Yeah, let's fix the retention first and not drive all new users off when they see that the big guys move the rewards mostly between themselves. If you haven't realized that that was the problem by now, maybe you should look a bit more what former users or people watching from the sidelines say on other platforms about steem...
Happy to help with promotion after that issue is fixed, meanwhile I'm doing what my stake allows me to do. Cause that's how I understand newsteem.
I complained about my own naivity for a moment when I saw how many people are not behind the changes of the EIP, who did not switch their behaviour to rewarding more diverse content and being happy with the curation rewards they receive, and now I act by using the tools which were introduced.
An individuals impact agains groups of voters with stake in the millions is minimal, so I made a tool to bundle the efforts of many people with the same goal, there's nothing wrong with that. Complaining about being downvoted by a group when you have built a group for upvotes is just hilarious.
Check my votes.
Save your lecture for someone who needs it.
You haven't been targeted. I wouldn't even talk to you right now if you wouldn't have criticized what happened to the poor guy here.
Elsewhere you said to upvote based on content. Why would the standards for downvoting be different?
I'm sorry you felt criticized, what I felt was empathy for bronc and although his content isn't something I would regularly seek I don't think it is bad for Steem.
I would be more likely to watch his video than review someone's photography and or beautifully formatted blog, which I know is totally subjective.
He does get engagement and has supported many other projects on Steem.
Again, I get that your intentions are in the right place, I standby not liking the tone or the method, I was/am critical of that.
You absolutely should use your stake and your influence to try to impact what you think helps/harms Steem.
Complaining about Upvote Groups when you have built downvote groups is equally as hilarious. :)
Either Collusion is right or wrong, you don't get to have it both ways.
Of course content quality plays a role - and if curangel and its trail had the power to bring this post to an extremely low level, I would have added something to the queue myself or asked someone else to put something to not hit it too hard. It doesn't though, it received a 100% downvote (I think the first ever in the short history of curangel, because there haven't been many submissions that round), and it still has a reward considerably higher than the big majority of content. We're not big enough to even counter all of the votes of the circle on one post, and he gets a lot of votes from outside of it on top of that.
The whitepaper speaks of colluding groups to be countered by downvotes, so I strongly disagree, there's nothing wrong with working together when doing that. We group up for the downvotes as a reaction, because as individuals we're too weak (SP) and vulnerable (retaliation). We don't complain, we act. As soon as they break up their groups, we're happy to put all our focus on positive things again. This is not fun for anyone ;D
Alright... Carry on.
I think we have both taken the time to check ourselves and our opinions and I think that is enough. In fact I think that is what consensus is all about.
Steem's up a little. :)