You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: That's not Science, that's Religion
Downvoted to reduce reward from excessive and concentrated whale voting. This post contains votes from at least four members of the development team. It boggles my mind to think that the developers of this system think that it is a good idea for their votes to collectively pile on to the highest rewarded posts and therefore deprive hundreds of posts and the bulk of the user base of any meaningful chance at being rewarded.
This is really shitty of you, @smooth. Did it not occur to you that perhaps they all voted on it because it is a great post which is not only thought-provoking, but educational. In your attempts to justify the downvote, you did not so much as mention the post or its value to Steemit. I wonder if you even bothered to read it.
I haven't been making very much as of late, and I'm sure there are plenty others out there who haven't either. But I do not look at a post like this getting whale votes and think, I wish he would have less of a payout so that I could have more. I am--correction, was--very happy to see that this posted had large rewards because I found it to be far more deserving than a lot of other things I see with higher payouts.
I told you once before not to downvote someone else's post in my name, and by doing it to "redistribute rewards" you have essentially done so. No one elected you chief of police on Steemit. And even if they did, downvoting a post based on who else has voted it rather than the content of the post is not helpful to anyone on this platform. It seems you are just doing it to piss off the other whales who upvoted it that you do not like, and @blindsite and his terrific article have paid the price for your pettiness.
I urge you to take the time to read through this post so that you can see how helpful it could be to some people, and why it is more than deserving of the higher visibility that a larger payout provides.
I know that you probably do not like me. And I'm certain that you do not like the majority of the development team. But this is not about us. This is about the user you are trampling on to make an insignificant point. If you are able to see this and remove your downvote it will be a demonstration of your character that I know I, and many others would love to see.
Whether you wish it done on your behalf or not, it is unavoidable that the math leads to that result. As rewards are shifted away from being allocated in a concentrated manner to a few top posts by a few whales all voting on the same things, it means that all other upvoted posts earn more, and it also means all other voters have more influence in deciding on rewards based on their own individual preferences.
Thanks you for sharing your point of view. I appreciate the input even though I respectfully disagree.
You disagree that posts should be rewarded based on their quality?
You use your vote politically far too often, and considering a great deal of users came to this site to escape the injustices of politics and make use of a supposedly better model of self governance, I am bewildered by the fact that you are unable to see the damage you are doing after all of this time.
Rewarded, yes. Excessively rewarded no.
It's easy for someone with a $280,000 account value to determine what an excessive reward is?
Not everyone has a quarter million in the bank. Some people are trying to eat, or feed their families, and one trending post can make a huge difference to them.
The $0.01 that gets added on to everyone else's posts when you downvote a trending post makes absolutely no difference to them. You always attempt to justify this shit by saying that you are helping others by the downvote, but the hurting far outweighs the alleged helping. So perhaps you could find a better way to be of assistance, like actively finding posts that you think deserve higher rewards and upvoting them.
You're far too quick to use the hammer and far too inconsiderate of the potential consequences of its blow.
I think we have engaged enough times now to be sure that we are likely never going to agree on anything of importance. Not when it comes to the use of flags at least. I just wonder how you are able to find joy in this platform from doing what are doing. Do you really feel no remorse at all for the rewards you have stripped from hardworking authors?
He's only making $21 now! The last time I looked it was at $40.
How is $40 an excessive award for an EXCELLENT POST?
Can't you at least give a smaller % flag?
He/she have been only posting for a month, with very few followers, and yet managed to put out such extraordinary content that it attracted all those votes!
Also, 11 people Re-Steemed this post!
That means that it was considered exceptional to do so.
I do know that I am very selective in what I resteem.
If that many people value this post that much, than $40 is not at excessive reward. It is insulting to lower his payout to only $20.
https://steemdb.com/science/@blindsite/that-s-not-science-that-s-religion/reblogs
[nesting]
That's not how it works. When rewards are redistributed other posts gain proportionately. So tamping down on the excesses at the top can make a real percentage-gain difference (likely at least 20-30% if enough Trending posts are brought down to size a bit) to posts earning a dollar or a few dollars. It likewise proportionately increases the power of smaller votes. It does not spread out as 0.01 per post across a thousand posts.
You are missing my point.
You said the following;
All other upvoted posts earn more? No. Not really. Definitely not enough worth mentioning. As you said, it is distributed according to current payout, so really the only people who benefit from it to any level of significance are the few top trending posts.
Speaking of the top trending post, it is your friend. A post that has concentrated whalevotes beyond belief, but I don't see your downvote on that one. And he benefited from you downvoting this post more than anyone else did, but surely that was not on your mind when you downvoted... Just a happy coincidence.
All other voters have more influence on deciding rewards? No. Not really. Definitely not for the 95% of voters who's upvote means absolutely nothing. Perhaps their vote might be able to add on a few cents to the trending posts... ie, your friend. But, to anyone else, their vote would have no effect.
So, no. Any time you downvote a post. You're not helping everyone. You are helping the top two or three trending posts. I should probably pay more attention to who is currently trending or heading there whenever you do downvote a post like this in future.
[nesting]
You are incorrect. There are hundreds of posts earning a meaningful amount. Just scroll down Trending (it isn't one page). You can go pages and pages and see posts getting rewarded. Those users are no less deserving of a fair change for a larger share of the reward pool than a few whale favorites at the very top.
Other than the very few at the top of the trending list, the amount added on to each post will be insignificant. Less than $0.50 for many, and less than $0.10 for most. This is not worth mentioning, but the $20 you stole from this author is worth mentioning, because you can actually do something $20. You can't do shit with $0.10.
Edit, it's really more than 20 you stole from them, because you impacted the following upvotes as well as reduced its visibility.
[nesting]
We will have to agree to disagree, both numerically and in terms of the impact. One of the most-heard comments from non-stacked users on Steemit is "I only wish my vote were worth 0.01". That $0.50 or $0.10 (even if they were correct) that you dismiss as insignificant is nothing of the sort for the people earning it. Get out a little.
I too wish my vote was worth a penny. But, that is not because someone I upvote will be happy as fuck to receive it, they wouldn't be. That is because I would at least feel that I'm giving something, rather than nothing.
I feel that everyone who wishes they could give a cent say this with the same sentiment, not because they think anyone needs or can possibly do anything with a cent.
I think you're aware of this. I hadn't yet seen @krnel's post and realised just how often you have been using this excuse before I pulled you up on this. Now I realise that it is a waste of my time, because you have no intent on correcting your behaviour. I no longer believe that it is because you think you're in the right, though. I think it's become very obvious that there is an agenda at play here. I won't be wasting any more of my time trying to talk sense to you. Either you see the damage you're causing and just don't care, or you will never see it and continue to convince yourself that you're doing good, even when everyone other than arselickers who want whalevotes are telling you otherwise.
Enjoy the rest of your night.
And that is indeed among the results of reversing some of the excess concentration of rewards at the top. More people have votes worth a penny, and feel they have accoplished something. i.e. more happy users. We will have to agree or disagree whether that is more valuable than a few posts already earning a lot more than most of the others earning even more than that. I personally think it is.
If this is how you feel, then why did you not downvote atsdavids most recent post which was trending at $200+ dollars, and basically consisted of things he had already said in comments, which you are aware of, because you upvoted a ton of them. So he should be getting another payout for something he was already paid for sharing, but this guy shouldn't because there was concentrated whalevotes(that came at the hands of a curation trail)?
You should rephrase your excuse to "concentrated voting of whales I don't like." Or better yet, come up with an entirely new excuse because this one is illogical and I don't think anyone with a bit of common sense is buying it.
[nesting]
Because as this exchange illustrates, improving the incentive structures on Steemit is extremely important and, as such, effective presentation and discussion of these issues adds more value than any routine personal blog post. Especially more so than paying concentrated rewards to a large number of personal blog posts day after day, week after week. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to use my vote power according to my opinion as is anyone else.
This does not explain why you haven't downvoted many of the trending posts that are saturated with whalevotes in spite of the content being far from deserving.
Yes, @smooth. You are entitled to use your voting power in whatever you like. But, you are certainly not entitled to my respect as long as you continue to use it in this way. If you had an ounce of morality, you would send the author of this post the 20 dollars that you took from him, as neither you nor I know how much they may have needed it.
Chances are, they might not have. But, they just might of. Everyone of our talks has been on the same topic. Consideration. You have none of it, and someone in your position ought to have a lot of it. I hope, I really do, that you will take some time to reflect on your actions and think of the potential afflictions your flags may be having on users who are working hard for the hope that they might one day get rewards deserving on their time and efforts.
Now, I mean not to be rude. But, I am busy, so I would rather not continue this conversation as it has proven itself unproductive.
Good night.
So.... you want to moderate what other people choose to vote on? Isn't that kind of against the spirit of Steemit given it's supposed to be a form of decentralized social media?
No, I want to vote as well, based on my views of how rewards are being allocated. That's very much part of the spirit of Steemit. But I also have a view that for developers of the system to support pile-on voting and concentrate rewards on one post out of a thousand is unfortunate. Couldn't they at least find four different good posts to support instead of all piling on, or failing that simply step away and let the community votes have more influence? That, to me, is a lot more decentralized.
sadly there is so much to go around, we cant all get 1000 per day. at least unless the first 60 people do and then the rest get their other days to hope for :D
For clarity, it was voted on by a curation guild (Curie) which uses voting power from Steemit developers such as Val-a and Val-b, then voted by Jamesc.
Likely the only vote that can from a Steemit dev himself was jamesc.
When a stakeholder delegates his or her vote, I still consider the stakeholder responsible for how that delegation is used. What deals they may make with other parties is their business, not mine.
is a very very big stretch @smooth.
I understand that there is only so much to go around but I think that it is excessive what you did, maybe consider downvoting with a lot less than 100%, please consider that.
A lot of people are here to do the social thing, to simply post things about their day to day life, or their art and creative process, and it's wonderful and they do get rewarded far more than any other, ANY OTHER place in the world for doing that, even if it is a meager .000001 of a cent, it still is more reward than the nothing that will be rewarded in forums and other media platforms, I know because I have been there, as I am sure you have too.
That they do it regardless of being paid or purely for profit is inconsequential: there's numerous websites that cater to patronage which means you can turn your art/creative endeavor into a real sustainable source of income based on merit and actual peoples trading their valuable time and effort in form of one commodity or another for their art/work but the engagement that those post provide is close nil, yes, almost zero. Commenting on an artwork, a story, a book, is akin to walking a gallery and musing at the art, complimenting the artist, and maybe getting their contact, or writing a letter to the editor to commend how powerful that book was, how inspiring their story and entertaining reading their work turned out to be, the reply will be a gesture, not a discussion, their praise will be the end of conversation. They can do that here, they can post their art, they can post their blogs, they have a chance to be merited if they chose to invest in the long run, otherwise they turn tail and run, if they don't chose to invest back into SP points, then the points they get will remain useless, they won't realize their potential and hurt the community by leaving the investors with a sour taste in the their wake.
The other posts that cater to the socialites who enjoy to talk about what they have done today, yesterday, or last year, their personal preferences or what they want/wish to do offer the community engagement in that direction and it's very narrow, it pertains to individualistic circumstances and rarely explores the conversation outside of that. Here we are though, in a post exploring philosophy, science, medicine, and that's engagement, these people here commenting are for the most part full of conviction for what they say, some have mentioned making major life decisions around these issues, they express their concern for their fellow man, they don't post to be rewarded, they are not looking for patrons, or a pat on the back, a congratulation on what you accomplished today so the engagement they provide is equally eclipsing any other engagement here on steem and elsewhere. Please consider downvoting with a lot less than 100%, simply because you are fucking with people's convictions, not some trivial bullshit.
whale wars :) :D this is a bit too much tho, I don't mind what you are doing, but I do find a flaw in the thinking now that I started to do it, first of all some posts get recognition after the whale votes, then get the community votes, after all it doesn't matter how many people resteem and upvote when the goal is the trending page.
So you break the chain that gets people there, at least soft downvote if you can, it would be sad to see all the high payout posts getting a few downvotes by whales, it's going to start looking like a tug of war :D
Still many have done it many are doing it, I don't mind as long as it's not every day. And btw they vote on a trail, so your vote countered all of theirs probably, the payout went from 40 to 20 :D now if 300 people vote on it it might get to 30 :D
There will always (without exception) be posts on the Trending page, and on their way to the trending page. There is nothing I can do to change that, nor would I want to if I could. The only real question is what share of the reward pool is gobbled up by those posts. Too much is too much.
sometimes it is, but fixing the leaks and the problems coupled with the drop in price by ~10-15 times would do a great deal, I was seeing 2k, then I saw even 8k and 16k payouts even more. SO it wasn't always so I agree with you, but even moderation should be moderate :D
Now the field of battle has gone to krnel and bernie :D first guy that can stand up to him :D and probably won't be much of a scuffle