Definitely not! I think I should be exempt and I think some others should be exempt. I think you should also look at who the author is and what the author is doing with the rewards. If the author is making crap posts and only cashing out then yes I would support anihilation.
I think my posts are some of the best on the blockchain and it's illegal for me to cash out my Steem since I haven't given my photo ID to an exchange.
I am not trying to cash out but I think we should allow some people to cash out and of course I think we should try and find a way to make it legal for people to buy Steem.
I think @rest100 should DEFINITELY have a full 100% exemption.
I don't want to be mean though but if I was a curator I would not give him a small OCDB bot upvote but if a user is buying steem and using bots I think they should qualify for a bot vote as well if their post is super great. Maybe like 1 or 2% or something.
I’m saying that I use @smartsteem and smartsteem alone I am a accredited author three stars in fact. I create quality content I have been recognized by most of the community for my efforts and my consistency. So if you feel as if I shouldn’t gain surface on the platform to gain new followers from new users being on boarded then yes we have a conflict of interest.
You left out that you are an investor and VERY loyal to the platform. I think you should be given a lot of preferential treatment and maybe even a 1% boost as a token of appreciation especially if you are ever unfairly flagged.
I have nothing against that and we're downvoting good content less that still use bid bots than the mindless garbage spam, but using them still gives you an unfair advantage towards everyone else not using them and obviously everyone can't use them so rather get them to curate you without using them like the rest are trying. Or face some downvotes cause the bids are giving you unfair advantage towards profit and visibility.
How is it unfair? This is public knowledge all you need to use it is to purchase stake.... isn’t that what we want growth? Or control of who has visibility an who doesn’t. What’s interesting is this guy @louisthomas his feed is popping yet remains unscathed bc clearly he is affiliated with your little cabal.... 🤷🏽♂️ but it is all good continue your justified unjustified path just know I’m not as small as you think....
Nice threat, thanks for that! Did you read the post or just downvote it without reading cause I literally explain in it what's unfair about buying profitable votes.
The person you tagged is being curated, not buying votes.
Oh I read it but clearly you don’t understand the purpose or need for it while in a bear market but 👌🏽 my guy like I said I’m sure @thejohalfiles would never approve his delegation being used to down vote one of his associates
It isn't, really, as long as you accept that downvoting is fair too.
And, ultimately, it doesn't so much matter if it is fair because some people will continue to do it (applies to both buying votes/vote trading/etc. as well as downvoting).
I think you left out some key information like smart steem returns are low and your loyalty to the platform is high. Even if you were gaming the system it appears you are very loyal to the platform.
FYI the .01 upvotes you give out do not get paid though. It has to be over .02. A .019 comment will show as .02 but not pay out.
Honestly no you shouldn't. At least until auto voter is gone, downvoting of self upvotes is tackled on the same level as bidbots and the tribes are taken down in the #NewSteem circle jerk voting abuse.
They basically took one system of abuse and replaced it with one that lets people be rewarded still for not engaging as the platform was intended. Forming tribes, originally, was brought up by whatsup in a defensive move to protect the rewards/earnings of the upper tier when the price started falling. She wanted to gather in groups and leave everyone else fending for themselves. The same exact person who told me several weeks ago that it is her stake and if she wants to upvote her stuff then it is her right as she earned it. Yeah she earned it all right by playing against the rules, upvoting her short blathering ons about what ever entered her mind that day....but now somehow just because of "status" not "quality" feels she should be protected and given the right to go after others for exactly the same things she has been doing...breaking a rule, doesn't matter the "rule" it matters she chose one to break.
Now don't get me wrong...I'll be the first one to admit the trending page was disgusting in regards to what was making huge sums of money off bidbot abuse but when you have people like whatsup using their stake for their own benefit to make an extra buck or two on post she is in turn not using her stake as originally intended and using it ALL to promote other post/comments. That in turn leaves others no choice but to use bidbots to make a couple bucks on their post otherwise they basically sit there idle.
As far as mysearchisover is concerned I've spent a many times finding humor in how he managed to escape detection doing such short post whereas many others got caught. I guess his luck has run out but fortunately he's an intelligent individual which shows us that what he was offering was basically what he was getting in return, not much of anything. From a business perspective that's a pretty smart analysis, you don't put in more than what you are getting out. The argument that is how others achieved their success fails in comparison to what the competition was like then compared to now, if that wasn't a fact he'd been the one who made almost thirty five bucks on his last post compared to the post you just made with it's lack of proper punctuation, whereas his is flawless. Did you see people flocking there upvoting his ability to write so cohesively?...no you didn't, they flocked to you because it'd paid better for less quality. To which he gets downvoted because he though he was worth his effort put in by seeking a small pittance from a bidbot because you all would continue to ignore him regardless of the status "quality" put forth in his ability to compose. People like him were the least of everyone's worries and for the most part of following him he got little in return for the post he did make and wasn't a huge subscriber to bidbots during that time. It wasn't until the last hardfolk it became nearly impossible to even make a small amount that forced his hand. What you should be doing is going over there and saying if you continue to write in such a cohesive fashion and stop using bidbots I'd seriously consider following and upvoting your work instead of being condemning because he's worth his weight in regards to those efforts.
Ya @thejohalfiles gonna get that opinion too moron be careful what tress you ruffle
Posted using Partiko iOS
So you're saying we should not downvote everyone buying bids on their posts equally?
Definitely not! I think I should be exempt and I think some others should be exempt. I think you should also look at who the author is and what the author is doing with the rewards. If the author is making crap posts and only cashing out then yes I would support anihilation.
I think my posts are some of the best on the blockchain and it's illegal for me to cash out my Steem since I haven't given my photo ID to an exchange.
I am not trying to cash out but I think we should allow some people to cash out and of course I think we should try and find a way to make it legal for people to buy Steem.
https://steemitwallet.com/@rest100/transfers
I think @rest100 should DEFINITELY have a full 100% exemption.
I don't want to be mean though but if I was a curator I would not give him a small OCDB bot upvote but if a user is buying steem and using bots I think they should qualify for a bot vote as well if their post is super great. Maybe like 1 or 2% or something.
@steemcleaners @ocd @ocdb #rewardpoolrape
https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@boosta/pytjyp
https://steemit.com/@steemcleaners/comments
I’m saying that I use @smartsteem and smartsteem alone I am a accredited author three stars in fact. I create quality content I have been recognized by most of the community for my efforts and my consistency. So if you feel as if I shouldn’t gain surface on the platform to gain new followers from new users being on boarded then yes we have a conflict of interest.
You left out that you are an investor and VERY loyal to the platform. I think you should be given a lot of preferential treatment and maybe even a 1% boost as a token of appreciation especially if you are ever unfairly flagged.
@steemcleaners @ocd @ocdb #rewardpoolrape
https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@boosta/pytjyp
https://steemit.com/@steemcleaners/comments
I have nothing against that and we're downvoting good content less that still use bid bots than the mindless garbage spam, but using them still gives you an unfair advantage towards everyone else not using them and obviously everyone can't use them so rather get them to curate you without using them like the rest are trying. Or face some downvotes cause the bids are giving you unfair advantage towards profit and visibility.
How is it unfair? This is public knowledge all you need to use it is to purchase stake.... isn’t that what we want growth? Or control of who has visibility an who doesn’t. What’s interesting is this guy @louisthomas his feed is popping yet remains unscathed bc clearly he is affiliated with your little cabal.... 🤷🏽♂️ but it is all good continue your justified unjustified path just know I’m not as small as you think....
Posted using Partiko iOS
Nice threat, thanks for that! Did you read the post or just downvote it without reading cause I literally explain in it what's unfair about buying profitable votes.
The person you tagged is being curated, not buying votes.
Oh I read it but clearly you don’t understand the purpose or need for it while in a bear market but 👌🏽 my guy like I said I’m sure @thejohalfiles would never approve his delegation being used to down vote one of his associates
Posted using Partiko iOS
It isn't, really, as long as you accept that downvoting is fair too.
And, ultimately, it doesn't so much matter if it is fair because some people will continue to do it (applies to both buying votes/vote trading/etc. as well as downvoting).
I think you left out some key information like smart steem returns are low and your loyalty to the platform is high. Even if you were gaming the system it appears you are very loyal to the platform.
FYI the .01 upvotes you give out do not get paid though. It has to be over .02. A .019 comment will show as .02 but not pay out.
His mind is set but I appreciate you saying something but this dirt bag is on a power trip here
Posted using Partiko iOS
What that should translate to you if you did any investigation should be any votes I get from that service I deserve 💯
Posted using Partiko iOS
If you get them without buying them then I agree.
Honestly no you shouldn't. At least until auto voter is gone, downvoting of self upvotes is tackled on the same level as bidbots and the tribes are taken down in the #NewSteem circle jerk voting abuse.
They basically took one system of abuse and replaced it with one that lets people be rewarded still for not engaging as the platform was intended. Forming tribes, originally, was brought up by whatsup in a defensive move to protect the rewards/earnings of the upper tier when the price started falling. She wanted to gather in groups and leave everyone else fending for themselves. The same exact person who told me several weeks ago that it is her stake and if she wants to upvote her stuff then it is her right as she earned it. Yeah she earned it all right by playing against the rules, upvoting her short blathering ons about what ever entered her mind that day....but now somehow just because of "status" not "quality" feels she should be protected and given the right to go after others for exactly the same things she has been doing...breaking a rule, doesn't matter the "rule" it matters she chose one to break.
Now don't get me wrong...I'll be the first one to admit the trending page was disgusting in regards to what was making huge sums of money off bidbot abuse but when you have people like whatsup using their stake for their own benefit to make an extra buck or two on post she is in turn not using her stake as originally intended and using it ALL to promote other post/comments. That in turn leaves others no choice but to use bidbots to make a couple bucks on their post otherwise they basically sit there idle.
As far as mysearchisover is concerned I've spent a many times finding humor in how he managed to escape detection doing such short post whereas many others got caught. I guess his luck has run out but fortunately he's an intelligent individual which shows us that what he was offering was basically what he was getting in return, not much of anything. From a business perspective that's a pretty smart analysis, you don't put in more than what you are getting out. The argument that is how others achieved their success fails in comparison to what the competition was like then compared to now, if that wasn't a fact he'd been the one who made almost thirty five bucks on his last post compared to the post you just made with it's lack of proper punctuation, whereas his is flawless. Did you see people flocking there upvoting his ability to write so cohesively?...no you didn't, they flocked to you because it'd paid better for less quality. To which he gets downvoted because he though he was worth his effort put in by seeking a small pittance from a bidbot because you all would continue to ignore him regardless of the status "quality" put forth in his ability to compose. People like him were the least of everyone's worries and for the most part of following him he got little in return for the post he did make and wasn't a huge subscriber to bidbots during that time. It wasn't until the last hardfolk it became nearly impossible to even make a small amount that forced his hand. What you should be doing is going over there and saying if you continue to write in such a cohesive fashion and stop using bidbots I'd seriously consider following and upvoting your work instead of being condemning because he's worth his weight in regards to those efforts.
I do agree that dan does do some excessive flagging.