Any chance you might be merging manniman's comments with mine in your head? We are two different persons, I just picked up his side of the convo somewhere in the middle while openly disagreeing with some of his views.
You, yourself, and your thought process, went straight into trying to convert a consumer into an investor. (...) [you call me] A salesman trying to sell HP? WTF?
Or maybe confusing myself with yourself? You tell consumers to support creators with voting, how does one do that without HP? I tell them to tip directly instead and avoid buying HIVE they cannot consume instantly.
FTR, I never said you cash in for your sale efforts. I just observed the consumer ended up on a very consumer side of the deal.
You, yourself, and your thought process, went straight into trying to convert a consumer into an investor. "No, you're not interested in what you're interested in, here's a 'better' deal."
Other platforms where the consumer is tipping nonstop (...)
Consumers are throwing billions at content creators. This system offers them a far superior deal.
OK, I do not want to piss you off any further. I am not offended either, just releasing the tension arising from the absurdity.
Anyway. You're putting words in my mouth and twisting context. That's annoying, and I don't feel like wasting time sifting though and sorting things out with you, because you'll just do it again.
I get that, I am easily annoyed by that myself. If I ever do that, that is because I misunderstood your text. Feel free to point out specific instances so that I can correct my misconceptions. So far, I only noticed you getting uncomfortable with me when I said you called something "decent" when you meant "decent" and literally wrote "decent", confusing the audience (ie. myself).
Again, there is no sorting out with me but I have covered that previously. Do not try to change my mind. Make me sound dumb and make everyone laugh at me instead. Please. That would help me.
Going back to my thought process, I would like to pinpoint one aspect: I prefer rewarding content to rewarding content creators. That's why I disagree with the following:
1000 votes or tips worth a penny is far more valuable than one vote worth $10. Consumers always have more money to bring in, investors max out. Small tips in bulk consistently rather than large chunks sporadically, since creators put new stuff out daily.
Sentence One: Trash talk from a motivational e-book. (Triggers me too easy, I know.) They are both worth $10. Maybe the next big tip happens to be $20. Maybe 200 of those fans stop upvoting you by then. Maybe all 1000 fans spread themselves thin starting to support a handful of other creators along with you.
Sentence Two: Wishful thinking. All consumers have more needs than resources. Investors max out, consumers go broke.
Sentence Three: Fair personal preference. My POV is that there is a dilemma between frequency and quality. I do not encourage frequency, because putting new stuff out every day ends up in a soap-opera-like product. I do not object to having soap operas around, I do object to your reluctance to analyse statements that are axiomatic to you (either via thousand repetitions or due to being super easy to prove under your subjective assumptions).
Last I checked not even 1% of rewards allocated had been downvoted and much of that was targeted towards HBD funder.
Of course. Looking at the big picture, there is almost no DVing going on. Unfortunately, that supports my point (almost noone can afford to DV) as well, so it won't help deciding who is wrong here.
it's not cool to use AI as a tool to deceive others
Why? Because someone's handmade content creating business is hurt by machinemade content creating competition? Or are we consumer-first society that makes sure the content is plentiful for everyone? Are your shoes handmade? Would you prefer empty shelves and packed aisles in the shop when you are buying the next pair?
I know "the Police" did not ban AI but they are trying to enforce dumb arbitrary guidelines. Not selling stolen content/goods is widely acceptable. Refusing GMO food or AI texts is a personal preference (either possibly being a winning decision in the darwinist game - however, refusing machinemade shoes feels unlikely to be one).
Upvote/downvote system is normal. Just had a funny thought while using AI search and downvoting a response that was unreasonable. Wouldn't it be fucked up if this chatbot started freaking out over being downvoted...
It might be funny but there is a real issue.
Do you allow the chatbot to contribute to chain and allow the person running it to monetise its content? If so, do you expect every upvoter to actually read the entry before upvoting? Do you allow fans to auto-upvote on the basis of frequent tiny votes to a useful service (relying on people reading the ocassional blunder to downvote the nonsense)? Does unreasonable mean "pc for provably incorrect" or "non-provable" (or st else)? In my book it is fucked up for a human reader that upvoted the unreasonable response in good faith (not knowing it was flawed) to lose curation rewards (rewards for being attentive and willing to interact) based on their ignorance even though they did it all right (actively consumed content and voted manually). Is that supposed to be a surcharge for more intensive educational experience? I know, it is too many questions for nonamesleftforuse (no need to answer, I highly value the other input from you). It is meant to be a quality excercise for any reader that wants to learn the implications of the current reward calculation algorithm.
Seriously, the debate is not about downvotes removing author rewards, it is about messing up the curation rewards.