Good point! Thanks for your response, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees that we need to be more unified. Great minds think alike!
I was being sarcastic when I said ignore the abuse or that it is being completely ignored.
We all have an issue with how he's doing it. I can also say I had an issue with how it was being handled before @grumpycat started his...campaign.
It's a lot of bickering back and forth. If we want steemit to be taken seriously, we need to get serious.
I wasn't fully aware that he was unwilling to work with anyone.
Work with us who are at least willing to work with you, @grumpycat.
I should clarify — he’s (or possibly she) unwilling to work with anyone who doesn’t blindly agree with his approach. As well, if you read my other comments on this thread — we’re inviting him to join a live panel discussion — a healthy debate — so that these things can be openly addressed. Everyone else is ready and willing... @grumpycat flat out refuses. I also invited @berniesanders, whose response was simply ’meh.’
So — we’ve got at least a couple powerful whales championing their causes alone, complaining that no one else is willing to properly address their chosen battles, yet patently refusing to discuss the issues openly, in any kind of productive manner.
Instead, we have all these disjointed, peripheral threads of petty flag wars and mudslinging — like we’re in fucking high school.
To the less seasoned Steemians among us, it just looks like a buncha insecure teenagers, all vying for king of the mountain, shoving everyone else aside as they jostle their way to the top.
Why even read this.
I'm afraid you miss my point...again.
Reading something written by someone is not the same thing as working with them. Nor is responding inconsistently, relying more on memes and catty one-liners than meaningful discourse.
Why are you so opposed to gathering like adults and talking about all this in some kind of productive manner? I know @MichaelDavid has reached out to you directly – why not answer and acknowledge his sincere attempts to work with you?
There's no fun in that, right? I'm guessing it's far more entertaining to be the scowling rabble-rouser than actually align yourself with others. More exciting to be the controversial, high-profile, self-proclaimed 'hero' than simply one fragment of a team, working towards a common goal.
...and more profitable. You got a little haejin over here. Milking comments at $80 a pop, raking in thousands in a matter of days masquerading as some sort of defender while he does far more harm than the problem he's trying to fix.
He can't discourse like an adult because his mom took his cell phone and laptop away for being an insolent little piece of shit.
So if you're willing to work, what's the hold up? Don't you think that you could convince them to drop the post age limit to 3.5 via a live discussion? I think that if we all got our opinions in, perhaps a good vote will solve it.
Just as it wouldn't hurt the bot owners to try your 3.5 day suggestion, it also wouldn't hurt to discuss it in a live panel.
Better yet, who are you willing to work with?
I understand that you discussed these things with yourself, but then it's time to let the rabbit out of the hat and reveal either who you are, or who exactly you've discussed this with, or are willing to discuss it with.
We all want Steemit to survive. We all want to make it better. It's going to take a community effort to do it, not just your own.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There is quite a lot to read when it comes to this topic so I've been bouncing all over the place as it all unfold.
I wasn't fully aware of the invitations to the live panel discussion until late last night/early this morning.
I've mentioned the comparison to high school drama in the past.
It doesn't surprise me that those hiding behind popular names are reluctant to be a part of any healthy debate.
It's either their way, or the highway it seems, and it is indeed childish.
All parties have what I consider valid arguments, and those that are actually willing to talk it out are waiting on what appears to be the "bullies" taking the "bully" approach.
At one point or another, someone's going to have to budge. At one point or another, we'll have to meet half-way. What is the half-way point?
Well now that you've brought it to my attention, I guess the live discussion is as about half-way as it's going to get.
It kind of makes me feel like I have foot-in-mouth but alas, what's been said has been said. I still think that the idea of a 3.5 day bot limit is justifiable, and it can help. And of course, the approach being taken sucks.
It's unjustified. I feel that it's theft.
It would be so much more effective to flag plagiarists than innocent bidbot users.
It doesn't surprise me that neither of those two want to join the discussion. It doesn't make the situation any better though.