"So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all."
That is what you said, and I disagreed, pointing out that crowds don't have brains, anymore than institutions have rights. Individual people do have rights, brains, and comprise society.
Aiming at society's brain you will miss, because society doesn't have a brain. Proof of brain is limited to individuals. This underlying principle is why consensus isn't ubiquitous, why society is diverse, and why we aren't all going to vote one way.
The important thing about our votes is that they are unique, and derived from our personal values. That is why bots degrade society when allowed to vote. They are the opposite of proof of brain. They are proof of no brain. Proof of wallet.
That has no place in society, and that's what Steem social media is.
Let me say this again in a way that maybe won’t be turned into some sort of physiological look at society and individuals brain power..
Of course a crowd doesn’t have one brain, it has many. This system was designed to be “crowdsourced” proof of brain, therefore one person saying “this adds value” no longer can be the deciding factor, and might I add never happens here.. so what I was saying is that we need to work together, as a crowd (made up of unique individuals with their own brains) to help ensure our votes “count”.
Of course not everyone will agree on one post and we don’t want them too, but that’s not really the point here.. you’re worried about one vote not counting so here’s the solution I have been giving - make sure your one vote isn’t the only one there by taking it to c-squared curation group.. which is open community sourced curation.
As far as the rest, I think this all stems from poor wording in this Steemit Inc. post, and I don’t really feel the need to explain things on their behalf.
The truth is that every social media platform is crowd sourced and so is Steem.. so we can just accept that and work to ensure the good stuff is seen or we can just complain constantly.. you choose, I’ve already made my decision.
'Join the herd. Look at this nice corral!'
The vast majority of Steem was created by ninjaminers, and most of the little created by inflation has been captured by the socks of the ninjaminers thereafter, meaning that Steem was never crowdsourced at all, and if HF21 remains the status quo, it never will be.
Unless you consider ninjaminers the crowd.
We disagree on certain fundamentals, and I am prepared to accept we won't agree. I expect three things to happen as a result of HF21: Steem price will plunge. Market cap will plunge. User retention will plunge. If I'm wrong, those things won't happen. You'll have been proved right.
If they happen, you will have been proved wrong - but it will be too late to do anything about it, because everyone that cares will be gone and unlikely in the extreme to come back.
I have come here to post and engage because my voice is singular, and I reckon I struggle not with the wisdom of the crowd, but the stupidity. You're encouraging people to sublimate themselves into the crowd, and that is simply unacceptable when the crowd is plunging over the cliff.
My way or the highway, eh? Yeah, no. That's not how society works.
It's how society breaks.
Keep twisting those words. I said come together in a manual curation group to help good authors be rewarded, only you could twist that into something bad.
It seems many here only want to complain and do nothing, it’s a free world so please continue. It’s been a couple days though... seems a bit early for the pitchforks.
I didn’t like or support the majority of these changes but will do my best to help them make a positive impact for the community.
If that doesn’t work we can all leave, as we as individuals have the right to do so... even you.
'Either do as I say, or you're just a complainer.'
No. You may actually believe that, but that only means you are unfamiliar with the proposals I have put forward.
I am not interested in making more of a bad thing. I oppose decreasing user retention, decreasing Steem market cap and price, and will continue to advocate for good things, even if you and others oppose me. You may prefer I leave, as you indicate above, but until there is no longer a community based on free speech here, I am likely to continue to speak freely here.
Of course, Stinc could include me on the irredeemables list. That would not prove me wrong. On the contrary, it would prove me right.
You reveal fundamental differences in world view in our discussion. You have indicated with several statements that you will remain part of the crowd, no matter what that crowd does. I have indicated I will decide how to act, no matter what the crowd does. I reckon therein lies our disagreement in the main.
I refute again your contention that either we must act to support whatever our overlords determine is best or leave, and will continue to advocate for rational policy even if our financial betters refuse to listen. That's not just complaining, or opposing the wisdom of the crowd, despite the fact you can't understand it in other terms.
There are other possible ways to structure financial incentives on Steem than stake weighting extracting the vast majority of rewards, and I advocate encouraging capital gains instead. Eventually either capital gains will be allowed, or Steem will utterly fail, as the lower the price goes the less interest people have in it.
Please make an attempt to consider acting to influence the crowd, rather than simply obeying it's dictates. That might be scary. Courage is doing what is right even when you're afraid. Be brave.
Is that a direct quote?
And if you think I’m obeying some overlords you don’t know me very well.. ask any of those “overlords” how well I behave and get back to me... I’m going to go back to curating. Have a good day.