RE: A path toward proper distributions on Steem
This got me thinking about the fact that I, by default, allow the self vote on my posts (not comments, though). After reading this post, I did a little research to find that a lot of people feel self voting is basically a sin -- arrogant, greedy, etc...
But you hit the critical point, for me. It's a matter of degree. If someone's self vote is worth $0.10, that's one thing. If it's $2,000, it's another.
Since I find that moralizing in the end becomes another form of corruption, I'm disinclined to support the idea that self-voting is inherently wrong.
For the folks on the $0.10 side of the spectrum, I think the upvote helps with a couple functions:
- A tiny bit of promotion
- A tiny bit of compensation
And as you suggest, in the end it's about balance and fairness. If the network doesn't feel fair, people will leave -- or fork.
That's why I love this Steem/Steemit experiment. I was telling folks at a meetup last night that I love the high quality of debate and reflection on Steemit about the cryptoeconomics involved.
Agreed, @aggroed had made a post saying the exact same thing regarding self votes. I also think It shouldn’t be about morals or what most people consider fair. I like to think Steemit should aim for fairness in the context of a meritocracy, not in the sense of equality for all.
I do think there should be a path to success for every type of user though. As of now, the pure consumers don’t have a meaningful sway in the system, or a way to get there. That should be addressed. I’ll be posting on that shortly.
I like the way you phrase that: a "path to success" for everyone. While it might require more/less work for each type of user, that path ought to be clear enough.
Looking forward to that post!
... adding an upvote for directing me to @aggroed. I was unaware of him until now. Extremely grateful when I find solid folks to follow.
👍🏼 Yeah, he's the guy that started and runs the Minnow Support Project, and a top 20 witness. Dude is holding it down for Steem and the lil' guys, and he is being met with a lot of success. He's a model whale, IMO.
This resonated with me, @seanlloyd. I am relatively new to steem, just a few weeks in, and was unsure how to navigate the whole "self-voting" thing. I, like you, had toggled--whether on accident I can't recall: I wanna say that auto-self-upvote is the default mode, no?--the self-upvote switch early on. Anyway, like you, after going a bit further along, I encountered many-an-opinion that "self-upvoting" was like a cardinal sin on steemit.
I still didn't think too much about self-voting; didn't think it really mattered--namely because my vote was only worth a penny or whatever its SBD equivalent at the time; a "small" amount, relatively speaking--though, I would like to mention, this is, of course, quite subjective. It also occurred to me that voting for one's own post could also be seen as a simple act of self-confidence. It is like the old adage: if you don't have belief in yourself, well, then it can often be quite difficult for someone else to. I'm actually grappling with whether or not to "upvote" a post I made recently--an entry into an "open mic" contest on steemit--namely, for the simple facts that:
A) I have confidence in my performance;
B) my "vote" might get help me "move up in the queue," so to speak, and more people might see me
C) it's like a CEO paying himself from the company he owns! (As long as that pay is within reason, of course)
I think some of this self-promotion is kind of a "FOMO" type-thing--it's like: "Well, if I don't promote myself, well, what if no one does??" As a newb, I'm still learning the different ways to try and get myself out there and connect with other steemians.
Of course, this is where things become somewhat ironic. We also know, as humans: everyone hates a braggart. And it's a very fine-line between confidence and arrogance. Seeing someone "vote for one's self" can, sometimes, be off-putting. The more I've been on steemit, the more I have come to adopt this latter philosophy. As difficult as it may be to sometimes feel "unappreciated" or "marginalized," it can be often prove more detrimental to one's "position" to attempt to artificially engender some sort of support. One's place is best found "organically," in its own time. (To this point, I was taken aback when a fellow steemian--I will maintain their anonymity--made a post which was essentially intended to shame some certain participants in a contest the former had held because the latter winners of the contest failed to send a "thank you note" after receiving their prize. They were also mad that someone would "upvote their post with anything less than 100%"--pointing out that said user's vote was "already basically worthless; why would they withhold even more [from their vote]? Seriously?? I am appalled at some people's lack of self-awareness... )
Thank you again, @seanlloyd for your post: it got me thinking about important issues, and how I need to be sure to present myself respectfully on steemit and not selfishly or with greed.
That being said: EVERYONE: PLEASE WATCH MY STEEMIT OPEN MIC ENTRY, WEEK 71 AND UPVOTE ME (be sure it's 100% only!!!):
https://steemit.com/openmic/@gjones15/steemit-open-mic-week-71-ever-since :):):P
Thank you! I'm glad you found some value.
I think these discussions are extremely important. When they are conducted with humility and reflection, we all become better people. Ultimately it allows us to navigate the gray areas -- where it the idea of self-voting shifts from being okay to being selfish.
I tend to disregard dogma that seeks to replace the gray areas with "thou shalls" or "thou shall nots". It's unhealthy and leads to censorship. People have a free voice and that always needs to be honored. Hopefully we can find the health norms around self-voting without drawing artificial lines of sin.
That's why I appreciated @theferalone 's post.