Even worse is when people you thought were friendly towards you vote negatively against you and also take money out of your pocket by doing so. ;)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Even worse is when people you thought were friendly towards you vote negatively against you and also take money out of your pocket by doing so. ;)
With the reputation system now here, I think the time has come to scrap downvoting to remove rewards.
500 minnows and dolphins can decide they want to reward a post only for one whale to wipe out their decision.
We should allow users (including whales) to 'flag' content as "abuse" and hit the posters reputation only.
Previous voters have the option to unvote a post, if they feel the reason the content is being flagged is warranted.
@dantheman's analogy with electoral voting is flawed. In electoral voting you nullify votes by voting for someone else. On this platform, the same can be done. If I don't like post x, I can effectively negate it (monetarily) by voting for posts y & z. There is no right (in an electoral system) to vote for y & z and rip up a vote or two for x.
Downvoting gives too much power to the haves over the have nots IMO.
Yep. I stressed that point a few months back when it hit me hard on more than one occasion. ;)
Imagine if we had a Presidential election where the majority wanted one candidate to win but a few people with a lot of money just overruled them and sabotaged the whole thing ... oh wait ... never mind.
Minority rights. And there is no smaller minority than the individual ;).
#descriptionsonthespot need some support:)
LOL... loved the "never mind"...
Hey Tuck F. Heman.... LOL
This is what I think also, and even, this very post above pretty much explains why. And reputation scores, in my opinon, should not be 'objective numbers' but rather based on the opinions of the people you follow and how you vote for them. This makes the numbers look different depending on who you are, because, let's face it, there can be a very serious problem of Sybil attacks and these can be mitigated by network proximity algorithms.
Too many users are still voting for spammers/fakers/plagiarizers. There needs to be a way to take rewards away from them. If there is not, we will get a lot more of them.
This is how an election works. I know people who are voting forTrump and I'm voting for Clinton. But those Trump voters are not voting for Trump because they are trying to negate my vote, they are voting for Trump because they took a bad fall and now they believe he'll make a better president than she will. If I downvote your steemit post, and my downvote was made because I think the post is a piece of shit, and then someone else upvotes your post because they think its great, the two of us both exersized our right to vote.
Also in this democrassy people talk politics all the time. People exchange opinions and get into arguments about who would be better. I can't count the number of conversations I've had about this election and the last one. I have no way to know if those conversations changed the minds of others, or which conversations made me change my mind on specific policies, influencing how I vote for state and national officials.
There are not enough anarchists voting for the purposes of nullification to make this an election issue.
I'm sorry. You've confused my dig at Dan & Ned for an actual comment. ;)
@tuck-fheman I fiend for national politics, the politics of steemit are not yet of interest to me.
Are you trying to say democrazy? ;) Anarchists likely wouldn't vote for Clinton or Trump IF they voted. They'd likely vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein depending upon which leaning (Capitalists or Communist) they have within the Anarchists ideologies. Though they are still individuals so they may rightly write in whomever they choose. "Bum on the street corner get's my vote!"
EDIT: Or vote for Vermin Supreme (check him out on youtube if you don't know of him... real guy... really funny) He'll give you a FREE pony.
anarchists do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government, and do not therefore vote at all.
voting is statism. like taking mass is religion.
Yep. But me ignoring the guy punching me is not going to stop him from punching me.
They also believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, which does not mean they do not believe in self defense.
I do not agree with the system, and I do not actually see VOTING as going to solve anything at this point. Yet not everyone sees things this way. What is going on around me does not change simply because my belief system does not agree with them. I don't expect prayer to solve anything, and I don't expect me not voting to solve anything either, though in most cases (except small local) my vote likely would have zero impact anyway.
I don't plan to die, or let my family die if I can avoid it. Choose battles, and all that jazz.
I do discuss with people and they are not likely to give up everything they believe, nor am I. Yet learning new things one step at a time is possible.
exactly @talyvale voting is statism a mass hallucination of something not there :)
Oh @talyvale... I forgot by the time you responded... see the line where I said Anarchists wouldn't vote for Clinton or Trump IF they voted. The IF was intentionally capitalized because I know technically an Anarchist doesn't vote. I should have put more emphasis on that. By the time you replied I'd responded to so many other things I forgot I did that. :)
True True :)
The amount of money in your pockets is on public display and this is very unique in itself which can have unpredictable consequences as an experiment. Steemit is an experiment and the Dollar Payout being public is an experimental feature. So far do you think Public Dollar Payout is a UX feature which is beneficial?
"Pockets" (our Steemit Wallet) and the amount shown in them is far different from our literal pockets and is subject to dramatic change prior to those funds appearing in our literal pockets. As one of my non-crypto friends said when he saw my Wallet page, "nice statistics".
It's not "real money" yet in a sense for many people. How many hundreds of thousands of "statistics" have of some of us lost in the past month? ;)
Personally I would prefer not to have balances displayed. But someone who wanted to know could always view balances on the blockchain and that's only a bookmark away at steemd.com; unless you know something I don't know, which is likely considering I don't know a lot.