Seems a bit pot kettle here Bernie, I've seen many people complaining about your flagging. In fact I've seen some that I've felt was unjustified but didn't say anything coz I didn't want you to flag me; now I don't care.
Oh congrats, you grew a pair! Many complain, none have any data to back up their bullshit which seems odd considering it's all easily available on the blockchain.
Nothing to do with growing a pair old chap, I was simply relying on Steemit for my income for a short while, and therefore didn't want to fuck it up.
Like I said, I have seen some flag wars between you and various individuals, a lot of them seemed to have no particular direction and were unfair to you.
However, like I said, I saw a couple that made me think; "hang on; why is he doing that?" Example the poster on this feed who claims you flagged him for posting the "Stop whale flags" meme. Some of the people you have tangled with have had genuine grievances and you have ruthlessly silenced them. Now you are whining about Dan doing the same?
Seems to me that your pair has shrunk and disappeared :-)
Oh and I've just gone to look at Ozchartart's post and I get why he's being flagged, even if I don't totally agree with it.
I have a friend on here who posts reviews and he puts a lot of time into them; sometimes he makes $20, though most of his posts are $0.01. So imagine how he and others like him feel; when they see some dude copy and pasting, whilst adding a paragraph here and there, and consistently making double or even treble figures.
That's going to piss people off. I think the hypocrisy comes when people like Dan flag those posts on the one hand; but then vote for them if their friends have "written" it.
There is no mistake here. Yes, this adds plenty of value by demonstrating that the CTO of Steemit inc. is nothing but a troll who wants to be able to control who earns and who doesn't on this platform. I would say the 61 current votes and 67 views demonstrate that.
A prime example is his voting of @dollarvigilante who auto-posts everything and hasn't commented here in over 2 months. Why does Dan vote for that content that adds no value? Just another example, there are plenty more.
Posts of @dollarvigilante can bring us much traffic now and in the future, and they already did. In my humble opinion he added more value than he took away. As of accusing the CTO of steemit that way, can't be considered as an effort for constructive criticism in any way.
thank you @liondani. It's everything on the blockchain, especially the reason why some left :) but now, with lower payouts, some are leaving the sinking ship, right?
Rewarding people like @dollarvigilante is why I've pretty much abandoned Steemit. His posts are crap. Maybe 1 in 20 looks like he put some effort into it, and he spouts pure shit, yet he's some kind of star and is in the 'inner circle' so he gets rewarded for crap.
As for the traffic he's brought here; I couldn't comment on that as I can't see anyway to measure that. Suffice to say, has he spent some of the tens of thousands he's made here marketing Steemit?
Come to think of it, has Dan or Ned spent some of their millions on marketing? That's a big fat no. You can have the best idea in the world, but if you don't tell anyone about it, it will never fly.
In your opinion it is crap... But see how much followers he has...That is something... don't you think? I don't look how much money someone spend to promote steem but how much exposure he brings to us. Let's give you an extreme example... If Donald Trump would be a regular commenter/poster on steemit would you ask not rewarding him because he is not investing back his rewards or/and is making bullshit comments/posts?
The followers came in the first few weeks. At that point he was adding value, but like most things in life, follow through matters, and when supporting Steem required more follow through and effort without being paid $15K/post, he stopped. At this point it is all auto-pilot and even most of the followers are gone (i.e. look at how few actually comment on his posts any more, other than when discussing how they are ripping off Steem)
In mine and many people's opinion; followers don't prove anything. Donald Trump would clearly bring users to Steemit, if Dollar could bring a tenth or even a hundreth of the people Trump would bring, that would be something. However I doubt he is responsible for more than a couple of hundred extra people, and that is optimistic I reckon.
Downvoted because you completely miss the point. That the meme of the OP is even possible is a reflection of a much greater drain of steem value than the meme itself. Dan and other founders receieved free coins from an unfair and dubious launch and use those coins to dictate the reward pool, further deteriorating the legitimacy of this coin. A meme is a valid way to criticize scammy behavior and does add value to the platform.
There is nothing unfair or dubious about the launch, I was participating in it myself and I can testify that everything Dan said about the launch is true. E.g. it was relaunched next day not because Steemit's miner stopped working but because there was real overflow bug.
Your meme is irrelevant. If you had bothered to understand the history of steem, you'd see that dan and colleagues have conspired endlessly to diminish the value of my holdings and the holdings of other whale outsiders like berniesanders. Their efforts have included dubious relaunches, to trying to fork the coin to reduce our curation rewards, to proposing "negation" of "evil whale" voting power. Of course humans will not act like a grateful dog under these circumstances.
Even the entire "reputation" system is a mechanism to reduce the value of our steem. The founders are spiteful towards outsiders and should be subject to criticism.
Don't you realize that all the changes devs propose affect all stakeholders equally?
Instead of putting yourself into outsiders group and spread the FUD around it would be more productive to collaborate and work together to bring more value to the platform.
Nothing affects all stakeholders equally. Each stakeholder has an individual situation which in part determines determines the effects (positive and negative) of changes on that particular stakeholder. This includes not only things like the size of the holding and how it is or isn't broken up into different accounts but also many factors external to the blockchain.
The "holdings" from mining steem early on!
Do you really believe that steem has its current value because of the "miners"? Or because of the developers that gave their life for years on the underlying code and a community that supported them all the years? YES you are very lucky you could participate on steem mining early on. You should be grateful for that! I can not respect artificial-whales that contributed nothing and are bitting non-stop the hand that feed them! I could probably understand and respect more complain-posts that would come from members like @laonie (if I recall the name right) that have invested their hard earning money when steem price was as high as $4. And before making complains about how fair steem mining was read one more time this post because it seems you still don't get it! ... https://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/
to diminish the value of my holdings and the holdings of other whale outsiders
@steemed not only legitimacy but also the intended legality. It was essential to the entire strategy outlined in that blog posts that mining be open to outsiders.
Your post is contradictory. Early non-insider miners do give the platform value because we give it legitimacy. Try to actually read the post you linked and understand it from the point of legitimacy. What dan and colleagues do is persistently undermine the legitimacy of steem.
To make that clear I am referring to the mining period and not after...
I mean all accounts that had nothing to do with the project except of mining steem... and the rewards (steem) they got because of just mining early on...
I am not referring to contributions after early mining like @smooth and @berniesanders did (curie,busy, etc.)
... and don't take me wrong but many have contributed much more than most of existing whales compared with their free-wealth...
I mean it means more when someone that has a total of $100 wealth contributes for example half of them aka $50 compared with a whale sitting on $1M (that was not hard earning money) and contributes a total of $100K for example.....
Mark 12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
I'd downvote your post but I think you are just being snarky. I made no such threat to downvote a meme. If I had there would be evidence of it in the blockchain, and you provide no such evidence.
@berniesanders
I don't think @dan is trolling @ozchartart, it looks more like @dan is just trying to have posts that add value to Steemit on the trending page.
I can understand this, because we are displaying these posts to the world in order to draw in new users. @ozchartart's posts do have value, but they mainly consist of screenshots of other websites and that may not be the best that Steemit has to offer.
At the very top of trending is a post about a voting guild and the poster is complaining about how this guild - backed by the second most powerful whale on the platform, and several other whales - is being "attacked" and "threatened" by some minnows who actually have some legitimate criticisms about how it operates.
If anyone was actually worried about what the trending page looked like, that probably wouldn't be at the top of the list...even with payout declined. It certainly doesn't show "the best that Steemit has to offer."
I don't think @dan is trolling @ozchartart, it looks more like @dan is just trying to have posts that add value to Steemit on the trending page.
Any individual post or any collection of posts with any particular content isn't going to "add value to Steemit." The content itself is not what adds value.
I really wish you chronic troll complainers could wrap your head around the fact that the reward fund is a redistribution of whale funds. Why you think you should complain about how whales redistribute their own assets is beyond me. It is trolling.
Dan's vote is fundamentally different from berniesander's vote. Dan's voting power comes from free steem power given to him by steemit. Steemit ninja mined (with an unfair and dubious relaunch and other unfair practices) under the pretense that their "earnings" would go towards development of the platform. Instead it was given directly to insiders like dan who use it to allocate the reward pool. The legitimacy of steem was based on a pretense which has proven to be a lie.
It may be reasonable to compensate developers from this initial ninja mine, but it is not reasonable for them to control the platform in a way that further funnels money to them. Dan is one of the biggest exploiters of the platform and has, along with his hundreds of thousands of dollars in steem power, which are ample compensation for a few months of work, has a history of enriching himself using his free voting power at the expense of the reward pool.
My steem power wasn't "free". I gambled my time and energy to earn it. Dan and Ned are doing the same. We all spend something to get the steem that we have, and while many of us are bitter about how much power the early adopter whales have those same whales are ironically bitter about how much power the blockchain creators have.
Sure. We can say a lot of things about a lot of different sites. But we know this:
There is no monetization of content on Steemit. So what we post on a daily basis doesn't "add value" or "reduce/remove value" from the site. Any claim is completely subjective and the criteria would be arbitrary.
A site like Facebook does not earn its valuation because one user posts cat memes and another posts 20,000-word essays on the LTV. The content is pretty much irrelevant. That's not how valuations are made on social media.
The difference is that the centralized, privately owned model of YouTube lends itself directly to monetization of content in obvious ways once a critical mass of users and content is achieved, which is exactly what happened. Steem does not.
No, but there is abuse, and that is exactly why @dan is flagging @ozchartart. He is a rewards pool rapist and a scammer. He tried scamming me today! Whales upvote whales, regardless of how crappy the content may be. Just my .02 dust cents!
@berniesanders
You are right, I usually avoid the trending page, because it usually consists of posts from the same few users regardless of the quality, I tend to spend more time working with new users.
I was happy to see that @dan might be correcting this issue and I was hoping that this trend might catch on, because I really do care about the growth of Steemit, but sadly you're right. Things still look the same on the trending page.
Exactly. Post mostly-reasonable comments like you just did and self-vote. Since the comment doesn't obviously appear to be spam or abuse it probably won't get downvoted. But does it really add lasting value to the system? Respectfully, probably not.
I don't use auto upvoters, bots, nor do I buy votes. Upvoting my own comment now and then when no one else will is the only way of recouping my investment on this platform. And IMHO, it IS a valid comment!
this was with ozmaster not ozchartart, get ur things straight!
Yes i purposely wrote it because Dan accused me of having friends!
I do have friends go figure
Yeah, at first my understanding when I joined was that the flag should only be used for plagiarism, abuse, or spam; Now I have learned that we can downvote basically anything that doesn't match with our opinions.
Wish I had this explained to me in the beginning that there are extra uses for the flag. Then I would not have fought all those people in the past that were "flagging inappropriately"!
Yeah, I agree. That really would help! Like the user below my comment described, he wants to avoid being flagged yet doesn't understand why people get flagged; The reason is that there really are no rules or guide lines for how to use the flag.
If it was changed to downvoting then no one would take offense and everyone would just understand it is an opinion.
I wonder why you're staying @berniesanders? You neither like the platform nor the people who believe in it. If I didn't like a place, or the people, or whatever made me feel uncomfortable at a certain location, I'd save my valuable energy, move on and find my pleasure somewhere else. I wouldn't go to its market place instead and shout out what a shitty place these people are living at. That would leave me like somebody who has no consistency. Somebody who can't assume responsibility...
Who cares, next time make this a money post I am trailing your whale waters and feed from you.
What would be good, if you could say what you think is a good direction for steemit. I don't see a problem with the "trolls" actions. Flagging is for many things, maybe ozchartart has to change business, we all have to do that from time to time to stay competetive.
I now took my vote away. Bad behaviour
I flag this post because a post like this (top promoted) gives not a good impression to newcomers. You could politely make your point. Your friend @ozchartart gave a much better answer to his flagger himself and doesn't seem to need a bad "lawyer".
@social you are absolutely right. All this drama is negative.
@val-a do you realize that when you flag something like this which is expressing an opinion and not any form of abuse you are actually demonstrating the accuracy of the comment?
I expressed my opinion: a) I don't agree with this statement (yes flag/downvote may mean disagreement). b) disagreement on this comment's payout. c) I'm flagging this account today to lower the rep and reduce its ability to spam.
I'm very surprised you can see any accuracy in "Steemit is a disaster" statement.
Devs making massive downvotes/flags to express an opinion of "disagreement" with a statement is indeed a disaster, yes.
The comment was not spam, nor was it highly rewarded when you flagged it.
The more Steemit founders and employees treat this system as a private playground where you feel free to use your stake to bully, the more everyone else is (or at least many are) going to take their toys and go home. For the good of Steem/it, please exercise some self control and restraint. If there is really a serious problem that needs addressing (extremely questionable in this case), the community can handle it without dev ninja-mine whale enforcers showing up to fix it for us.
@steemed do you realize that when you flag something like this which is expressing an opinion and not any form of abuse you are actually demonstrating the accuracy of the comment?
I wonder why you're staying? If I didn't like a place, or the people, or whatever made me feel uncomfortable, I'd move on. I wouldn't go to its market place instead and shout out what a shitty place these people are living in. It would leave me like somebody who can't assume responsibility...
@berniesanders You really must participate at #memechallenge hahah :)
Really? It's not that good, it just states a fact as he sees it. Sycophancy will get you nowhere.
Cg
I was dying 5 minutes when I saw this pic. So I found it funny and to me it is more than good ;)
Remind me to get you tickets for my next comedy gig :-)
Cg
put me on the list :)
Seems a bit pot kettle here Bernie, I've seen many people complaining about your flagging. In fact I've seen some that I've felt was unjustified but didn't say anything coz I didn't want you to flag me; now I don't care.
Cg
Oh congrats, you grew a pair! Many complain, none have any data to back up their bullshit which seems odd considering it's all easily available on the blockchain.
Nothing to do with growing a pair old chap, I was simply relying on Steemit for my income for a short while, and therefore didn't want to fuck it up.
Like I said, I have seen some flag wars between you and various individuals, a lot of them seemed to have no particular direction and were unfair to you.
However, like I said, I saw a couple that made me think; "hang on; why is he doing that?" Example the poster on this feed who claims you flagged him for posting the "Stop whale flags" meme. Some of the people you have tangled with have had genuine grievances and you have ruthlessly silenced them. Now you are whining about Dan doing the same?
Seems to me that your pair has shrunk and disappeared :-)
Cg
Oh and I've just gone to look at Ozchartart's post and I get why he's being flagged, even if I don't totally agree with it.
I have a friend on here who posts reviews and he puts a lot of time into them; sometimes he makes $20, though most of his posts are $0.01. So imagine how he and others like him feel; when they see some dude copy and pasting, whilst adding a paragraph here and there, and consistently making double or even treble figures.
That's going to piss people off. I think the hypocrisy comes when people like Dan flag those posts on the one hand; but then vote for them if their friends have "written" it.
Cg
Do you really think this post adds value to steem in any way?
PS considering its top promoted also(!) I believe you recognize that it was "probably" a mistake
There is no mistake here. Yes, this adds plenty of value by demonstrating that the CTO of Steemit inc. is nothing but a troll who wants to be able to control who earns and who doesn't on this platform. I would say the 61 current votes and 67 views demonstrate that.
A prime example is his voting of @dollarvigilante who auto-posts everything and hasn't commented here in over 2 months. Why does Dan vote for that content that adds no value? Just another example, there are plenty more.
Posts of @dollarvigilante can bring us much traffic now and in the future, and they already did. In my humble opinion he added more value than he took away. As of accusing the CTO of steemit that way, can't be considered as an effort for constructive criticism in any way.
Just to let you know, a lot of users left because of Dollarvigilante.
I respect your observation. But can you tell me why in your opinion?
thank you @liondani. It's everything on the blockchain, especially the reason why some left :) but now, with lower payouts, some are leaving the sinking ship, right?
exactly.
Thanks for your opinion. As you can see by the votes, many disagree with you.
I bet the most are not manual votes
Such is life here on Steemit...
Rewarding people like @dollarvigilante is why I've pretty much abandoned Steemit. His posts are crap. Maybe 1 in 20 looks like he put some effort into it, and he spouts pure shit, yet he's some kind of star and is in the 'inner circle' so he gets rewarded for crap.
As for the traffic he's brought here; I couldn't comment on that as I can't see anyway to measure that. Suffice to say, has he spent some of the tens of thousands he's made here marketing Steemit?
Come to think of it, has Dan or Ned spent some of their millions on marketing? That's a big fat no. You can have the best idea in the world, but if you don't tell anyone about it, it will never fly.
Cg
In your opinion it is crap... But see how much followers he has...That is something... don't you think? I don't look how much money someone spend to promote steem but how much exposure he brings to us. Let's give you an extreme example... If Donald Trump would be a regular commenter/poster on steemit would you ask not rewarding him because he is not investing back his rewards or/and is making bullshit comments/posts?
The followers came in the first few weeks. At that point he was adding value, but like most things in life, follow through matters, and when supporting Steem required more follow through and effort without being paid $15K/post, he stopped. At this point it is all auto-pilot and even most of the followers are gone (i.e. look at how few actually comment on his posts any more, other than when discussing how they are ripping off Steem)
In mine and many people's opinion; followers don't prove anything. Donald Trump would clearly bring users to Steemit, if Dollar could bring a tenth or even a hundreth of the people Trump would bring, that would be something. However I doubt he is responsible for more than a couple of hundred extra people, and that is optimistic I reckon.
Cg
To see how much traffic he is bringing now, just check the
viewscounts at the end of every post. ~100 views each.Not that we should be proud of but more than the average views of current trending posts !!!
That means some of the trending posts don't worth the reward as well.
He ups and you down dollarvigillante.
You up and he downs ozchartart.
But sure... There's a difference... of opinion
It added value by being promoted (burning Steem)
Yep it added $20 SBD, that's for sure
Downvoted because you completely miss the point. That the meme of the OP is even possible is a reflection of a much greater drain of steem value than the meme itself. Dan and other founders receieved free coins from an unfair and dubious launch and use those coins to dictate the reward pool, further deteriorating the legitimacy of this coin. A meme is a valid way to criticize scammy behavior and does add value to the platform.
There is nothing unfair or dubious about the launch, I was participating in it myself and I can testify that everything Dan said about the launch is true. E.g. it was relaunched next day not because Steemit's miner stopped working but because there was real overflow bug.
Keep making that claim and I will debunk it in 100 words and 5 lines of code and you will look like a fool in the process.
Censoring him is more effective, right?
I would prefer you bring your 100 words and 5 lines...
Wait! You can censor me too ;)
It's not censorship, it's still on the blockchain! /s
Ok, go ahead and debunk, but please don't cite that guy who was spreading the FUD to mine more for himself. BTW could anyone remind me who it was?
@smooth, it looks like your friend is using flags when he doesn't agree with somebody's opinion, do you support him here too?
Your meme is irrelevant. If you had bothered to understand the history of steem, you'd see that dan and colleagues have conspired endlessly to diminish the value of my holdings and the holdings of other whale outsiders like berniesanders. Their efforts have included dubious relaunches, to trying to fork the coin to reduce our curation rewards, to proposing "negation" of "evil whale" voting power. Of course humans will not act like a grateful dog under these circumstances.
Even the entire "reputation" system is a mechanism to reduce the value of our steem. The founders are spiteful towards outsiders and should be subject to criticism.
Don't you realize that all the changes devs propose affect all stakeholders equally?
Instead of putting yourself into outsiders group and spread the FUD around it would be more productive to collaborate and work together to bring more value to the platform.
Nothing affects all stakeholders equally. Each stakeholder has an individual situation which in part determines determines the effects (positive and negative) of changes on that particular stakeholder. This includes not only things like the size of the holding and how it is or isn't broken up into different accounts but also many factors external to the blockchain.
Sounds like an interesting topic for a post if you ever decide to make one.
You could be double-prosperous right?
The "holdings" from mining steem early on!
Do you really believe that steem has its current value because of the "miners"? Or because of the developers that gave their life for years on the underlying code and a community that supported them all the years? YES you are very lucky you could participate on steem mining early on. You should be grateful for that! I can not respect artificial-whales that contributed nothing and are bitting non-stop the hand that feed them! I could probably understand and respect more complain-posts that would come from members like @laonie (if I recall the name right) that have invested their hard earning money when steem price was as high as $4. And before making complains about how fair steem mining was read one more time this post because it seems you still don't get it! ...
https://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/
I am very sad about your downvotes @berniesanders...
I thought my comments would have a different outcome to be honest. My mistake.
@steemed not only legitimacy but also the intended legality. It was essential to the entire strategy outlined in that blog posts that mining be open to outsiders.
Your post is contradictory. Early non-insider miners do give the platform value because we give it legitimacy. Try to actually read the post you linked and understand it from the point of legitimacy. What dan and colleagues do is persistently undermine the legitimacy of steem.
To make that clear I am referring to the mining period and not after...
I mean all accounts that had nothing to do with the project except of mining steem... and the rewards (steem) they got because of just mining early on...
I am not referring to contributions after early mining like @smooth and @berniesanders did (curie,busy, etc.)
... and don't take me wrong but many have contributed much more than most of existing whales compared with their free-wealth...
I mean it means more when someone that has a total of $100 wealth contributes for example half of them aka $50 compared with a whale sitting on $1M (that was not hard earning money) and contributes a total of $100K for example.....
Mark 12:44
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
You threatened to flag me once for this little gem:
Yeah, WTF right?
THERE you are, you bastard!
lol
Pure hypocrisy!
Cg
I'd downvote your post but I think you are just being snarky. I made no such threat to downvote a meme. If I had there would be evidence of it in the blockchain, and you provide no such evidence.
Resteemed for more people enjoying this funny drama :)
Bernie , I like you .
Upvoted to help out
@berniesanders
I don't think @dan is trolling @ozchartart, it looks more like @dan is just trying to have posts that add value to Steemit on the trending page.
I can understand this, because we are displaying these posts to the world in order to draw in new users. @ozchartart's posts do have value, but they mainly consist of screenshots of other websites and that may not be the best that Steemit has to offer.
At the very top of trending is a post about a voting guild and the poster is complaining about how this guild - backed by the second most powerful whale on the platform, and several other whales - is being "attacked" and "threatened" by some minnows who actually have some legitimate criticisms about how it operates.
If anyone was actually worried about what the trending page looked like, that probably wouldn't be at the top of the list...even with payout declined. It certainly doesn't show "the best that Steemit has to offer."
Any individual post or any collection of posts with any particular content isn't going to "add value to Steemit." The content itself is not what adds value.
I really wish you chronic troll complainers could wrap your head around the fact that the reward fund is a redistribution of whale funds. Why you think you should complain about how whales redistribute their own assets is beyond me. It is trolling.
Isn't that what this post is doing. Dan is using his vote to redistribute the rewards while berniesanders whines about it.
Dan's vote is fundamentally different from berniesander's vote. Dan's voting power comes from free steem power given to him by steemit. Steemit ninja mined (with an unfair and dubious relaunch and other unfair practices) under the pretense that their "earnings" would go towards development of the platform. Instead it was given directly to insiders like dan who use it to allocate the reward pool. The legitimacy of steem was based on a pretense which has proven to be a lie.
It may be reasonable to compensate developers from this initial ninja mine, but it is not reasonable for them to control the platform in a way that further funnels money to them. Dan is one of the biggest exploiters of the platform and has, along with his hundreds of thousands of dollars in steem power, which are ample compensation for a few months of work, has a history of enriching himself using his free voting power at the expense of the reward pool.
My steem power wasn't "free". I gambled my time and energy to earn it. Dan and Ned are doing the same. We all spend something to get the steem that we have, and while many of us are bitter about how much power the early adopter whales have those same whales are ironically bitter about how much power the blockchain creators have.
That is like telling the cast of Andy Griffith:
There is no need to ask for royalties, because there is no way for the studio to monetize on an episode after the initial airing.
There is no monetization of Steemit content. There are no "royalties." Any "added value" is completely subjective.
There is no monetization of Steemit content.
The same could be said about YouTube in 2005 and many other successful websites when they were new.
Sure. We can say a lot of things about a lot of different sites. But we know this:
There is no monetization of content on Steemit. So what we post on a daily basis doesn't "add value" or "reduce/remove value" from the site. Any claim is completely subjective and the criteria would be arbitrary.
A site like Facebook does not earn its valuation because one user posts cat memes and another posts 20,000-word essays on the LTV. The content is pretty much irrelevant. That's not how valuations are made on social media.
The difference is that the centralized, privately owned model of YouTube lends itself directly to monetization of content in obvious ways once a critical mass of users and content is achieved, which is exactly what happened. Steem does not.
No, but there is abuse, and that is exactly why @dan is flagging @ozchartart. He is a rewards pool rapist and a scammer. He tried scamming me today! Whales upvote whales, regardless of how crappy the content may be. Just my .02 dust cents!
Well, obviously you haven't bothered to look at the trending page then...
@berniesanders
You are right, I usually avoid the trending page, because it usually consists of posts from the same few users regardless of the quality, I tend to spend more time working with new users.
I was happy to see that @dan might be correcting this issue and I was hoping that this trend might catch on, because I really do care about the growth of Steemit, but sadly you're right. Things still look the same on the trending page.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
I just signed up, what should I look out for to avoid being flagged? I was told there were no rules besides plagiarism.
"Flagged" is somewhat of a misnomer. There are no fixed rules, but people can vote against (aka "flag") your content for any reason.
If you want to avoid being flagged, post positive uncontroversial content, keep your head down and don't make enemies.
In other words, don't piss anyone off! 😐
Exactly. Post mostly-reasonable comments like you just did and self-vote. Since the comment doesn't obviously appear to be spam or abuse it probably won't get downvoted. But does it really add lasting value to the system? Respectfully, probably not.
I don't use auto upvoters, bots, nor do I buy votes. Upvoting my own comment now and then when no one else will is the only way of recouping my investment on this platform. And IMHO, it IS a valid comment!
I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
Could @ozchartart's confession be one more reason?
I have many friends here, what's your point?
this was with ozmaster not ozchartart, get ur things straight!
Yes i purposely wrote it because Dan accused me of having friends!
I do have friends go figure
not the same person?
same person, different account! don't twist things!
Yeah, at first my understanding when I joined was that the flag should only be used for plagiarism, abuse, or spam; Now I have learned that we can downvote basically anything that doesn't match with our opinions.
Wish I had this explained to me in the beginning that there are extra uses for the flag. Then I would not have fought all those people in the past that were "flagging inappropriately"!
Having downvote seperate from flag would help.
Yeah, I agree. That really would help! Like the user below my comment described, he wants to avoid being flagged yet doesn't understand why people get flagged; The reason is that there really are no rules or guide lines for how to use the flag.
If it was changed to downvoting then no one would take offense and everyone would just understand it is an opinion.
I wonder why you're staying @berniesanders? You neither like the platform nor the people who believe in it. If I didn't like a place, or the people, or whatever made me feel uncomfortable at a certain location, I'd save my valuable energy, move on and find my pleasure somewhere else. I wouldn't go to its market place instead and shout out what a shitty place these people are living at. That would leave me like somebody who has no consistency. Somebody who can't assume responsibility...
Who cares, next time make this a money post I am trailing your whale waters and feed from you.
What would be good, if you could say what you think is a good direction for steemit. I don't see a problem with the "trolls" actions. Flagging is for many things, maybe ozchartart has to change business, we all have to do that from time to time to stay competetive.
I now took my vote away. Bad behaviour
Eeeeew my gaaawsh....excuse me while I run to the microwave to warm the baby bottles!
Respected @berniesanders, I sincerely thank you for your upvoted ! https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@olga.maslievich/my-bonus-from-steemit-gratitude
I flag this post because a post like this (top promoted) gives not a good impression to newcomers. You could politely make your point. Your friend @ozchartart gave a much better answer to his flagger himself and doesn't seem to need a bad "lawyer".
Even though he [@ozchartart] is a scammer himself?
Amen to that. It all starts at the top.
@social you are absolutely right. All this drama is negative.
@val-a do you realize that when you flag something like this which is expressing an opinion and not any form of abuse you are actually demonstrating the accuracy of the comment?
I expressed my opinion: a) I don't agree with this statement (yes flag/downvote may mean disagreement). b) disagreement on this comment's payout. c) I'm flagging this account today to lower the rep and reduce its ability to spam.
I'm very surprised you can see any accuracy in "Steemit is a disaster" statement.
Devs making massive downvotes/flags to express an opinion of "disagreement" with a statement is indeed a disaster, yes.
The comment was not spam, nor was it highly rewarded when you flagged it.
The more Steemit founders and employees treat this system as a private playground where you feel free to use your stake to bully, the more everyone else is (or at least many are) going to take their toys and go home. For the good of Steem/it, please exercise some self control and restraint. If there is really a serious problem that needs addressing (extremely questionable in this case), the community can handle it without dev ninja-mine whale enforcers showing up to fix it for us.
"Leaked Docs Expose Steemit Founders Conspiring with Developers and Friends to Flag Steemit Post"
I think that's the right link.
@steemed do you realize that when you flag something like this which is expressing an opinion and not any form of abuse you are actually demonstrating the accuracy of the comment?
😋
Downvoted you with full weight because you refuse to recognize I downvoted the original comment with partial weight to express disagreement.
Cool. Please accept my partial downvote to valance
I wonder why you're staying? If I didn't like a place, or the people, or whatever made me feel uncomfortable, I'd move on. I wouldn't go to its market place instead and shout out what a shitty place these people are living in. It would leave me like somebody who can't assume responsibility...