Of course, it makes perfect sense.. The accounts you are connected to have valid reasons to power down and those you dont't like do not and are traitors to Hive. It's a perfectly rational position to take, yes. Clearly there are rules about powering down that are never spoken about or written down - which you are enforcing through verbal slurs, again - it's all totally rational. The fact that 12 out of the 20 top ten witnesses are currently powering down is only evidence that they are traitors to Hive who are trying to destroy Hive, yes.
Wow, what I am I thinking - even daring to think for myself here.. I don't have 1M HP, how could I even imagine to have the audacity to verbalise cognitive processes.. I am ashamed.
I am not connected to any of the account you mentioned
Do I use a bigger font? Will that help?
You ask for an explanation. I GAVE you an explanation. What is your problem?
You are friends with Pharesim and run Curangel together, so yes, you are connected to Pharesim. But even if you had never met him and had never worked with Curangel or anyone else I mentioned, it makes no difference to my point. My obvious point being that you are trying to diminish the character of people based on nonsensical metrics that you are selectively applying in order to try to bolster a position that no-one but you takes seriously. You are essentially saying that anyone who powers down is anti Hive. You have no clue what they are going to use the money for - they might be literally spending it on Hive marketing, as people have done before - or paying for servers or even employees to work on Hive projects. It is you who seems to have no clue about so many things that I am at a loss to explain it.
And what are YOU doing?
I don't have any metric.
I am NOT a witness. What I say doesn't matter. I am just a stakeholder like yourself. Anything I say is my opinion and mine only. A am entitled to MY opinion.
My last word on the subject.
A metric is a standard of measurement and I am referring to your use of the powerdown status of accounts as a standard of measurement of the account owner's intent to help Hive in some way - so yes, you do have a metric and have expressed that in your own way.
You are absolutely entitled to express yourself here, no-one is suggesting otherwise. You are publicly slandering people who are very busy in working to improve Hive and as such you are triggering a response to that slander. Further, you are a major cause of the existence of the fairly large scale efforts on Hive to address issues that your behaviour has surfaced. The issues could have surfaced anyway, as a result of other people, so they always needed to be addressed - however, I am just pointing out that you are contradicting yourself energetically. You are saying on the one hand that your opinions don't matter - but on the other hand you are voting heavily in order to enforce your opinion. Clearly, to the Hive community, your opinion does matter - just as everyone's matters automatically due to DPOS.
I am actually a witness as well as a stakeholder and have been here since a couple of months after Steem launched in 2016. I have had a degree in systems engineering for 20 years, made software for the world's largest investment banks, been involved in blockchain for a long time and am friends with numerous fairly high profile people in the space. I've been programming since I was 4 years old. You are not qualified or in touch with enough information to determine whether I know anything about blockchain or not.
Setting all of that aside, I am involved in numerous projects that help Hive and I would be involved in even more if I wasn't having to dedicate so much time to addressing the results of your own personal actions.
You will find out some of what I am working on soon enough.
Please share your LinkedIn Profile :)
I barely use LinkedIn so there is little point to that. You will just see my age, photo, name, education history and rough job history before I started running my own company. None of this is useful to the context of this conversation and given that you have already been warned by an apparent law enforcement officer, publicly for physically threatening someone - unsurprisingly, I don't really feel like helping you commit the crimes you have been threatening others with.
How is asking to share a professional experience to a professional a threat? Especially when that professional is volunteering his resume to impress upon me. A LinkedIn profile is a simple way to express a professional profile, is it not? Or do I even stop talking about this subject too ?
I actually have you muted, but still was trying to be helpful, but that is a mistake on my end. I really must request you to stop having any communication with me. People request that over internet, correct? I am expressing my personal preference that I am reluctant to have any further communication with you politely. Is that a fair statement?
I haven't spent much time looking into it, I only know that he downvotes for Curangel and that Curangel is run by Pharesim.
I think they will appreciate that sort of libel being published on the chain.
I was clearly being sarcastic.
Sarcasm isnt real.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory tbh.
A very old movement that is starting to catch on.
Indeed, birds are not real. Every bird in current existence is infact a government drone, subcontracted out by Amazon and Facebook of course.
The birds know all, the birds see all, they do not forgive, they do not forget, expect them, they are legion!!!!
As a member of the hybrid bird/reptile people - I take great offence at the slander of my ancestors. You can indeed expect us, we poop without remorse and we love the shiny things.
As a member of the hybrid bird/reptile people - I take great offence at the slander of my ancestors. You can indeed expect us, we poop without remorse and we love the shiny things.
Are they not powering down? The claim usually has to be false to be considered grounds for libel. Just opining negatively about someone isn't enough to get to court even if you technically could file a frivolous case.
I assume that the "libel" being spoken about was calling them traitors to Hive, sarcastically.
Well he stated that it "was evidence of them being traitors". Libel generally requires 2 components a false claim and unjust harm to someone's reputation. Impeaching someone's character does not equate to libel. Someone could frame this as "weak" evidence but that doesn't make it a false claim.
If we were to tone police the statement to something less incendiary but still steelman the position, it would be something like "The fact that 12 of 20 of the top witnesses are powering down is bad optically and could shake consumer confidence". The claim is true not false and even if someone could dismiss the traitorous rationale as incorrect, it still isn't libel. It would just be a weak argument or false equivalence.
This is the exact reason that it's important to have proper discourse on chain. Downvoting posts a person don't like to oblivion is a much less effective measure than communicating why a person's reasoning is faulty. But it's a lot easier than having discourse and gives people inverse slot machine dopamine rushes when they're griefing other people. As long as the perverse incentive structures exist, it's likely that model will dominate over a more truly "proof of brain" model.
Sarcasm isn't real.
Oh fair enough. I could have used that before I went on that little deep dive. Would have saved some time on commenting.
;)