That's quite a volume of passive-aggression you've composed there. I'll be direct:
- It is NOT polite to intrude into someone else's conversation – as you have done in EVERY conversation on this post.
- I did NOT enter your conversation with him and did not invite you into mine.
- It was NOT polite to enter my conversation and accuse me of demonizing anyone because I don't agree with your "standard practice" about a site-legal stratagem.
- Accusing @caro-art of "false advertising" is not only impolite, it is a clear charge against him and unquestionably demonizing his use of the only direct marketing strategy available to him on this platform.
- It is NOT polite to accuse others of irresponsibility because they choose kindness in curation.
- In addition, it is a patently false accusation. As I've stated previously, his work came to my attention through his strategy and I appreciate his outré style; so I am glad his strategy drew my attention to him – which is the very legal refutation of your charge against him.
You keep commenting about what I know. Well, I know that cost is not subjective ephemera. I know he already out-laid real-world cost by purchasing the block of votes out of his own real world pockets – as you put it, "spending money to promote." I know that I feel downvoting is just punishing him for promoting his work; to you, it's just an ephemeral toying with numbers with no financial cost for you. I know whatever benefit you receive from downvoting is at HIS expense and the at the expense of people like me, who follow him because we find value in what he posts. Ultimately, downvoting, in my estimation, is an attack toll for "crossing the bridge.' I know that in the real world, marketing and advertising are ubiquitous aspects of every product and service the world over. I know false advertising is lying about goods or services. I know he is not lying about his art to me – because, again, I find value in his posts and am glad his strategy brought them to my attention.
Moreover, after three years on the site, you must know – as a whale kindly explained to me in my early days on the site – that the largest bulk of voting happens in the first couple of hours or so. It is more beneficial to vote early in the process. I rarely use the "Trending" feed. I begin by checking out the posts of those who supported my own work; theirs are the only posts I ever vote later than three hours after posting. Then, I move on to the live feed. My voting there – and of most of the people I know on this site – goes to folks on the "New" feed. I typically scan posts up to the first two hours on the "New" feed. Yes, his large vote tally drew my attention because it was in the first couple of hours one day. But, I voted for his post and resteemed it because I liked his work; then, followed him – again, because I like what he was advertising.
I do think bidbots are false advertising. They are like stacking a nightclub with paid-actor "patrons" to create the public façade of a hot clubbing scene. Still, I don't downvote there either – but, in that case, no matter how much I like the work presented, I won't give my vote to a post that is littered with bidbots. I don't agree that buying vote blocks is, by its nature, false advertising. I believe, with my peripheral experience in advertising and marketing through my work as a designer in print media, that I have a solid basis for my perspective.
You'll note, I have not upvoted any of your own posts though they have often appeared in my feed; neither did I ever downvote any of your work – even though some of it annoys my sensibilities. That's not to say your art and/or writing has no value; others obviously value your work – my sensibilities are not grounds to diminish your value as perceived by your voters through my downvoting. Art is subjective. I don't know if you downvote work you dislike based on the work, but I have encountered a few who do so as "standard practice" and have assiduously tried to convince me to do likewise, and have demonized me for declining to do so – as you've done by claiming I'm not acting as a "responsible curator" because I choose not to downvote someone for a perfectly site-legal practice.
I curate content – not people. I curate on what I like with my vote – I do not punish what I do not like with a downvote. To me, my practice is kind and "kind" is responsible curation.
If I may interject something. I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement, especially if they're being used to push junk content in order to game the system.
Vote buying for a bona fide post, however, is NO DIFFERENT from ANY OTHER automated curation trail. (of which there are quite a few on the Steem)
The only difference is, as the vote buyer, I'm proposing to a bunch of people what to curate, i.e. my own post, and for a hefty price. That is considered selfish by some. As far as the ecosystem is concerned, a quality post is being upvoted, and the voters collect curation rewards from the pool. (There is even a small extra benefit of SBD being recirculated which is supposed to help with inflation, if I understand it right.)
On a curation trail, some content guru dude, or some group, gets to determine what is considered "quality" and a bunch of people follow this sight unseen with a similar profit motive, in the hopes the guru picks content that shells out the best curation rewards. This behavior, however, is considered "social."
Many a poor bastard noob fell for this, thinking the dough is now rolling in, and got bitterly disappointed instead when the socialist caravan moved on. Many of these folks left and have been badmouthing the Steem for this experience ever since.
So who is really doing harm to the ecosystem here?
With regards to your club example, as long as the club owner keeps it up, the paid actors and the club staff have employment and can EAT. If it works out, at least the club staff will KEEP EATING. So I can't see anything wrong with this kind of "raging capitalism," provided, we're talking about a bona fide night club that's here to stay. (as opposed to a scam to bilk potential investors)
I stopped reading at rule number one. Have a nice day.
Those are my words.
Also, this is the definition of trending:
.png)
That advertisement/promotion above states:
And due to the use of an exploit, that opinion has been disguised as popular opinion, when in reality this is a paid promotion.
Nobody here is attempting to drive content producers away. Some simply disagree with how this place works. Making the claim that someone is somehow attempting to drive people away and disguising that belief as popular opinion is false advertising. It is NOT impolite to point that out.
I simply don't have time for this discussion now.