Here you are creating drama again for yourself seeking to earn rewards on yet another post whining about getting downvoted because you were self-voting your own posts.
You are free to do what you please of course, (that's the freedom of the blockchain) but so is everyone else and I've chosen to downvote this post.
You stopped self-voting and I was considering upvoting your (usually) decent content...but I'll not support rubbish like this.
Does reflecting on a post equate to being a "drama queen"? I certainly do not hope so, since I thought this was all a very good debate we had here. I learned something and honestly I thank you for the first downvote of yours, since through the discussion that resulted from it I learned something. I also don't need your support, but if you are now senselessly downvoting my posts I am lead to believe that you are not a very good person.
I am lead to believe that you are not a very good person.
Yeah, I'm probably a total cunt...which leads me to wonder what a person who gets well-rewarded, has a good stake and still upvotes themselves, like you continue to do, might possibly be called. Selfish and greedy for sure.
you cannot counter downvotes as they always remove post rewards. You can, however, hope to receive more upvotes from people that agree with your bullying behavor. good luck!
I just set %100 upvote rules for azircon and galenkp.Better late than never So, instead of removing rewards from them, effectively, you gave them more. Actions have consequences, yeah, right. :)
They remove potential rewards and sends it back to the reward pool. Rewards are not anyone's until day 7 at payout. Learn these things. You are here long enough!
and I can make sure that you will lose $1.5 of every post you make for life and hopefully soon $2 when I grow my stake. That's around 150 Hive less for you a month if you post regularly. Have a great day Azircon!
You are another perfect example of how to burn an account for no reason! I had no idea why you started this out of thin air. I don’t know you and have no interest in you in the past or present. Do whatever you feel like.
Hm. I thought this post of his was an attempt to quell the drama, not to escalate it. I worry that we will lose a very good content creator in this brou-ha-ha. It would not be the first such loss.
I wrote out the above response to you a few minutes ago, but got scared it would bring bad vibes my way and deleted it. Now I have returned with my response because I object to my feeling that I have to be careful not to offend you, or other whales, whom I have previously offended by arguing on this very subject - self-upvoting and ensuing downvotes. I already craft my posts so that I don't overly displease anyone; I speak carefully so that I don't bring that downvoting weapon down on my own head. Is this what we want here? Tricky subject! One that folks get quite caught up in, and does bear some calm looking into, which is what I feel tobetada is trying to do.
Interesting that you and I disagree on the tone we each heard him use. I thought it sounded like a genuine and fair attempt to discuss manners on the Hive blockchain. Having brought some related wrath down on my own head for trying to discuss that same thing, I am very sensitive to the vengefulness of the comments he received, and can 100% understand his wanting to clear the air.
The first one was extremely important - how else are we going to talk about the "values" we have here? I find it most curious that trying to have an open discussion about an apparently sensitive topic is so ill conceived by many. I was always of the opinion that shining light onto the dark spots is generally a rewarding experience. At least I learned a lot.
As I said in my other comment - this conversation is very very old.... It is not a dark spot you are shining a light on, and if you were paying any attention since you joined in 2017, you would know that.
This was supposed to be a reflective post on the first one - after such a strong reaction it would be crazy not to have one. There was a lot to think about and process, no? I posted it in your community "reflections" which I thought was very fitting. Should I point you to some real drama queen posts? 🙄
after such a strong reaction it would be crazy not to have one.
The strong reaction wasn't to your post about self voting - people just commented how they saw it. If there was a "strong" reaction, it was to you tagging people and pointing them out as self voters, without really doing much research into it at all. As said, I don't think the first post was necessary to begin with - it is an old and tired topic that keeps coming up - but you have been around a long time already, so the assumption is that you would have a pretty good understanding of the basic culture around it.
it's still good to have it imo since there are many newcomers every now and then. I find it really odd that tagging a handful of people is the thing that upsets most here. While my research was superficial - I did point that out - it simply wanted to highlight such behavior. And so far all I am seeing is that people self voting are actually tolerated and I appear to be the scape goat.
And so far all I am seeing is that people self voting are actually tolerated and I appear to be the scape goat.
Scapegoat? You are overestimating the importance of this. I know it feels like a big thing to get the attention, but on the grand scale of life - it isn't that important. And, when it comes to people self-voting, they can do it as they please - many will get downvoted for it, many will not get votes. As I see it, it is a frequency thing, and a size of the stake thing. In the background, I first defended you for self-voting due to you not posting much - but then you decided to make a thing out of it. That is fine - your prerogative. The responses are proportional. I think most people were pretty open and understanding, and even the people who you tagged without researching weren't too aggressive. Yet, the next post is that you call it a shitstorm. Perhaps you haven't really seen a shitstorm before.
I get it. However, on one hand you are saying it is good for new people, but on the other you have said that you have been blind to all of this in the past. It is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? The discussion is fruitful for you, and hopefully you learn something from it. But I am not sure how fruitful it is for many others who actually took the time to comment again on this, for someone who should have known about it anyway. So, is it a lesson for new people, or just an attempt to get some engagement through a bit of drama?
You stopped self-voting and I was considering upvoting your (usually) decent content... - @galenkp
He said it..., no vendetta..., just move on and stop harping on about this. I for one are glad of another six-figure stakeholder... as you describe yourself.
For a while there, I would upvote my own posts that had not earned at least a couple bucks. I was such a small fish, I thought "what's the harm?" I found out that the harm would only be to me, so I stopped. Many quality accounts do it, and don't get "caught." I believe if I looked into this, as you have tried to do, I would find that the large self-upvoters regularly support the downvoters, and so their self-upvoting would be overlooked. Not sure, I really don't want to be spending my time looking for this kind of thing.
I understand that the best course of action on Hive is to use your stake to benefit others, and in so doing to grow Hive. But now and then I see a really good, self-voting account holder get harassed into leaving Hive altogether. Who wins in that case?
Perhaps downvoting a post should have a negative effect on the downvoter. The opposite of earning from upvotes, one would lose by downvoting. Perhaps there would be less capricious downvoting going on, and the tool would more carefully be utilized; downvoting often becomes vendettas. Some accounts try to return to posting here years later, and will still be downvoted into earning zero on their posts. I find this to be a very bad look for Hive.
It's complicated, I know. Where you are in the hierarchy changes your perspective and your understanding of what is valuable for the chain in general. The smaller accounts cannot possibly see, or care about, what the larger accounts see and care about. It is a quandary. Much like the rest of the world. Human affairs and all that.
I hope to see you recover from this. I really love your content and long have.
Perhaps downvoting a post should have a negative effect on the downvoter.
We had that, flags cost upvote mana in the original design, but the one I won't name was soooo abusive that the code was changed to give free flags so that guy could get run off the platform.
I wouldn't oppose bringing that original design back, or adjusting its freeness to one flag a day, the amount of abuse is much less now, afaict.
thanks for the encouraging words! It's clear to me that there is quite a bit of drama when it comes to voting since real money is involved. It's definitely a problem that probably won't ever really be resolved and it's one case in which "classic" web2 social media actually has the better UX.
If you are ever brave enough to publish that big data set of self voting behavior… I’d like to see it.
Maybe a suggestion would be to just remove the tagging @ element of post??
While the members of the community are more than welcome to poo-poo self-voting as selfish or whatever justification they use to make themselves feel self-righteous, they have (or at least should have) no rights to dictate to anyone how they use their stake...if someone feels that their post is good enough for their upvote, then they can vote on whatever content they want. Downvoting someone for self-voting is an aggregious misuse of power and is deserving of a downvote itself...the self-appointed Batmans are the absolute worst aspect of this chain.
I think it is, but I don't go around downvoting those who disagree.
For any account large enough to do damage with a downvote, choosing not to upvote a self-voted post is a solid loss for an author (maybe even a comment saying "hey, I was going to vote you, but you self-voted" if they want to direct behavior), there is no need to negate the upvotes/curation of the other accounts that voted.
Plagiarism, advocating of violence, child porn, shit post spamming...these are things that need a downvote.
I'm not advocating for self-voting, just to be clear, but if it was really against the community rules, the ability to self-vote could have easily been forked out long ago.
I'm not advocating for self-voting, just to be clear, but if it was really against the community rules, the ability to self-vote could have easily been forked out long ago.
Good point.
The rule is that there are no rules and everyone can do what they see fit. The argument is "if you don't like it, you can walk away". So, that is, what people usually do. It keeps the playground small.
The space here is paradoxical. The usual players tell you that they don't appreciate the drama and someone publicly mouthing off about voting practices and using tagging would cause such useless drama. However, I think it's a lie and drama is exceedingly appreciated as an opportunity to demonstrate one's power. Happens regularly in a kind of gleeful way.
Personally, I think tagging is superfluous. If I have something to say directly to someone, I go to their blog or comment their comments.
Conversely, there is no fierce objection to tagging if the blogger praises someone tagged. LoL.
So, regarding self voting it just depends on whim, mood and who is reacting to whom on such basis.
Here you are creating drama again for yourself seeking to earn rewards on yet another post whining about getting downvoted because you were self-voting your own posts.
You are free to do what you please of course, (that's the freedom of the blockchain) but so is everyone else and I've chosen to downvote this post.
You stopped self-voting and I was considering upvoting your (usually) decent content...but I'll not support rubbish like this.
Does reflecting on a post equate to being a "drama queen"? I certainly do not hope so, since I thought this was all a very good debate we had here. I learned something and honestly I thank you for the first downvote of yours, since through the discussion that resulted from it I learned something. I also don't need your support, but if you are now senselessly downvoting my posts I am lead to believe that you are not a very good person.
Yeah, I'm probably a total cunt...which leads me to wonder what a person who gets well-rewarded, has a good stake and still upvotes themselves, like you continue to do, might possibly be called. Selfish and greedy for sure.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but you are obviously a bully just like the 2 others. Enjoy my DVs until you come to your senses.
Your downvotes will be countered, you don't have the cards to play that game.
you cannot counter downvotes as they always remove post rewards. You can, however, hope to receive more upvotes from people that agree with your bullying behavor. good luck!
I just set %100 upvote rules for azircon and galenkp.Better late than never So, instead of removing rewards from them, effectively, you gave them more. Actions have consequences, yeah, right. :)
You surely can.
This statement along with many other previous is telling me how clueless you are on hive :)
DV do not remove ant rewards! You moron!
They remove potential rewards and sends it back to the reward pool. Rewards are not anyone's until day 7 at payout. Learn these things. You are here long enough!
I can make sure that you never earn a cent of author rewards.
Here is a tip: Blurt is that way --->
don't worry I am burning them now anyways :)
and I can make sure that you will lose $1.5 of every post you make for life and hopefully soon $2 when I grow my stake. That's around 150 Hive less for you a month if you post regularly. Have a great day Azircon!
Be my guest!
I never cared :)
You are another perfect example of how to burn an account for no reason! I had no idea why you started this out of thin air. I don’t know you and have no interest in you in the past or present. Do whatever you feel like.
150 hive!
Man! I have to stand near the street corner with a pot now for that money, eh!
What will happen to my kids?! They won’t get any food!!
😂
Ah - a little attention and you have turned into a drama queen?
Hm. I thought this post of his was an attempt to quell the drama, not to escalate it. I worry that we will lose a very good content creator in this brou-ha-ha. It would not be the first such loss.
Not so sure as of yet. I don't think the first post of these was necessary - and I think this one is less so.
Interesting that you and I disagree on the tone we each heard him use. I thought it sounded like a genuine and fair attempt to discuss manners on the Hive blockchain. Having brought some related wrath down on my own head for trying to discuss that same thing, I am very sensitive to the vengefulness of the comments he received, and can 100% understand his wanting to clear the air.
The first one was extremely important - how else are we going to talk about the "values" we have here? I find it most curious that trying to have an open discussion about an apparently sensitive topic is so ill conceived by many. I was always of the opinion that shining light onto the dark spots is generally a rewarding experience. At least I learned a lot.
As I said in my other comment - this conversation is very very old.... It is not a dark spot you are shining a light on, and if you were paying any attention since you joined in 2017, you would know that.
This was supposed to be a reflective post on the first one - after such a strong reaction it would be crazy not to have one. There was a lot to think about and process, no? I posted it in your community "reflections" which I thought was very fitting. Should I point you to some real drama queen posts? 🙄
The strong reaction wasn't to your post about self voting - people just commented how they saw it. If there was a "strong" reaction, it was to you tagging people and pointing them out as self voters, without really doing much research into it at all. As said, I don't think the first post was necessary to begin with - it is an old and tired topic that keeps coming up - but you have been around a long time already, so the assumption is that you would have a pretty good understanding of the basic culture around it.
it's still good to have it imo since there are many newcomers every now and then. I find it really odd that tagging a handful of people is the thing that upsets most here. While my research was superficial - I did point that out - it simply wanted to highlight such behavior. And so far all I am seeing is that people self voting are actually tolerated and I appear to be the scape goat.
Scapegoat? You are overestimating the importance of this. I know it feels like a big thing to get the attention, but on the grand scale of life - it isn't that important. And, when it comes to people self-voting, they can do it as they please - many will get downvoted for it, many will not get votes. As I see it, it is a frequency thing, and a size of the stake thing. In the background, I first defended you for self-voting due to you not posting much - but then you decided to make a thing out of it. That is fine - your prerogative. The responses are proportional. I think most people were pretty open and understanding, and even the people who you tagged without researching weren't too aggressive. Yet, the next post is that you call it a shitstorm. Perhaps you haven't really seen a shitstorm before.
I am not though. I am simply thinking of this as a fruitful discussion :)
I get it. However, on one hand you are saying it is good for new people, but on the other you have said that you have been blind to all of this in the past. It is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? The discussion is fruitful for you, and hopefully you learn something from it. But I am not sure how fruitful it is for many others who actually took the time to comment again on this, for someone who should have known about it anyway. So, is it a lesson for new people, or just an attempt to get some engagement through a bit of drama?
He said it..., no vendetta..., just move on and stop harping on about this. I for one are glad of another six-figure stakeholder... as you describe yourself.
don't worry, I really don't seek the drama. I merely felt my initial post needed some reflection. It was a good learning experience
You certainly have stepped into it, haven't you?
For a while there, I would upvote my own posts that had not earned at least a couple bucks. I was such a small fish, I thought "what's the harm?" I found out that the harm would only be to me, so I stopped. Many quality accounts do it, and don't get "caught." I believe if I looked into this, as you have tried to do, I would find that the large self-upvoters regularly support the downvoters, and so their self-upvoting would be overlooked. Not sure, I really don't want to be spending my time looking for this kind of thing.
I understand that the best course of action on Hive is to use your stake to benefit others, and in so doing to grow Hive. But now and then I see a really good, self-voting account holder get harassed into leaving Hive altogether. Who wins in that case?
Perhaps downvoting a post should have a negative effect on the downvoter. The opposite of earning from upvotes, one would lose by downvoting. Perhaps there would be less capricious downvoting going on, and the tool would more carefully be utilized; downvoting often becomes vendettas. Some accounts try to return to posting here years later, and will still be downvoted into earning zero on their posts. I find this to be a very bad look for Hive.
It's complicated, I know. Where you are in the hierarchy changes your perspective and your understanding of what is valuable for the chain in general. The smaller accounts cannot possibly see, or care about, what the larger accounts see and care about. It is a quandary. Much like the rest of the world. Human affairs and all that.
I hope to see you recover from this. I really love your content and long have.
We had that, flags cost upvote mana in the original design, but the one I won't name was soooo abusive that the code was changed to give free flags so that guy could get run off the platform.
I wouldn't oppose bringing that original design back, or adjusting its freeness to one flag a day, the amount of abuse is much less now, afaict.
thanks for the encouraging words! It's clear to me that there is quite a bit of drama when it comes to voting since real money is involved. It's definitely a problem that probably won't ever really be resolved and it's one case in which "classic" web2 social media actually has the better UX.
If you are ever brave enough to publish that big data set of self voting behavior… I’d like to see it.
Maybe a suggestion would be to just remove the tagging @ element of post??
probably a good idea; crazy how sensitive people are here 🙃
While the members of the community are more than welcome to poo-poo self-voting as selfish or whatever justification they use to make themselves feel self-righteous, they have (or at least should have) no rights to dictate to anyone how they use their stake...if someone feels that their post is good enough for their upvote, then they can vote on whatever content they want. Downvoting someone for self-voting is an aggregious misuse of power and is deserving of a downvote itself...the self-appointed Batmans are the absolute worst aspect of this chain.
!PIZZA
!PIMP
That's kinda funny as you then go on to say that choosing to use your stake to downvote is an egregious misuse of power.
I think it is, but I don't go around downvoting those who disagree.
For any account large enough to do damage with a downvote, choosing not to upvote a self-voted post is a solid loss for an author (maybe even a comment saying "hey, I was going to vote you, but you self-voted" if they want to direct behavior), there is no need to negate the upvotes/curation of the other accounts that voted.
Plagiarism, advocating of violence, child porn, shit post spamming...these are things that need a downvote.
No. Your stake allows you to add or subtract to the ultimate value of a post. It's not, one is bad the other is good.
Stake allows both. We shouldn't be telling people that they can only do certain things with it. It's your stake. That's the whole point.
I'm not advocating for self-voting, just to be clear, but if it was really against the community rules, the ability to self-vote could have easily been forked out long ago.
I don't think there is that much wrong with a daily self vote on posts when your stake is low but as it gets higher it gets more problematic.
Like having a button to make your car fly, but having a car fly being illegal. So then why the button?
Good point.
The rule is that there are no rules and everyone can do what they see fit. The argument is "if you don't like it, you can walk away". So, that is, what people usually do. It keeps the playground small.
The space here is paradoxical. The usual players tell you that they don't appreciate the drama and someone publicly mouthing off about voting practices and using tagging would cause such useless drama. However, I think it's a lie and drama is exceedingly appreciated as an opportunity to demonstrate one's power. Happens regularly in a kind of gleeful way.
Personally, I think tagging is superfluous. If I have something to say directly to someone, I go to their blog or comment their comments.
Conversely, there is no fierce objection to tagging if the blogger praises someone tagged. LoL.
So, regarding self voting it just depends on whim, mood and who is reacting to whom on such basis.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
(1/20) @definethedollar tipped @tobetada