You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Proxy Announcement: Witness Voting - Please Vote For My Proxy

in #steemit8 years ago

Keep STEEM POWER from being undermined!

123142.PNG
2313421412.PNG
21312314.PNG
3412414324.PNG
341324123.PNG

Does that constitute undermining steem power?
When I confronted him with that he has lied and said that he voted like that because he was out of voting power, I will link the comment where I confronted him with his antagonizing and purely gestural voting, while he holds a massive stake of steam so you can see if you want.

You can see above that there is nothing about his voting or that shows it was a lack of voting power, he voted for some with 0.03%, and in between for others regularly with 1.33% and always for the same people with more than a percent and others with less than half a percent or less than even a tenth of that a few times.

He also might be running the autoflag bots iflagtrash, blacklist and asshole. I suspect him of running those or some of those because I egged him on by saying he couldn't distance himself from iflagtrash with his gestural antagonistic voting.
He was dismissive to my concerns and mocked me, by voting for me after I pointed out that he just voted his comment by 10 cents while he said that this was about me not getting votes after which he tried to argue that I wasn't using my voting power, laughable as he dismissed my concerns and lied, so I taunted him even further by telling him that he better turn on iflagtrash to shut me up as he cannot dismiss or lie his way out of facts. I know that it's a stretch to say he is running those but, but my suspicion is based on the coincidence that happened after I egged him on there is prophetic.

Here is the context first. For 3+ hours before that confrontation, after being flagged for 2 days, all day, prior to that day by that bot with it's crazy steem power, I was removed from the list, for whatever reason, as I was never contacted as to why I was getting flagged to begin with.

So, mid conversation in my 3 hours of not being abused by I flag trash in two days, and after I taunted him with those remarks, I was getting flagged all over again, every single comment and even more prophetic right after I said you better turn on iflagtrash.

You can look at the blockchain data, it was almost couple weeks ago but you can easily find it through my account and correlate the time with his. From there you can see the week prior where he voted with those less than a percent for a couple days, claiming that it was because he had no steem power yet the same people would receive the same 1.33% or more and others would consistently receive not even half a percent or even a tenth of that.

If running an account with crazy steem like his and voting purely for antagonizing motives, as he was voting for 2 conflicting viewpoints and not even giving the comments any steem power, simply just gestural antagonizing voting, but he is prime suspect for running both blacklist and iflagtrash, and if that doesn't constitute undermining STEEM POWER both directly and second indirectly by driving people mad with his flagging bots, then I don't know what constitutes undermining SP.

Sort:  

Does that constitute undermining steem power?

No.

So in 2 minutes you read all of that and considered it not to mean undermining steem power?
Then could you please define what it means to undermine steem power?
Then I can understand and so can others, what it means to undermine steem power, as clearly I believe that holding a massive stake of steem and voting purely to antagonize people in a gestural manner while saying that he only votes with 1% for stuff he doesn't see, where that is a blatant lie:
thelie.PNG
then afterwards calling me trash by saying that
hmmmm.PNG
as he allocates a nice portion of the reward pool to his comment non-the-less..
besides adding the people flagged by blacklist to his list of people he won't vote for, clearly aligning and giving support to whoever runs blacklist as it remains a mystery still, and their extortion/blackmail scheme without revealing the motives behind any of the flags that numerous people were and can still be affected by, constitutes working both directly and through proxy to undermine Steem Power and the platform/community as a whole.

Voting is expressed by adding options to transactions and signing those transactions.

Users cannot undermine STEEM Power by signing transactions.

STEEM Power can only be undermined by changing consensus.

You cannot shoehorn your little dispute into this situation.

Does my "little dispute" fit into this then?

Are "issues" a factor at all?

It could be asserted that witness shouldn't be involved in issues.

Witness currently provide seed nodes, sign blocks, and price feeds. For the most part, this is all witnesses currently do. If a witness is for or against the direction of the platform, there isn't anything they can realistically do. If a lone witness rejects a hardfork, it will still get adopted.

But I think we can make this a factor. At least, I hope we can.

If it did, I would classify it under "non-essential." Which means I wouldn't mind if a witness had a position on it or not.

-nesting limit-
Blatant lies and being involved in issues is non-essential?

Which means I wouldn't mind if a witness had a position on it or not.

What does that mean exactly? How is it a position? Is it not a statement of fact.

He lied, supports blackmail/extortion directly and has used his voting power in disingenuous ways. Is that a position? Or you are arguing that if someone adopts such a position it's a non-essential? Is the witness not supposed to have integrity? Is not essential therefore to be credible, by your standard, to be a witness?

adjective: disingenuous

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

His little experiment, as I believe he was trying something and then reverted to his old way, is there on the blockchain to draw your own conclusions from, but as I see it by the content that he voted, is that he voted for two different and strongly opposing views and gave neither as much as a cent, which is antagonistic:

adjective: antagonistic

showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something.

while he later boasted how much 1% from him means and having voted over 2k times not dropping below 80% voting power left in 24 hours while comparatively during that time of disingenuous 0.03% votes and odd 1.33% votes he hardly voted, and it's daring to argue it was automated as one can see the change in the voting percent, from .04% to .1% to .03% in between the regular 1.33%.