Is self-voting really bad? Why is it shameful? What's with the public shaming?

Recently I was told that up-voting my own content for the sake of an up-vote is not cool, and that I risk having my account taken away.

As a "whale" who has bought all of their own STEEM, with their own money, and then taking part in a "decentralized" platform, I am now noticing that their investments have stipulations that were not even written in the fine print: do as you are told, or else! This sounds more like a centralized system to me.

Users, random users of steemit.com, are aware that they could shape you in in whatever way they feel fit - all they need is the help of a few users who have a lot of steempower and an mission to see you fail and the job is done.

Individual policing and shaming other members could have huge impact for the future of this place. I urge witnesses, whales and the little guys to be vigilant and to think something over before reacting, even if it seems fair and logical at first.

Many steemians say that STEEM is really undervalued, I believe so as well, but this place is not investor friendly, not right now. perhaps that is the answer for why the price is still low.

On steemit.com users always judge content on what they THINK it's worth. This is for no one to judge, it's no one's job, but of the user who is upvoting content. the market will decide what the real value of a blog post is. the market could be 1 person or 100 people or 1000. yes, you can disagree, but let's just leave that disagreement in world where we all agree to disagree on what content is really worth. this will always remain a grey zone.

now, it is a shame to be voting for your own content?

keep in mind that this problem does not seem to arise where the payouts are small, they seem to arise when the payouts are large.

this attitude of judging what content is worth could have a heavy impact on investors who will want to invest and use this platform to voice their thoughts freely, which is not available in a world where people tend to live or want to live on a moral high ground in order to be accepted. if people are judgmental on content and its value, this might keep investors away and shy them away from giving this platform a chance.

that being said, it seems that the problem is not a matter of the content, but payouts that frustrates steemians: it's all about the money. otherwise, users keep their peace. "content" is used as a point of attack in order justify why they disagree with the payout, when in reality they just disagree with the payout itself. because if it were about the content , then 99% of the steemians are useless, because, in essence, the content on steemit.com is pretty much useless.

good content with little to none payouts does not mobilize steemians to fight for the right of that content producer who got little to no reward for their hard work. however, if a content receives a big payout, then every one is upset about the reward pool being drained. the irony! what good is the reward pool if it sits there doing nothing, just looking pretty?

the hardforks were all put in place to attract new users by elevating the payouts. before hf19 only those who were whales or who had connections to whales benefited. so, it goes without saying that that hf19 was to answer the call of the little guy.

remember, when a whale had voting strength before the fork, after the fork it will be the even stronger. this would be a natural consequence if the platform decided to give the little guy more voting power. the reverse is simply illogical. it would be stupid to think that after a hardfork the little guy and the big guy are at level playing fields. then, it would really drive investors away. all of this was done in the name of bringing more users to make more content; even the comments section is now handsomely rewarded, simply to engage people and make this place the place to be.

someone needs to drain the pool reward, otherwise this platform will die.

so, now that brings me to a point of contention: what's wrong with voting at 100% for little or no content when it is up to the voter to decide how to distribute their votes, even if upvoting is for their own content? by upvoting, it is users who distribute the rewards pool, granted that every user has a limited distribution power.

to continue, i thought this platform was "decentralized," meaning little to no policing, with the understanding that the policing should be installed in the mechanics, coding, not based on some random user's moral yard-stick. yes, it is good to bring up concerns and discuss them and then find solutions, which are then implement in a hardfork. but, if the mechanics allow for users to behave in a certain way, then allow them to test it's limits. don't shame them publicly and don't use the downvote arbitrarily, just "because."

yes, one can use the downvote as a protest, as a formality, but not in a way to ruin a users ability to participate here. otherwise, it will no longer fit the concept of freedom of speech, whatever that may be, if to participate on this platform is based on certain individuals or a certain individual's moral beliefs.

if someone disagrees with everything a user is doing, then it should be brought to the attention of the community, without vilifying the user, by destroying their reputation. if the community agrees that it is an issue that needs to be addressed in order to protect the platform and the community from destruction, then the user whose behaviour was in question and who was used as an example should not be upset. this is all part of growing pains.

plus, steemit.com is still in a beta phase. this is the time for us to really address holes and flaws in the vision.

that being said, in the meantime, keep in mind that this platform is nothing without its users. so, if i don't upvote for myself and i don't upvote for anyone else, then it is the same result, no one is getting my votes and my votes will get wasted.

so, if people have issues with me upvoting myself, remember that if i don't chose to give them to anyone, no one benefits. so, it is not as if someone is losing out because i upvote my own content. the reward pool will give the same amount of payouts whether it is for me or for someone else.

if someone wants a piece of the action then work your way towards building a network of people in order to exploit and maximize the profits that this platform has enabled for you. or, and otherwise, buy your own steem and bypass the need to build a community of followers that you can use to extract the STEEM from this platform in order for you to make money.

steemit.com is decentralized. meaning, anyone can join and do whatever they want.

if this is the wrong understanding then we have a philosophical issue and this is a whole different discussion. but, as the mechanics stand, anyone and everyone is welcomed to make good use or bad use of this platform. no one should police this place.

the policing should be done at the coding level. who decides the "coding," might you ask? the community as a whole. when there is consensus, then it should be implemented and a hardfork should happen.

so, if someone notices something they don't like or odd about someone's behaviour on this platform or a flaw in the system, because of someone's behaviour, it is should be mentioned in a way that the user does not feel singled out or painted as an evil person.

what is the difference between me upvoting for my own content at 100% or me finding "x" amount of users to upvote my content in order to have the same effect as my 100% upvote?

when having more people upvote content, does it make it more legitimate and is that when it is not considered as spam?

if so, then, it is pretty ironic that most of the upvotes on this platform are from curations, meaning that no one really reads the content. further, the upvotes are based on strategic maneuvering to make sure you get the most curation rewards. people have bots and a trail follows. maybe only a handful of blog posts get read here.

so, as it stands, steemit.com is not really about how good the content is, it's about how much you can make. the content is simply their to justify a payout. but, the content is really irrelevant. this is the case upto now. i don't know what the future holds for this place.

that's why steemit.com is beautiful: some people work hard to attract votes, by creating worthy content worthy of attention; while others simply create nothing, but have support. in short, that is the same as a whale who does not need support, he can simply collect rewards by creating nothing and upvoting themselves.

so, people with little steempower create content for upvotes, otherwise for what else? if it is simply to put it out there, then facebook and twitter and instagram, etc. are already doing that. but, the key is that people who are voting are not all reading it. perhaps, only the person who is responsible for the trail has to make sure the voting is legitimate. so, if this person voting has a trail of say 100 usernames, then the other 99 people who voted did not necessarily read the content.

so, what is the difference between "spam" and not reading what you are upvoting?

hence, what is the differnce between that and a selfvote?

in essence, nothing!

remember that user's on steemit.com do not post organically, it is rewards driven. meaning, people will think of ideas to post in order to win followers so they could win rewards.

on facebook, however, it's the opposite. people there post organically. on facebook, there is a need for the post or for some attention. facebook is driven by need, be it people being needy and needing attention or simply to stay in touch with family and friends or it is a good way of voicing something. it is not based on rewards, meaning there is no need for anyone to post anything facebook - it is user driven to connect with others or to stay connected. if anything, facebook is about how many friends you can make, and thus, how many people liked your post.

but, here, on steemit.com it is rewards driven. otherwise, facebook is the place to be if you care about content.

therefore, for this platform to work and to attract people, users should have the freedom to post what they want and should be allowed to keep their payouts, however high they may be - be it due to a collective support or an individual's own upvote.

this place will create communities within communities within steemit.com, all in order to find a way to "mine" the available STEEM in the rewards pool.

without content this place will not meet its purpose and without content this place will not attract users.

decentralization should mean that policing should not be done at the individual level with downvotes. it should be done at the mechanics levels and which is the collective consensus of the community.

so, no to shaming!

remember, one man's trash is some other man's treasure: some spam might really be good.

i hope i did not offend anyone.

Stay Tuned to @abu-mikayeel for more daily posts.

StayAwesomeSteemit!
"We really are living in the future" - M.Nel 2017