Those 15 STEEM accounts are the worst excuse I've seen so far to not go after the big bad actors. They practically don't hurt anyone, except maybe a small sting to the ego. Their downvote has a value of ~0.0001$, that's not noticeable even if you get multiple downvotes from accounts like that.
I agree that steemit should undelegate them, but using that as a reason to let large scale abuse happen doesn't have any logic.
I understand the illogical side of it, but the reality side is they do have an impact on the receiver, you can see this by looking at the replies tab of any of those 15 Delegated SP accounts, and see the anger, frustration, and in-comprehension of the WHY.
If the EIP HF included a requirement for a comment, even an automated one attributed to the down voting account, then the logic would be, Okay I can down vote the idiot accounts, so I can now down vote the abusive accounts.
With the delegations removed, and then people being able to down vote those accounts should they continue, their RC's would end up so low that they would only be able to down vote 3 times, the two free down votes, and then the one down vote they have RC's for.
How many of those Bad Actors you mentioned have a lot of other accounts that can down vote in retaliation? I know for a fact that
@berniesanders has at minimum 52 other accounts he can send after anyone he so chooses. I am sure he is not the only one with a lot of multiple accounts. I have Multiple accounts, well two any ways.I have been retaliated by an account not because of a down vote but because of a comment made, and those retaliatory down votes did have an impact on the rewards of some of my few post. I did not resort to down voting in kind to him, and until the down vote system is fixed, (Comment Required in my opinion), the bad actors will only receive down votes from me for blatant plagiarism, that is the only reason I have down voted any account and will continue to be the only reason.
Bid-bots were allowed despite the white paper, laziness was allowed to run rampant, and two months is not going to resolve it. I have already seen several post that are talking about curtailing the down vote of bid botted post, so logic would deem that to begin down the chosen path of the current flag activity is committing steemicide.
Get over it. Flags are not a big deal. You aren't losing anything. Especially from these little annoyance accounts. Hell their voting mana is all at like 8% so their votes do even less than the nothing they could at full power.
I get flagged by the nothing accounts all the time. They are able to take 0 rewards away.
I myself have nothing to "Get Over". If you read my comment you would understand that. I only down vote Blatant Plagiarism. I do not give a shit about how people vote with their stake. *Please note the words their stake. delegated stake is not theirs. It belongs to the person that delegated the Steem Power to them. So you see I understand the system and the down vote. You have a reputation of 71 and a lot of steem power more than half of which you invested.
No where in my comments have I complained about receiving down votes. I stated that they do no significant damage to me. Pharesim did not see my logic in not getting involved in the issue of the day about down voting.
So you see I have nothing to Get over. Resource Credits came into being to prevent Spam, Free down votes came into being to stop bad actors on Steem Block Chain, there is no method to stop the bad actors that make no comments, have no post and that action can not be taken against.
Do you tell people that have been down voted by @haejin and @ranchorelaxo to "Just get over it" flags are not a big deal after all. I am sure some of those small new Reputation accounts that make their first post and are immediately down voted by two or three of those other 25-30 REP accounts have an entirely different opinion about @steem aiding and abetting trollish activity accounts.
@pharesim: "Here are no rules" as you stated in an above comment.
So if there are no rules, there is no need to use the term "no excuse to not go after bad actors".
Nobody here needs either an excuse or argument for this or that behavior. It's just tastes and whims and everyone can act as they wish. That's what you are basically saying - So I see your fight as a random preference. Not being supported by facts. Your rule is that your rule counts. Your targeted bad guys see that in the same crooked logic.
If you had read the whitepaper, which is even linked in the post, or simply understood the quote from it which is also up there, you would know what it's about. Not about rules, but making the system work as it was intended to.
I don't share this human image, which gives them a crab mentality. As far as you want to fit into this image of man and place yourself under it, you are at liberty to do so. The White Paper is just a collection of assumptions about people, which you can of course confirm if you want. I don't.
No need to confirm again that you didn't understand :D
Ever heard of fables?
"a succinct fictional story, in prose or verse, that features animals, legendary creatures, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature that are anthropomorphized, and that illustrates or leads to a particular moral lesson."
The crab is used as an example how many can keep something in order...ah, forget it, it's not worth trying to explain to you.
What is it with you that you cannot accept a different view on things?
You have the very annoying attitude telling me that I don't understand instead of asking me how I have understood or read your post. Assumption, no question. I have read the post and also saw the quote. I just don't share the same perspective on it. You don't have to "make me understand".
You addressed your post to small accounts. I am a small account.
You refer to the guidelines or whatever you prefer to call it but then you say "there are no rules". I see a contradiction and that is what I did, to point it out to you. No rules, no excuses needed on action or inaction.
Fables leave room for reflection and DIFFERENT interpretations as an outcome or consequence.
Besides, the same white paper also says:
Oh, I don't have a problem with different points of view.
What I can't stand is someone coming to participate in a system, and then bitching about important core functionalities. If you don't like the premises on which the platform is built that's your thing, but don't annoy those who try to make people understand what the whole idea behind the reward pool distribution is.
And sure, you are right. There is no rule to participate. It's just that the system can't work as it was built when people don't.
You yourself question the premises by saying "the system can't work as it was built" and so you invoke rules. I take the same freedom in questioning: Are you saying that non participating in the downvote-actions makes a person a questionable up to a bad participant? Does this imply that they will face disadvantages even though they write in high quality (whatever that might be)? Does that not translate of being in service for the readers and distract them from the exhausting conflicts?
Do you see how this "must be a good steemian" leads towards corruption if someone even thinks (even if he is reassured otherwise) that he will be left aside when he is not a "good steemian, fighting for the good"?
To take part in actions which require detectives investigations skills to find out about using bid bots and multiple accounts requires totally clean records and credibility on the side of those who want to work on the regulations. So far I have not seen one big account "A" not voting for himself on "A".
Correct me, if I am wrong but that is the role modeling with a very high impact on how people perceive a system. Otherwise, they leave in masses and note it as "hypocrisy" in their minds. Even though, they have done it themselves. But from what I think it's like advertising for own content, not paying for the ad, but compensating for it instead. Which is the strangest thing.
Regarding the edit and the other quote: yes, it's not possible to completely eliminate it. Not using downvotes is giving in though, and when we do that we could simply switch to pure PoS where everyone gets a share of the inflation depending on their current stake.
If we want to have the best content rewarded, we need to do the work.
I think there might be a miss interpreting in "giving in". Nobody, who is not taking part in downvote is necessarrily giving in. He serves the crowd with other themes and thoughts by adding variety and abundance. It's more of an indirect influence.
Maybe this makes more sense to you: in a democracy, there is no rule to use your vote either. If only the "bad guys" (whoever you see fit there, don't know your political alignment) do it though, what will happen?
I don't understand. I have no chance to talk to "bad guys" which are out of my reach. I can only partake in a democracy by using my voice in the local realm through my work and moving in public and private space. Talking and interacting from person to person. Whenever I want to give power to my voice in elections I have no other chance as to make my cross on a toll. As you already know, I'd like to change the "yes or no" options into systemic consensus methods. It's the only chance to talk about themes, not people.