simply went over to his comment section and noticed that they do not appear to be spam. Here is a real example of spam. Here is another real example of spam. Here is a real example of spam using text instead of images.
When you spam a button on a video game controller it means you are doing the same thing repeatedly in rapid and regular succession. All of blackberry71's image postings and text postings appear to be unique and also on the topic of the post he was replying too.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I think you may want to consider that your definition of spam may be incorrect. Maybe you think that spam is annoying, most people do think that. Yet, maybe you also found his .gif(t) annoying so you mistakenly thought it was spam.
I'll give you an example, pickpocketers are annoying because they steal your wallet. Yet that doesn't mean that all annoying people are pickpocketers. See what I mean? Anyway, it's your account run it how you see fit, I was just critiquing the flag. We can certainly agree to disagree if you like and leave it at that.
for what it's worth tho I typed "spam definition" into the google and I get this:
doesn't seem like it's predicated on repeated action
::shrugs::
Like I said, however you define "spam", I don't believe it was a sincere comment sincerely interacting with my post. People generally refer to those comments as "spam" here. If that's not the correct use of the word, so be it.
So it's two different things: (1) whether it was a sincere comment etc, and (2) whether I'm using "spam" correctly. I don't really care about the latter (tho I do think I'm using it the way people generally use it here, whether or not that's the textbook definition).
Ya, this has plenty run its course for me lol. And like I said I'm happy to remove the flag if he seems like a sincere user over time.