thats the question! How do we stop these things peacefully? We cannot force them to stop doing what they are doing, but it hurts everyone. So, what is the solution if it is not flags? We cannot kick them out or anything like that. We could try to convince the whale supporting them to stop doing that I suppose. Usually, I say kill em with kindness, but how on earth to do that I wonder....
One thing I trust in, is that the community of ingenous people on here will figure something out. And soon, I hope.
The thing is that you don't force them. You are voicing your opinion. Curation is both way. If this was a star system like amazon people would see almost anything less than 5 full stars as negative. I don't agree that you are Stealing because you don't have their rewards, and they are still being voted on. Essentially a vote for the other team is a negative for the home team because voting is a zero sum game, curating for stars would yield similar problems but we have to recognize what stealing is and what curation can look like.
No, you spent your vote power to vote on a share of the rewards. Someone voted against your vote because they didn't agree with you taking that much of the rewards, which was their choice. It's not about good faith or return on investment, it's about Curating. Curating involves marking things five stars and marking things no stars. Voting is a zero sum game, your Vote devalued every other vote on the platform, without anyone's "consent". Each time a whale votes with a hefty % they devalue everyone else's vote.
The value of our vote is fluid until payout. You are implying that if I leave my waitress a $20 tip because I thought the service was good, you have a right to come take $10 of it because you thought the service was not that good? Now, if the markets tank and her $20 tip only buys her $10 worth of stuff tomorrow, that is not the same as taking part or all of my tip off the table.
Why do you equate something that works as an infinite tap to a finite resource?
You didn't get serviced personally,if you want to TIP the author you can. Everyone got "serviced" and everyone benefits from the flags equally. Nobody is stealing what is nobody to claim. Once the rewards are paid out that's it, but calling Voting on rewards theft when someone votes against rewards doesn't make it theft.
This is not about the market, the very fact is that voting IS a zero sum game, it is intended to work like that, and every time a person votes they take rewards from everyone else, albeit how small, so yes your vote devalues others votes in a demonstrable way, and a flag devalues certain votes while making the rest worth more.
It was a simple analogy... You WOULD take the tip off the table. Everyone in the restaurant got serviced equally, some of us were happy with it and some were not. Those who were happy left big tips, those who were not STOLE THE TIPS off the table. They could choose to NOT tip, but they take the tips off the table. And I just checked out your blog, you and I are pretty much on the same page about SO many things... I am done fighting with you over this. You can feel OK with taking my vote back, but I feel like you stole it when you do. Peace, out.
A simple analogy that treated the concept of infinite as finite, so it's a false analogy as it doesn't describe the situation or elucidate what is happening better than simply explaining the situation technically.
You have an endless machine that prints vouchers for votes. If you fold the voucher in half it basically counts as a downvote.. etc etc etc. No theft, no stealing, no essentializing.
Nobody "took your vote back" nobody stole your voice and indeed his abuse affects everyone, those money come from the communal pot that runeth over, which he's wheelbarrowed out because he "deserves" obscene amounts of wealth. We are not on the same page, we are not in the same building.
After what I saw 2 days ago I'm not certain that I believe that curation works. I accidentally came upon a rant post against a person misusing steemit for his own gain (I try to avoid these rant posts). The first reply was the person being ranted against. You can guess that his reply was an extreme howl about how his posts and replies were being flagged and how it wasn't going to work, he would prevail. He then upvoted his reply which was flagged. Even with the flag from the poster who had a 60-something reputation he still had a value of a nearly $25 payout on that one reply. I checked his stats. A generous 3/4 of his upvotes were for himself. I didn't have the stomach to see who his 'friends' were.
There's a lot of posters here on steemit who feel pretty good when we see our posts hit $20.
Yeah, who would think that it's fair he made a mockery out of that person's concern/outrage over his behavior, you cannot approach that kind of situation with passivity. it needs someone who isn't afraid to scrape some knuckles and elbows.
thats the question! How do we stop these things peacefully? We cannot force them to stop doing what they are doing, but it hurts everyone. So, what is the solution if it is not flags? We cannot kick them out or anything like that. We could try to convince the whale supporting them to stop doing that I suppose. Usually, I say kill em with kindness, but how on earth to do that I wonder....
One thing I trust in, is that the community of ingenous people on here will figure something out. And soon, I hope.
The thing is that you don't force them. You are voicing your opinion. Curation is both way. If this was a star system like amazon people would see almost anything less than 5 full stars as negative. I don't agree that you are Stealing because you don't have their rewards, and they are still being voted on. Essentially a vote for the other team is a negative for the home team because voting is a zero sum game, curating for stars would yield similar problems but we have to recognize what stealing is and what curation can look like.
I spent my vote power in good faith, someone came along and de-valued my vote without my consent. It is theft from me, the upvoter.
No, you spent your vote power to vote on a share of the rewards. Someone voted against your vote because they didn't agree with you taking that much of the rewards, which was their choice. It's not about good faith or return on investment, it's about Curating. Curating involves marking things five stars and marking things no stars. Voting is a zero sum game, your Vote devalued every other vote on the platform, without anyone's "consent". Each time a whale votes with a hefty % they devalue everyone else's vote.
The value of our vote is fluid until payout. You are implying that if I leave my waitress a $20 tip because I thought the service was good, you have a right to come take $10 of it because you thought the service was not that good? Now, if the markets tank and her $20 tip only buys her $10 worth of stuff tomorrow, that is not the same as taking part or all of my tip off the table.
Why do you equate something that works as an infinite tap to a finite resource?
You didn't get serviced personally,if you want to TIP the author you can. Everyone got "serviced" and everyone benefits from the flags equally. Nobody is stealing what is nobody to claim. Once the rewards are paid out that's it, but calling Voting on rewards theft when someone votes against rewards doesn't make it theft.
This is not about the market, the very fact is that voting IS a zero sum game, it is intended to work like that, and every time a person votes they take rewards from everyone else, albeit how small, so yes your vote devalues others votes in a demonstrable way, and a flag devalues certain votes while making the rest worth more.
It was a simple analogy... You WOULD take the tip off the table. Everyone in the restaurant got serviced equally, some of us were happy with it and some were not. Those who were happy left big tips, those who were not STOLE THE TIPS off the table. They could choose to NOT tip, but they take the tips off the table. And I just checked out your blog, you and I are pretty much on the same page about SO many things... I am done fighting with you over this. You can feel OK with taking my vote back, but I feel like you stole it when you do. Peace, out.
A simple analogy that treated the concept of infinite as finite, so it's a false analogy as it doesn't describe the situation or elucidate what is happening better than simply explaining the situation technically.
You have an endless machine that prints vouchers for votes. If you fold the voucher in half it basically counts as a downvote.. etc etc etc. No theft, no stealing, no essentializing.
Nobody "took your vote back" nobody stole your voice and indeed his abuse affects everyone, those money come from the communal pot that runeth over, which he's wheelbarrowed out because he "deserves" obscene amounts of wealth. We are not on the same page, we are not in the same building.
hmmmm that makes a little more sense then it being theft from the poster.
the technical stuff makes my head spin
After what I saw 2 days ago I'm not certain that I believe that curation works. I accidentally came upon a rant post against a person misusing steemit for his own gain (I try to avoid these rant posts). The first reply was the person being ranted against. You can guess that his reply was an extreme howl about how his posts and replies were being flagged and how it wasn't going to work, he would prevail. He then upvoted his reply which was flagged. Even with the flag from the poster who had a 60-something reputation he still had a value of a nearly $25 payout on that one reply. I checked his stats. A generous 3/4 of his upvotes were for himself. I didn't have the stomach to see who his 'friends' were.
There's a lot of posters here on steemit who feel pretty good when we see our posts hit $20.
Yeah, who would think that it's fair he made a mockery out of that person's concern/outrage over his behavior, you cannot approach that kind of situation with passivity. it needs someone who isn't afraid to scrape some knuckles and elbows.