"taking away rewards" is the culture the big steem power holders currently have, it started when others would downvote ned or dan and say it's to preserve the reward pool
It is censorship by flagging. If they had issues, why not discuss it with masteryoda in chat? And why should the reward for informative statistical data be artificially capped? We don't cap the posts of people who post chapters from their fiction books and get $500 per post. Why should we cap this data? It makes no sense.
Since there is no cap on how many SBDs can be issued in a day (the number of steem dollars,being tied to the price of steem) why put caps on anything? If they want to more evenly distribute voting power, in reality, not by some artificially low vote number limit, then let them do that and the rest will right itself. But, the truth is, if there is a problem it's calling this a decentralized and distributed system, when it is obviously not.
it's not censored, just rewards being taken away, but the posts can continue for less rewards
taking away rewards in a rewards based game/platform is like sanctions on a country for doing something you don't like.
"taking away rewards" is the culture the big steem power holders currently have, it started when others would downvote ned or dan and say it's to preserve the reward pool
that's bollocks. Ned and Dan have near Veto power, they are so strong. Hard to accept that
Taking rewards away censors, because they stop posting when they make no money.
It is censorship by flagging. If they had issues, why not discuss it with masteryoda in chat? And why should the reward for informative statistical data be artificially capped? We don't cap the posts of people who post chapters from their fiction books and get $500 per post. Why should we cap this data? It makes no sense.
makes perfect sense when the chapters from fiction books also enable a cap of $50 if users start complaining
But the users aren't complaining about that or about masteryoda's posts. They upvote the posts. That's the issue.
Since there is no cap on how many SBDs can be issued in a day (the number of steem dollars,being tied to the price of steem) why put caps on anything? If they want to more evenly distribute voting power, in reality, not by some artificially low vote number limit, then let them do that and the rest will right itself. But, the truth is, if there is a problem it's calling this a decentralized and distributed system, when it is obviously not.
It's a coercive use of force within a supposedly decentralized and distributed system and should be unacceptable.
my original comment on the wrong post, ha :)