No name calling here but I don't support complaining about rewards and how people vote being rewarded. If you're going to do that and I see it, I'm likely to downvote it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
No name calling here but I don't support complaining about rewards and how people vote being rewarded. If you're going to do that and I see it, I'm likely to downvote it.
Never been downvoted but I care about the chain so I want to find a middle ground. @smooth You guys have done a great job at solving past issues with the chain, but this style of downvoting is eventually going to lead to a whole lot more drama. It's a leak in the ship that needs to be fixed somehow.
It's just a reminder of how much more power large stakeholders like yourself have and how little power the rest of us have (and a much more potent reminder than upvotes). I know it's getting better thanks to forks and that we want to incentivize people building bigger stakes but we need some more mechanisms to decentralize voting power and in the meantime, softer, more diplomatic downvoting, otherwise we will constantly leak support and energy.
We are doing our best but we are far from "Decentralized".
I shouldn't be scared of having all the support I've gained over 5 years erased by sharing this opinion with you right now. That's the main issue.
But I trust that you care about this ecosystem and so I risk it.
I'm not even into the whole truther community, but Kenny has done way more for the chain than he gets credit for (attracting a millionaire investor and a ton of users over the years, not to mention supporting a lot of good content, not only truther stuff, also the Cross Culture community that I run). I told him he should resist the accusations (even if he feels justified) and try to reason with you guys instead of rage quitting, but people get emotional when you hit them in the wallet.
A healthy ecosystem requires more complex solutions than "It's my stake, I can do what I want with it". If that was enough we wouldn't even need downvotes in the first place.
please consider being gentler with your downvotes, even when you hate the content. At the very least, explain yourself kindly and realize nuking peoples posts to 0 or near 0 feels like an attack and makes even those who you haven't targeted worry about what we can share and what we can't share. "Censorship-resistant" is nice but we want the place to feel fair and as decentralized as possible too.@azircon @curangel I'll risk getting on your bad sides too by tagging you,
If anyone decides to target me because I share an opinion like this and the community doesn't come to my rescue than this chain is not what I thought. I believe you will listen to reason, so I have to say something.
This kind of perpetual fear should not exist. That kind of control is counterproductive to creativity and authenticity, and will yield sugar-coated and incomplete content. The original point of all this was that a post promoting Hive, from a studied and seasoned Hive/Steem user was downvoted to zero, and the main reason given for the downvotes was to correct excessive rewards. The rewards were not leveled in the described way, they were eliminated completely, and at a time where no counter votes could occur. There are 605 accounts that supported that post, and it only took 3 to erase the rewards entirely. Why was that valued at zero with that many votes? This is clearly an issue guys.
Kenny's 2 min Steem tips video series (along with his countless hours of in-person training) is the sole reason I ever understood or even discovered this blockchain in the first place. I know for a fact there are many others with the same story. I watched him give entire seminars to groups on many occasions.
I feel that I risk a lot to speak my mind on this - but I should not be made to feel at risk in a truly evolved form of governance. It is my sincere hope that I can continue to add value to this blockchain through my original art, music, projects, contests, promotion of other Hive projects, NFTs, blockchain gaming promotion, onboarding, and in general high caliber, concise, and comprehensive publications, and that I will continue to receive the loving support I have earned through my years of hard work, and I don't mean only votes/rewards. The strength of networking in this community is where I have always held the most value. Is there any way we can establish peace bredren? Coming to terms on something here would provide a shining example of how Hive members can work out their differences to achieve massive leaps forward in the evolution of the community and how it is continuously co-created.
We do not have to agree on everything to exist together - we only have to respect one another. If humanity could apply this as a species we could see an end to all wars. We can start that movement of energy right now, how do we want this story to go? Thank you to everyone who has poured their love, passion, and lifeforce into this ecosystem - no matter what side you fall on in this debate. Much love hive fam - love you brotha Kenny. Growth hardly ever comes without pain... if anyone knows that, its me. I just lost the love of my life, and all my hope now is to help make Hive the best blockchain possible - is there anyone here not on board with that? I am down to discuss practical and agreeable solutions, respectfully and peacefully. We are here for each other. Blessings.
Also you created Tribesteemup, which of course is now Abundance.Tribe as a means to support content that focused on many topics, not just free speech or Conspiracy Theories (as some like to call them), the list also includes Non-Violence, Philosophy, Veganism, Mindfulness, Community Empowerment, Love, Original Music, Esotericism, Healthy Recipes, Psychedelics and Permaculture, which is such a broad range of topics.
Diversity is so important within any community and being able to embrace that diversity is what really makes communities thrive.
I like to see Hive as one big community and for sure we don't all have to agree, but we should at least allow others to be heard, to share their truth, without fear of retribution.
However, If there is evidence of plagiarism for e.g, by all means then we should intervene.
I have a lot of love for the many wonderful people within this community and for all that I have learnt and continue to learn from being a part of it.
I do hope that the platform gets to reach it's potential xxxWell @elamental and @selfhelp4trolls basically said all that I wanted to say. Especially when it comes to how much you have contributed to Hive Kenny. You have put so much time and energy into the platform and you are all about creating abundance for others.
Amen
I think ppl misunderstand the difference between respect and courtesy. Respect is earned and courtesy is given, until it's not shown to be appropriate. Respect is too much to ask right from the start and courtesy must be the first act, but the other party must also show they deserve it going forward by their reaction. JS😁
No "disrespect" intended but the view you express sounds judgemental. So, you're not respectful of anyone until you're done judging them?
In Jamaica, it's quite common to get a fist bump from a complete stranger and the only word spoken is "respect". Why, what does that mean? It does not mean that the two individuals are going to agree on anything. It just means, to me, that there's respect for another's freedom and right to be an individual and the same is asked for in return.
Lots of ways to look at things, not saying right or wrong, just saying what's my way. So, are you saying that Kenny has done something that you disrespect him for? That's not been my experience.
... we maybe just disagree.. that's okay
There's a difference in respecting the rights of all and respecting individuals without knowing a thing about them. Regardless of the word they choose to use, I call this a courtesy.
What do courtesy and respect mean to you? Are they interchangeable or do they have distinctive meanings? Is your perspective derived from the current casual definition used today or the actual meanings, loosely or accurately?
Perspective means a lot subjectively, but it doesn't mean one's personal truth is well, truth. Also, judgement is the most important thing we have. Would you respect a murderer? How would you know whether or not he is one without getting to know them? How about a pedophile or rapist?
Is your default respect or courtesy and when do they end or become solidified?
I argue that respect can only be earned on an individual level, which is not equal to the level you used as an example here.
Love first, judgement later. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. :)
Thank you. Well said. I think there is a solution to this, but there has to be enough support from the people who develop stuff for it to actually become a topic of conversation again. The last two days I’ve been thinking about downvotes that cost money and hive proposal fund support for those who are looking out for spam (if they start downvoting for other reasons they lose they start behaving poorly we can fund different downvotes who look out for abuse.
Not sure how much this idea has been discussed
follow.Such calm and reasonable words in this heated debate. So good to read, thank you! I agree whole-heartedly. I've been looking at @selfhelp4trolls posts and videos, liking them a lot, but this comment deserved a
Thank you so much man. I will keep an eye out for your posts too
It appears to me that that is exactly the intention.
Don't think it is friend. My hope is that we shall see a workable facsimile emerge from ETH 2.0. Even the original creator of DPoS considered it a "experiment" which he chose to walk away from.
Dan walks away from everything.
I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt for now. They ignored me for a year over bidbots corruption and finally saw that it was a problem. Then they came up with a solution that I hated which turned out to be great for the chain. I think this is more of a problem of "how to organize society" (we are a little society), something which humans have struggled with forever. DPoS is imperfect, but so is everything else so far.
I know Acidyo to be a decent guy who cares about the chain, and I suspect a lot of people on both sides of every debate here are better than we imagine. But when you have power, you wanna use it, and we all only have so many hours in the day to understand each point of view. And most peoples accusations tend to turn into self fulfilling prophecies.
They haven't yet realized that the level of power they have is incompatible with the idea of decentralization. I think they will eventually. I'll stay here as long as I can find people who listen to reason, and I still can find many.
experimentReturn Proposal #0 ensures that it will not be used on anything unless the HF 20 Cabal gives it's green light. It is my feeling that only by starting at the ground up will the goal of a fair self governance be put back on track. Fixing this incarnation of DPoS seems as monumental as taking the dysfunctional out of the US Congress. It would make me happy to be mistaken on this point however my years of monitoring those involved does not give me much confidence in it happening.Good points, @selfhelp4trolls. It's the community that keeps bringing me back although convinced that this is broken. It was doomed with the Ninja Mined Tokens. There was that brief chance of making the fork from STEEM meaningful by simply leaving them behind; yet like Frodo's ring it was too hard for our Champions to destroy. Instead they moved it to a slush fund which @gtg's
I am not sure if it’s broken or not. Part of me feels that all economies will always be fundamentally broken, or that we still have a very long way until we discover how to unbreak. I still feel this is better than the world economy and all its potential social media competitors, mostly because of the diversity, which is why I want to defend that diversity. The only groups I might not want to defend are groups that are undeniably racist or sexist or looking to cause harm to anyone.
I just try to be where there is innovation, decency and opportunities and Hive still checks those three boxes as far as I can see. There just seem to be a tiny handful of people who can make it a much less pleasant experience for people they don’t like or for arbitrary reasons and so I’d rather stay out of anything that might stir them unless I have a chance to convince my followers or one of the decent whales, and I think there are more decent whales than most victims have given hive credit for…more than the indecent ones. It’s not always easy to figure out which ones are which though because few of them are good communicators.
This is an incredibly powerful statement and I have to admit I feel the same way sometimes when speaking up. It's wrong and none of us should feel that way. This should be a place to share our ideas and opinions and have a respectful dialogue. Unfortunately, some of the heavyweights feel the need to throw their money around just like the big bullies threw their weight around on the playground in grade school.
I can only hope that your last paragraph holds true.
Thank you. I was quite impressed with myself as I was nervous about who it might stir, though I do think that if you speak with an understanding tone and stay calm and patient there are people who will come to your defense (including whales and devs) because they understand this is a healthy conversation to have and they don’t want their investment to go to shit. That’s why I am not too scared to share anything.
The only issue is that as soon as you’ve been targeted, you have to be more adult than the person who targeted you because otherwise they use your reaction as fuel to justify their actions. It’s not just a hive thing. It’s true of all people who get into heated debates on anything. The only difference here (and the reason I think we need to keep brainstorming solutions) is that the monetization of our behaviors makes power disparities more pronounced. It sucks that the one who is being bullied has to be the adult to have any impact on the situation.
It’s my experience that most of the larger stakeholders aren’t malicious at all, and they care about the chain. There may be an exception or two though…..
I think anyone who gives up is missing out. Even if your rewards go to shit, this place is a fascinating experiment and a great place to find passionate people and deep connections.
I will always stay for the people I meet here, and unless I find another place with no ceo or company that is as diverse and capable of evolving, I prefer Hive.
There were supposed to be two unique properties of STEEM/HIVE, and this was to make it both "smart" and "social." They were as follows: (a.) harnessing crowd wisdom and (b.) using that to distribute the token. They called this Proof-of-Brain. And unfortunately, because it's a dPoS system, Proof-of-Brain can never happen. You've been trying to force PoB to work all this time by adding downvotes in hopes that you can make the vision reality. I get it. In theory, it was perfect, but the truth is it doesn't and cannot work. You'd have to have one account per person, KYC, equal votes, and no automation or trails to make it work, and nobody wants any of that sheite. All of that said, when a small fraction of stakeholders, you and a small handful, when you can null the will of several hundred stakeholders, that's not going to make PoB work. All it does is disenchant people with the platform. I know you are smart, but I have to ask:
When will we let this one go and implement something wiser than the failed PoB mechanism?I completely agree. The rise of the bidbots merely expanded on autovoting, and the utter corruption of free speech oligarchical stakeholders wield on Hive is it's death knell.
They will rule over ashes one day.
Thanks!
I think bid bots have mostly been out of the picture since they jiggered with the system and taxed the content creators 25% in favor of giving those funds to content curators. That didn't change the fact that people act in self-interested ways, but it did change how they go about it. I'm hoping the oligarchical stakeholders will see that acting like dictators of what is acceptable is unacceptable in an age of censorship. The best I can do is appeal to their logic, like with the last comment and hope they see why it doesn't work.
Thanks, valued-customer!
They just moved to dlease.
I didn't name it "proof of brain" and the person who did is long gone, after doing a lot of damage before he left.
It's a nice idea, but the reality is that it is a stake-powered reward system. Stakeholders pay the rewards (through inflation), and if you want rewards you need to post things that a consensus of stakeholders (not just individual ones) want to reward.
It's not perfect, but it's what we have, and, perhaps with tweaks but certainly not KYC, is about the best you can do at the base level with a native permissionless blockchain platform.
Second layer tribes, etc. can do things a different way if they like, so there are other ways to socially earn rewards.
Yeah, I don't know who named it, but I think you spoke up in favor of the downvote regularization and had the final word on the GUI change that implemented it. And that was based on how you interpreted either the white or blue paper. Now, if the downvotes somehow magically helped to tap into crowd wisdom, I could see a point to it, but they don't. Anyhow, when one realizes that Proof-of-Brain isn't smart at all, the downvotes, outside of a limited spectrum of use cases, cause more harm to author morale and the platform than they do help. And This is especially the case when one to three actors can null the will of hundreds of stakeholders. It applies whether they are on a voting trail or not because if they are on a voting trail, it's an intentional act to see that rewards go to specific content. Healthy markets function by consumers supporting things they like. Without crowd wisdom and outside a very narrow band of use cases, flags (or downvotes) are on a par with Molotov cocktails getting thrown through plate glass windows. Nothing good comes from it unless you subscribe to the broken window fallacy.
Addendum:
"Reducing subjectively excessive payouts is a valid reason for downvoting/flagging" However, when the whitepaper speaks to negative voting, it only says that it is possible, it does not say that it is "VALID." Much like in real life: I can kill a man, I can steal his lunch, I can burn his business down to the ground. The law of the concrete jungle allows for all of these things, but it doesn't mean that one should do them. This post is a prime example, it has the goodwill of 388 stakeholders behind it, and all it took was for your will to censor its rewards. Is this the HIVE that you want? Where the guy with the most stake can say: NO REWARDS FOR YOU!Interesting moments in Steem's history: The GUI was changed to reflect the idea that the whitepaper explicitly condoned downvotes when @smooth said:
^That can't possibly be the desired atmosphere you want, can it?
Not especially, but I might have referenced it. Most of what I say is based on my own thought process. If I didn't think the white paper made sense I would say so, and have.
Oh it works the same way for upvotes and nobody (mostly) complains. Hundreds of stakeholdres might see something and decide it is crap, and then one or two whales decide to upvote it. In MOST cases being discussed, the bulk of the rewards being offset by downvotes come from a small number of large upvotes too. It's a stake weighted system, both on the upside and downside. The people with the investment (and getting inflated) get to decide where the rewards go and don't go, according to the size of their investment (and cost of being inflated).
One more thing. If smaller stakeholders wanted to have more influence, one way to do that is to start downvoting more. When you don't use your downvotes, you are taking 20% of your influence over where rewards go and throwing it in the trash. The main reason there are only a small number of downvotes in most cases is because they don't.
And what do we do if we want to downvote a large stakeholder (or delegated account) but fear retribution where they start downvoting all our posts to hell just for thinking of downvoting them? I'm not saying you or acid would do that but I can think of 2 or 3 people, probably the ones I'd be more likely to downvote....
That only happens because of too few downvotes. If there are 50 people or 500 people downvoting, they're not going to retaliate against all of them.
Alternately, smaller stakeholders can stick with downvoting smaller stakeholders (when appropriate). Leave it to the larger stakeholders to downvote the other larger stakeholders. But at least by downvoting something you are maximizing your influence instead of throwing away 20% of it.
This isn't that sort of market. You're getting influence over inflation that doesn't come from your own stake, it comes from all stake. You're not a "consumer", you're a participant in shared decision making.
For this to make economic sense it has to also benefit all stake. If the other stakeholders don't agree that what is being paid out benefits them, you can't have unilateral decision making over that shared resource.
You CAN certainly support what you want as a consumer with your own money. That works just like any market and can't be downvoted.
It says more than possible. It also explains why it is needed: For significant cases where rewards do not add (enough) value, while also noting that not every single little instance needs to be stopped (which I agree with).
Also, it kind of matters that the original system had superlinear rewards. You needed to get a LOT of stake voting in order to get significant rewards. A small amount of staking trying to vote where others don't agree would accomplish nothing (tiny or no payout). That had good and bad elements. When we eliminated, downvoting became more important, not less, because individual upvotes were then able to pay out significantly without any sort of stake consensus.
Right. I think you are speaking to consensus-of-stake. The problem with that is there's no merit, nor rhyme, or reason behind it. There is no wisdom behind it, not when one can null the will of the many. When you abuse the downvote function as you did on this post, all your doing is battling other stakeholders for no good reason. It's a major turn-off for any would-be investors, and it's damn near impossible to rewire people to think that it's well and good. Those kinds of mind tricks only work on the weak-minded. Additionally, the optics from a PR standpoint are terrible. When you have chain dictators who police content why bother opting in when Twatter, Fakespace, and Bootube can give you the same unbellyfeel that you get here. Hell, when fakespace gets their Diem rolled out, what'll be the difference? You can get demonetized over there for your opinions or demonetized here. And over there, there might be a bigger audience.
Fakespace with Diem won't reward you for posting, at least not to anywhere near the degree that happens here. That's the difference. You want stakeholders to pay you, stakeholders are going to decide if and when doing so is useful to stakeholders, both large and small ones, but mostly (for BOTH up and down votes) large.
No one is policing content either. It's rewards. Post whatever you like, as long as it isn't child porn or whatever where the UIs block it. If you get no rewards, then you don't. You still get to post.
Before the downvotes, the only legit reason for flagging was spam, scams, plagiarism, and improperly labeled NSFW or the type of illegal content you mentioned above. That's until you made your proposal in the previously mentioned GitHub issue #215. That brought us to the shit show we have now, where we have a minority of stakeholders who dictate reward censorship on legit content like this post. I'd encourage you to watch the 'Community' episode called 'App Development and Condiments' S05E08. The 'Black Mirror' episode 'Nosedive' S03E01, and 'The Orville' episode 'Majority Rule' S01E07. These will give you an idea about the kind of dystopic hellscape we have here at HIVE because of this willy-nilly opinion-oriented downvoting. Sure it's all fine and dandy for you now, but you may not always be one of the major stakeholders on the block. You're one of the ones setting the standard. And the stakeholders who demonetize politically oriented content because they disagree, that's the same as all the other social media companies. Any interested money power in the age of hyperinflation can buy enough controlling stake in HIVE and run it right off a cliff without the aid of the exchanges. And if that happens, they'll have no obligation to list us in another split. Anyways, if HIVE is going to be a bastion of free speech, censoring rewards on posts that demonstrate the user writing them has a brain is not the way to go.
I think here you are leaving the space where you are objectively trying to achieve something that cannot be objectified. The vocal criticism of those who complain about downvotes is a value that can be called the value of "conflict in existence".
If you were a cool rational being here, you could probably readily agree that the presence of conflict makes a great value contribution in the social space of communication. I usually compartmentalise my subjective judgement of what I consider not worthy of approval in such postings (complaining, bruised egos etc.). I can abstain from any vote, but simply comment.
But I see the overriding potential of such postings precisely in the fact that, as a rule, the engagement of the comments that then start are quite passable: To see conflicting views being debated with each other. This form of engagement can hardly be found anywhere else. I think that can be readily admitted.
Now, one can say pejoratively that no one needs such a thing when it comes to advancing the cause and would probably meet with approval, but just not totally. Those who open the barrel and criticise loudly may not be totally right, but they are not totally wrong either. On another level, however, I would argue that the obviousness of conflict in the public sphere deserves as much of a presence as the obviousness of non-conflict, triviality and superficiality.
I would find it a nice surprise to see such gouged by the usual downvoters, just as it would be surprising to see the usual upvoters criticise it.
However, as long as one pretends that there are two firm fronts and neither individual is willing to admit that he is nevertheless on both fronts, the demand for proof of the other's probity is rather hypocritical insofar as one's own probity cannot be clearly proven. Since neither can be proven nor not proven, the impulses to try to do so nevertheless have a rather paradoxical character. My interpretation of "What is of value?" would consider the naming of this paradox as valuable.
I didn't entirely understand that, but I do agree that in cold rational terms, conflict can have value to social media. Many people would consider that a problem, but it is what it is.
Thank you, I find this is a great insight. Conflict has in my eyes potential in many directions. It can be used for hardening the fronts, it can be used to communicate on a different level, it can be seen as an asset, very particular for us humans.
Maybe you remember a quote from Starwars where Darth Vader denies the very fact of having a conflict.
While it's obvious, that there is, for us viewers :)
And I will join smooth in that. As this post and previous one not only complaining about rewards, tag spam and name calling. But it is also a massive $70 self vote after smooth DV on a post where rewards were liquid.
Is it tag spam if you only tag very specific people that you are actually talking to/about in the post?
I didn't make some giant list everyone who upvotes/downvotes/follows/etc like some people have.
Every account tagged is either a community I've supported over the years, someone already involved in the specific conversation at hand, and the one person whose divider images I used.
Truly the problem is in THEM...
the blockchain functions that way.
I don't support these GASLIGHTERs Kenny!
But I do Support YOU, often.
And if I see something I don't like? I typically move.on
HIVE!D
and watching with interest.
Any potential tag spam has been removed - I changed them out with links to folks blogs instead, because a few small errors had been pointed out and I realized that my headings weren't showing up along the sidebar because I had them centered.
I appreciate that you don't name-call or make ridiculous claims, and I specifically mentioned that you've been pretty silent during this.
Hey, rules of the game say it's your stake and you can do whatever you want with it right?
You'll notice that almost nothing in my post had anything to do with down-votes, but rather with lies being spread about me by a prominent member of this blockchain.
Yeah this is a bit much. In my years since the last chain with yall, I always saw you and acidyo as two of the most solid and influential people doing cool stuff. It sucks seeing a community that banned together and forked away from the 51% stake attack to have such division. I just had this happen with guy that is battling acid ironically enough trying to use my past comments and reblogging them in some attempt to use comment in his whale war. When asking about it on text he flipped out and acted like a whole diff person. like whoa. @peerplays man is a really cool thing. Right up your alley and no downvotes for using network that runs off the hive network. airdrops from staked hive if i am understanding properly.
It's because you made no sense and STILL don't...
I'll be happy to clear whatever this means up but you need to write it down for a Mature Adult like my LAWYER to figure out... otherwise YOU are part of THIS PROBLEM i'm afraid by Perpetrating RUMORS.
So for the FUCKING RECORD KID!
TO ALL WHO CARE:
I ABSOLVE @dynamichivers from ANY AND ALL ASSOCIATION WITH MY BRAND!
SO FUCKING SORRY IF HE WAS HARMED BY RETWEET, REBLOG, OR REBIRTH.
HE IS DEFINITELY NOT WITH ME!
~FRANK
now lose my # and stop confusing the ISSUES!
AND RESPOND HERE!
if you HAVE to
Exactly.
Post whatever you like. If you want rewards for it, post stuff where rewarding it is supported by most of the stake.
Holy shit!
There you go again smoooth. Dammit, just finish of growing a fucking mustache, travel to the past and learn to play the damn guitar once and for all you MoFo!
And yeah, I've read each one of the comments you've made in this post so far. But with as many misleading bullshit as you've stated, I wasn't going to bother pointing out or citing one in particular. Hence, this intensely expressive comment!
My answer to everyone who talking about how bad it is, how it is doomed, etc. is: What are you doing here?
If the answer is milking rewards, or looking to flip a 'doomed' token to a greater fool, then I don't care what you have to say. If it is something else, than what you're saying doesn't even make sense. It's just whinging about downvotes, and trying, badly, to make it looking like a sincere opinion. Again, not interested.
Weren't you going to go and tell everyone not to join Hive?
I'll be keeping a closer eye at what tribesteemup starts overrewarding in the near future, cya around. :)
I have been telling plenty of people. Some want to try to "win Hive back" - not realizing how built-in these issues are. If it's not BS, it's Azir, or you, or whoever comes next.
Whale's gonna whale.
As long as the game is set up this way, this will happen.
On Hive, and in the world at large.
Profit before people, obedience and virtue signalling over questioning authority, and censorship of anyone who might put a wrench in things.
Authoritarians are always going to try to squash anyone who might question their rule.
That's a nice way of saying that you'll start down-voting all sorts of people that I support because I'm calling you out, correct?
Just want to make sure, for the permanent record.
Well, at least you'll be checking out some content that challenges your world-views, and probably even see people peacefully disagreeing in the comments.
Could change your life.
Nah was insinuating you're just going to switch to another account after burning your reputation on your main one. Remember that sockpuppeting only requires one mistake.
I'm being open about what my plans are, and the support from TSU is going to continue as it has for the last few years.
Maybe if you read my post - an introduction of myself to you - then you'd stop responding to some imaginary version of me that doesn't exist.
Yeah cause that's how Hive works, if you "open" about aomething it means that's how it'll be ye? There's no way you can just shoot up a new or old account and vote it up with all thay stake in your control ye? I mean omg people wouldn't lie on the internet!!! and for money?? get outta here you!
Notice how you never actually address anything I say, and just keep telling your own fictional stories about a character with my name.
Overrewarded comment, damn you're really good at using other people's stake willy-nilly all over this comment section and posts, huh? @kennyskitchen
Attempting to help more people see your threat, which you have now partially censored, once again proving the points being made.
lol
I'm curious why you 100% down-voted this post, which is very much not about rewards or voting, and entirely focused on the libel being published by a top 20 witness.
It seems like this comment (which came well before your downvote) was proven false by that down-vote.
Am I missing something?
I see it as the same sort of insider drama. By all means, go ahead and post and debate but I don't see added value to Hive that justifies rewarding it (but if enough stake disagrees with me, it'll get rewarded anyway)
That makes Hive look bad, because it's got too much centralization, especially in the hands of people acting in the ways I documented.
And it doesn't matter that the rewards were all given away to communities that support tons of people on Hive?
And you know most of the stake that hasn't already voted for my posts (and been cancelled out) is either one of the people downvoting, someone completely AFK, or someone who won't risk retaliation by talking about this glaring issue.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, and if you don't mind me saying so, you have an obvious interest is claiming that you getting downvoted "looks bad". I'm not buyng it.
Document all you like of course. The debate is reasonable, just not pay-worthy IMO.
As I've made clear hundreds of times, since my years-past posts about downvotes, this isn't about me, and it isn't about rewards.
It is about the unwillingness of some large stakeholders to allow content they find mentally challenging to be seen by the [hive-scale] masses, and the massive amount of centralization that their success in doing so demonstrates.
This is about the dozens of people who have commented about how they were attacked & zero'd out, the people I've specifically shown as examples, the people reaching out to me privately to thank me for calling this out (because they fear retribution), the many MANY people that have already left because of this reason, and the many more who will never come here because of it.
It's not your fault, altleft's fault, azircon's fault, curangel's fault, etc.
It's mostly the faulty of a semi-idealistic system, which was sold/marketed/pushed specifically as a solution for free speech and non-corporate content online, in a decentralized platform... even though it was clearly designed to just be another capitalistic oligarchical shit-show. Thanks Ned & Dan :-/
That, and it's simply because almost every single person using this blockchain was born, raised, traumatized, indoctrinated, and now lives in Babylon.
Can't really expect them to act differently than the "celebrities," "politicians," and "executives" that their religion places as the highest class of humans.
You downvoted him once before this from what I can see.
Man, these idiots aren't even trying anymore.
Probably more than once, but that's not really the point.
Left him a more "calm" comment just now. I think some people know I have a short temper for stupidity and may say things I don't mean or aren't completely true after attempting to deal with this shit for a long while now, but trying to use that to defend his position may probably be more lame than anything I've said.
I swear this shit couldn't be better if you were writing a script about wannabe dictators. Am I being punked? 😜
Translation:
lol, well, I tried. @selfhelp4trolls
guess he feels it's more important to continue whatever narrative he thinks will help his rep or hurt mine. Cute.
The fact that you address your own faults here man, I got nothing to criticize. I won’t blame you at all if he decides to leave or do something that invites more downvotes.
Some people just have so little trust for those with power that they can’t distinguish that these are individuals with their own approaches and plans. There may be conspiracies sometimes but not everything is a conspiracy. If he looked at your activity on chain over the years he’d see that you are a stand up dude. I can’t vouch for 100% of anyone’s activities but you’ve used your power more responsibly than almost anyone I know on chain or off.
Funny though, some of the other downvoters responded with comments that don’t really seem to address any of my concerns in the slightest.
I said, I think that “My stake I can do what I want with it” attitude without a concerted effort to continuously distribute power is going to eventually lead to a system where a few people dictate everything which will be a shitty sell on the “decentralized future” pitch. Sounds like the definition of centralized control. Same shit as what we are used to, just a different flavor.
So I see why a lot of people don’t trust those with more stake and input into development when they see that kind of attitude.
I think that they’ll realize they need to be more careful with how they wield power and spread the stake out more when it comes back and hits them in the wallet eventually, but they don’t seem to have much respect for me or my opinion so I’ll leave it alone and hope that they are convinced by the example that you set @acidyo
I’ll be patient and willing to contribute to the ecosystem so long as we have enough people who are trying to make this place more fair, diverse and truly decentralized.
Thanks man 🙏
The fact that you address your own faults here man, I got nothing to criticize. I won’t blame you at all if he decides to leave or do something that invites more downvotes.
Some people just have so little trust for those with power that they can’t distinguish that these are individuals with their own approaches and plans. There may be conspiracies sometimes but not everything is a conspiracy. If he looked at your activity on chain over the years he’d see that you are a stand up dude. I can’t vouch for 100% of anyone’s activities but you’ve used your power more responsibly than almost anyone I know on chain or off.
Funny though, some of the other downvoters responded with comments that don’t really seem to address any of my concerns in the slightest.
I said, I think that “My stake I can do what I want with it” attitude without a concerted effort to continuously distribute power is going to eventually lead to a system where a few people dictate everything which will be a shitty sell on the “decentralized future” pitch. Sounds like the definition of centralized control. Same shit as what we are used to, just a different flavor. (It’ll also stifle innovation if they scare off anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideals.)
So I see why a lot of people don’t trust those with more stake and input into development when they see that kind of attitude.
I think that they’ll realize they need to be more careful with how they wield power and spread the stake out more when it comes back and hits them in the wallet eventually, but they don’t seem to have much respect for me or my opinion so I’ll leave it alone and hope that they are convinced by the example that you set @acidyo
I’ll be patient and willing to contribute to the ecosystem so long as we have enough people who are trying to make this place more fair, diverse and truly decentralized.
Thanks man 🙏