You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Flagging Bot Users Arbitrarily Is Like Arresting Those Paying Protection Money To The Mob
Would you use bid bots if you wouldn't get SBDs and SP 7 days later? Prove it to me by promoting your content for the same amount of money via other tools like Google Ads or Facebook, consistently, not just once.
Bid bots are not promotion tools, they are reward siphoning tools, fueled by monkeys like you using them.
By the way your post is trash, your writting style is pathetic, and putting my avatar on top of the world's most famous dictator's picture is not exactly the best way to make me your friend or create a sane discussion here.
Flagged for defamation against my username and avatar
What @lexiconical and you say are not mutually exclusive things. Bid bots might well be "reward siphoning tools" as you say, they are also an effective promotion tool which is
If bots are available and everyone is free to use them then those who don't should contemplate changing a poorly designed system.
Also, regardless of the provocative style of the author, his arguments remain sound.
As long as bots are permitted, flagging the users is akin to punishing the victims of the Mob. With the current setup where "eliminating abuse [...] shouldn't be the goal", Steemit Inc. has created a "Mob-ocracy" and what you are doing is the modern equivalent of "turf wars" between mafia clans.
source
It's a real shame that the "promote" function is so useless, otherwise all this could be avoided. Right now you basically pay to get your posts thrown in the ghetto of the Promoted tab, which no one in their right mind would ever visit to begin with. I mean who the hell likes ads? That's as if Facebook had a news feed option that only shows ads lol who would use that ever?
is there a possibility of making two trending pages, one with an organic only trending, or a limited amount of bid bots used, and another trending page with no limits on the bot? That way it would give the reader some control on which trending page to personally support and read, upvote or share, and vice versa?
There are several ideas being floated around. One would be to simply not have a global trending page. You could still have trending "per tag". Another would be to have trending linked not to rewards but to views×votes (regardless of rewards). A third has been implemented, a bot (Steem Sincerity I think) that comments on posts with high rewards from bots and informs readers that the post "trends" artificially thanks to bots. A fourth is the SMT thingy that's in the process of being implemented where you have several currencies, one per community if I understood well.
You do realize that no action taken to prevent serious flaws is a platform killer. If everyone delegated all their SP to bots, that would be the death of manual curation and quality control. The blockchain would end up filled with worthless garbage. Guess what would happen to the price of STEEM and SBD in USD? The more SP you have, the more concerned you should be about what's going on the platform as a whole.
Decentralized platforms running without a central authority must rely on voluntary community policing and self-governance against abuse. Who gives a fuck what the current system specs allow or the whitepaper says? If the system does not work, it needs to be fixed.
Absolutely, that's why I keep leaning in in the debate :)
Absolutely. What I'm trying to say is that "no action taken to prevent serious flaws is a platfrom killer" DOES NOT IMPLY (logically speaking) "any action is better than no action". There are actions you can take that can be WORSE than "no action" (basically speeding up the death of the platform ...)
Yeah but let's face it, that is not entirely the case of Steemit. And frankly I think it's a good thing, too. If Steemit Inc proposes something sensible and a handful of big witnesses approve then it can be implemented. We are at HF 19 after all, not at HF 1 or 2 ...
Well, that is a very misguided position I can tell you. It's like the tail who says "who gives a s**t what the dog's head wants to do? I say I need to wag!"
On the contrary, the glue that keeps this place together and prevents it from descending into a destructive free-for-all (or most likely "all-against-all") is precisely the fact that this place has a mission (emanating from the whitepaper) and a history, a past from which to learn. These are the fixed points that should always be used as a guidance when looking for consensus not about "whether it needs fixing or not" (it does) but about the next question, which is FAR more difficult: "what is the right fix to apply?"
Your entire article is based on unproven opinions. It is the literal definition of garbage. It has no value.
Your response is to wade in here crying like a baby.
Amusing how you storm in here making demands (and missing the Grumpycat joke), yet denying that you are a dictator. You are literally dictating.
Nobody has to prove shit to you, cartoon-dog boy.
"Bid bots are not promotion tools, they are reward siphoning tools, fueled by monkeys like you using them."
More opinions blathered with no support.
"By the way your post is trash, your writting style is pathetic"
I was trying to write down to your level. You don't post anything of value, period. You're just another reward-pool-SJW rabble-rouser who runs around opinion flagging like a naive crybaby.
Ps - You argue like a bitch.
You didn't answer the first serious part of my comment, where I am trying to defend my assumption. You are clearly trying to argue here and not create a discussion.
Making an assumption is part of the scientific method, if you don't believe in the assumption then feel free not to read the rest of the article. That's why I clearly mentioned this ON TOP of my article.
By the way, since we're covering fallacies, your whole argument is one. The burden of proof is on you, since I cannot prove a negative ("that I am not solely here to farm rewards"). Your silly little tasks you demand would prove nothing.
Maybe it would help if you didn't present your opposition with an impossible, fallacious task as a precursor to arguing disingenuously.
"Proving Non-Existence
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence
"where I am trying to defend my assumption. You are clearly trying to argue here and not create a discussion."
You mean, where you provided no actual data to defend your assumption?
Yeah, didn't find you doubling down on your opinion too compelling.
The scientific method is about formulating, testing, and then adjusting hypotheses. Not by starting out with an assumption and trying to prove it.
Here, unlike you, I'll provide SUPPORT:
"sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
You literally just demonstrated you don't know how to apply the scientific method, and it shows in your work.
PS - Since you clearly missed the joke:
You'll note that no dictators actually appeared in the image I used to modify, just a uniform and a cat. Technicalities and all.