There are hundreds of folks not acting as financial advisors yet sure sounding like ones. Why aren't they being flagged into the stone age for the time sensitive crap they are filling up the blockchain with? Who are the greedy ones? Haejin or those that would not even know him but for the transpatency of the blockchain and now project their hate because they feel they know, better, where the rewards should be going.
If he has the stake and is using software features available to him then what the hell?
Where our wagging fingers should be pointing is to those of the sacred 20 which will not push for software fixes to deal with all potential Haejins and not this one account. Even witnesses perform self voting! The flag wars are just pissing contests, in my opinion, that distract from the real issue.... software solutions!
I know, right? If i was being conspiratorial,
Id suggest this haijin flag war is a ruse to hide the real issues. Even so, that's the effect of it anyways.
Steemit shouldn't be this complicated to figure out, but it is.
Excellent comment. This has been pretty much what I've been preaching too. Most of the Reward pool Justice Warriors aren't willing to talk or even think about real protocol changes and opt for completely inefficient and at times completely ineffective solutions. I'm glad that @flagawhale actually had a good conversation with me. You can read the whole thing here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@everittdmickey/re-lexiconical-flagging-bot-users-arbitrarily-is-like-arresting-those-paying-protection-money-to-the-mob-20180409t223917583z
Glad to see someone thinking about more long term and fair to all solutions. If @haejin was taken down, another would take its place. If whale abuse get noticed, dolphins may still fly under the radar. 100% upvoted for asking for software solutions above all else.
postThere's a huge thing about it on @pharesim's recent about @jerrybanfield and Witness voting. You'll see @sircork and @themarkymark pointing out valid points that seem to be brushed aside there.
What @berniesanders (props to him by the way) has done is a work-around and easing the symptoms of an extremely flawed system.
An interesting read. Gave @pharesim @boatymcboatface's vote and will be rethinking my other sacred 20 votes. Thanks for sharing.
We are in agreement that the practise is not the desired one for either of us, @baah. My feeling is that if the software allows undesired behavior than the algoritm(s) needs adjustment. Flag one spammer down and another arises to take their place.
For example, and really only a random example, if the community does not think self voting is desired then restrict it in the software rather than downvoting someone about it. This change is expected in the next fork evidently.
In the same way it is my feeling that many undesired practices could be restricted via software mods.
Thanks for your detailed explanation, @baah. One might aurgue that allowing 10 posts daily instead of 11 is penalizing the inmocent.... yet your point is well taken and seems very valid to me.