You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Exclusive: Every Book I Read in Federal Prison (Charlie Shrem Prison Reading List)
Which of these are you really glad that you read and which are hardly worth the few centimeters of real-estate their title takes on that worn out paper sheet?
Don't read book of numbers. I really liked letters to a Buddhist Jew. If you like religion discussions it's awesome. Also the mindfulness books and last dance at hotel kempinksi
another example of why the ability to upvote yourself is bs
Huh? What are you talking about?
@recursive brought his comment to the top of the thread. I would argue it's pretty rude, although it's the whale's prerogative.
And I would strongly disagree with you. People of influence have influence. That's their reward for being early adopters and taking risk while others were busy doing other things. Or those who were willing to invest and power up STEEM: same thing. They are willing to take risk and convert real value (read: benefits they provided to other human beings in other areas which they were rewarded for by the market) into a speculative investment.
It certainly is. You can either leave and go somewhere else that better fits what your version of "bs" is or is not, or you can work to gain influence of your own. As it stands now, your comment seems like envy. There's no coercion involved here. It's all completely voluntary. My advice to you: stop being negative and start bringing something positive to the conversation. You just might find yourself rewarded by the network.
If you are writing things you don't think are worth your own upvote, then you'd better not write them in first place.
@demotruk: using the same reasoning, when a whale upvotes anyone else's comment or post, they are making that comment go to the top at the expense of everyone else's comment. How arrogant are they to think their opinion of what comment is good should supercede everyone else's opinion?
Or maybe you could see it from another perspective and consider that whales are upvoting things which they think are helping improve the discussion around the post. Why should they have a blind spot for their own comment if they made that comment specifically to make the discussion more useful and interesting to everyone else?
Look again at what I put in my comment without getting too focused on who wrote it, then look again at your rant: do you really think people will have the time to read 100 books? Isn't it helpful to the discussion to know what are the most recommended and the most worthless books in the list?
Charlie Shrem, a reputed member of the crypto community, was used by the financial mob to make an example, and sent to jail over petty regulation related charges, following which he spent one year reading 100+ books that appealed to his mood back then. Aren't you anxious to know which he felt were the most meaningful to him in that situation and which he would recommend to a community who shares a similar mindset?
@demotruk: completely my bad. I did miss that you were not the original commenter. I do try to remain level headed and not hostile with these discussions, but the constant complaining about those with influence here and how they chose to use it is starting to get under my skin.
I apologize for taking that out on you and ask for your forgiveness.
@lukestokes You are replying to me as though I was the same person who made the original comment. Your response is unnecessarily hostile over something about which reasonable people can disagree.
I would apply Kant's principle to it, could you genuinely will that everyone here lived by that maxim? It would mean Ned and Dan raising their own comments and rewarding themselves hundreds of dollars each time. In order to raise your voice up, others must go behind. I would not wish to push my voice above others and pay myself in the process, unless given sufficient reason. This is all a tangent though, so we can continue this elsewhere if you'd like.
@recursive
I would simply answer that there is good reason to have a blind spot to yourself, to counter the effects of self-serving bias. People are generally biased to see their own behavior as particularly valuable as it is a way of reinforcing self esteem, the same bias doesn't exist as generally towards others. It's for the same reason that raising your voice above others is seen as rude while "hear, hear!" is not. Since most people see their own input as more valuable, most people would be biased towards voting for themselves. If everyone was to live by the maxim of allowing themselves to upvote their posts, then the website would be overwhelmingly dominated by the comments of the largest whales always at the top and extracting value from their own system. If whales upvoting their own comments and extracting the rewards turns off new users, then it isn't something they should do. If it turns out to be just a handful of people complaining, then fine, it obviously isn't a big problem.
Incidentally, my one line post was not a rant. It was not meant to diminish your comment but to explain the sentiment which the other poster expressed. I'm sorry for calling your post rude, it wasn't intended as a personal slight.
I gave you a lengthy, rather passionate reply below, mistaking @demotruk for you. "bs" stands for "bull sh*t" which is pretty strong wording and why I gave such a strong reply. We are all entitled to our opinions, but using (IMO) earned influence to promote your own comments above others is part of this ecosystem and something I actually enjoy as a return on my investment here.
its bullshit that you would even try to justify up voting yourself and when it's forked/patched I am going to spike it in your faces, "I told you so."
If the witnesses agree upvoting yourself should not be allowed, and the change is made, then I will go along with what the group decides on this matter. Let me ask you this though, which would you prefer:
Which one, to you, provides more transparency and honesty? If they do release a patch to prevent #1, #2 will surely happen. The problem, it seems, is an underlying moral or philosophical disagreement about what is reasonable and what is bullshit. That, unfortunately, will not be solved with a pull request. It's a matter of ideas.