The serial abusers here don't talk to you either when you criticize them. At least not as long as you don't have an option to make them lose rewards when they don't. As in politics, you need to vote for others to make the ones you think don't act in everyone's best interest think about what they do. A downvote is just a much more direct way to vote for everybody else.
This post is asking people to make use of their votes, like many campaigns in real world politics do too. I don't understand why you see a reason to come here and criticize me so hard, blaming me of making up rules and shit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You mix feedback and questions as blame and interpret it as bad criticism. If you act as a community driver, I suspect you are available for being questioned.
This post of yours clearly uses pictural methods of warfare. What am I supposed to think? I see it as a call for battle, is it not meant in that way?
Then why tanks?
I never have seen on the platform the strongest actors coming to negotiation and consensus in a peaceful way. What I observed instead is building up hard-lines. From my perspective, this is also "giving in". It's acceptance that battle has to take place.
But so far there is no open sign of dialogue and negotiation. Nobody has ever said it's easy to talk to "bad guys". You need all your skills as a mediator and negotiator to solve a conflict between the parties. Battle seems the easy way but in fact, it's not as long as an enemy is not defeated. This has a strong pull towards the whole channel here and that is what I see and disturb people once in a while with my perspective.
The comparison with real elections in politics does not fall on my ground as I see the weakness in majority voting principle.
You misquoted me in your first reply. I didn't say "no excuse", I said it's "the worst excuse I ever heard".
It is a call for battle, definitely. The circle voters do not stop by asking them nicely, that needs pressure. I'm happy to talk and negotiate, as my hour long discussion with dobartim yesterday and today should prove. And we actually came to a conclusion both can live with (I hope, too early to tell). Without ongoing pressure that wouldn't have happened though, as the talks the days and weeks before showed.
And ... ? Who are you to judge what kind of argument someone uses? It's an individual decision and not up to you to call it an excuse, may it be the worst one you've ever heard or may it be understandable. He gave you some deeper reason afterwards.
Your encounter with @dobartim proves that you use your higher stake and power to pressure him. This could be perceived as manipulative and also abusive. When dobartim gives in and plays according to the rules you want to sell him, it's of course his business. There are always two in the game.
But there is no fairness between two people who do not talk with the same strength. That is obvious. The one with lesser power is clearly in the weaker position, if he is not realizing that he can't be pushed towards a behavior you want to see from him. You are going for weaker accounts than yours - that makes your actions highly questionable. Stay in your own rank.
You are out on a mission to set examples and then you want to mobilize the minnows as you realize how much work it is to talk to single people. You let them tell you their stories on which you can give thumbs up or down. You are going around and letting your ego being stroked by using the might making people their goal what is your goal? Visiting to check if they got it?
What you deceive yourself with, is being the good guy. Everyone here is corrupt. Me, you and all others. No other people than saints can be described as non-corruptive. Exactly where one does not recognize one's own corruption, it is contained as a blind spot. As long as you walk around and make others aware of their blind spots, you could want to see your own as well.
... The more I think about it the more I could call you receiving upvotes on your constant same themes about steemit, steemit, steemit, rewards, votes, user-retention, numbers and ROI's as abusive and give you downvotes.
I don't do that because I know that you even have a hard time to bear my feedback. You are good at giving downvotes but not receiving them. From life experience I'd say there is nobody who can take a red flag with dignity and not with a raging or sad heart.
I will not give you downvotes because that would be acting as if there were rules agreed upon through consensus in this realm. But there aren't. There are rules outside the Internet and there I can speak my mind and tell some rude gangs on the bus to stop violating the space of others. I have full certainty in doing that.
You enjoy your power and hopefully learn something in the long run.
I judge arguments by their logic. He gave more reasoning which didn't improve on that, and I let him be. Evil me!
Who are you to tell me I'm not a saint? That's for a future pope to decide I would say.
About poor dobartim, here's how he got my attention
https://steemit.com/poetry/@hiroyamagishi/pynz26
A witnesses posting about steem 90 times in 3.5 years is abusive? Would you prefer me to show off my daily lunch? You're hilarious.
I receive way more downvotes than anyone else you ever talked to probably. That's a side effect of fighting abusers, they retaliate. They have a lot more power than you (and me), I wouldn't even feel yours. I don't mind, I keep going.
And that's it, I'm done talking to you. Have a nice life, Karen.
Are you saying you are a saint? :D HaHa, you find at least some humor.
There is really no one suffering here. It's all luxury and mind construction. No one investing here money was unaware of the risk, no one is so poor to must live of the reward pool. It's all virtual and no financial harm is done to anybody in any case. It's just the mental meaning you give to it which makes it meaningful.
Right, I should stop engaging myself when I lack humor.