You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bernie's dislike for people who don't have standard jobs - A reason to flag people
I can try to make sure your post stay above 0.00$ but can't deal with the drama you're causing / is a victim of.
Just glanced over your post, might be an idea to add other examples of where Bernie is acting like a savage with others, otherwise it seems like there is more to the story that you might be conveniently skipping.
There are numerous examples in the past where Bernie has specifically targeted authors for no other reason other than he just disliked them. He has run some of them off the site.
During the "whale-no-voting experiment" he had a list of 10-20 authors that he would routinely downvote. But, he would not just downvote them with a normal downvote like you or anyone else would, no he would downvote in the last 12 hours with the full weight of all his accounts using many more rshares than anyone else was "allowed" because he knew the "whale experiment" couldn't counter his downvotes during that time.
The net effect was a massive reduction in post rewards because his vote was the largest vote in the system. He was abusing the system and not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Clayop wrote a post or two about it and his numerous targets complained that the 12 hour window needs to be adjusted because of him abusing it.
I actually got a up-vote from him and dantheman with the same article. Now that's an accomplishment. And I don't even have a normal 8-5 job!!
Thanks for the info.
Ok, I am starting to get it
Well it's all in my blog history when it started in February, the comment for justifying flags based on Dan upvoting me... and other BS reasons: 1) not enough views, 2) not enough comments, 3) too many upvotes, 4) voted on by a whale he doesn't like, 5) earning rewards that he doesn't want me to have, etc.
I also summarized it recently. Today there was the proof of his mindset towards people he says don't have jobs. If no job then flag rewards away... those quotes weren't even mine in this post. Those are all different people. @skpetic and @noganoo are both other people he has flagged. Other people he has flagged I mentioned in that summary post, but maybe it was too long for you to want to read. @seablue is one person mentioned in that previous post that bernie has targeted.
I will post 1 more proof of his false claims: "Proof I Can't Even Keep Rewards for 1 in 1 day, or 1 post in 14 Days".
Then I guess I can hold off on more posts about bernie, and go back to posting regular again. Thank you very much for your offer of support, I greatly appreciate it.
The "drama" is exposure of behavior that people aren't aware of. Issues that aren't personally affecting us are often seen as a hassle that we don't really want to get involved in. So I understand why most people don't want to get involved in this issue, make fun of me, take the authorities side, and just don't want to hear about it at all. But you are getting involved to help. If I never created the "drama" by speaking about what was going on, would you have been aware? So I thank you again for noticing my posts :)
Cool, It's better if you just @ ping my name when you feel like you've created good content that's being unfairly flagged.
I was suggesting the other day that there should be a built in field in the flagging dialog to facilitate entering a reason for flag.
I do not personally think that any reason need to be given with a flag, but it's obviously a much better practice that benefit everyone.
Hope this get resolved with time and that you can find your place within Steem.
Thank you. I was thinking of starting a group for flag abuse, and people could make cases for abuses of power. I was thinking of making an account for it, and people could delegate their SP to it, without worrying about it being used often to affect their own curation efforts. It would only be used on flagging issues. Would you consider supporting such an endeavor? This way the flagging issue can be combated by a group/community of people, and you wouldn't have to monitor anything like watching for mentions and upvoting posts yourself. If concerned about how the voting is being used, all that is needed is to check the voting of the account.
I honestly think the reason would be useful if there were was a review process, or only valid for plagiarism, abuse, etc. and not over rewarded as that criteria does not get applied on the platform to all posts, but only used as a reason by certain rich rulers to justify their removal of rewards from certain people. Since anyone can flag for any reason, they can make up whatever reason they want and the flag would still be applied anyways. So I don't really see it being used for anything that can correct flagging abuses.
Anyhoot, let me know if you would be interested in that idea ;) Thanks.
I must be one of biggest proponent of increasing flagging usage and turning it into a more acceptable downvote. If you look at my early history my main activity in the beginning was flagging over rewarded content from the frontpage.
You have to understand that "whales" who downvote for reasons of over-reward or any reasons, usually have a much longer horizon view of what the platform ought to become.
I believe rewards are about 30 times larger than they should be due to crypto fenziness. I consider views per $ earned as the fundamental metric of value behind the steem. You seems to see the reward per "arbitrary amount of work" as important, It's not.
So far I have only seen @berniesanders acting rationally with his stake. I wish in the future whales get to express more clearly their long term vision of steem so misunderstandings and conflicts like what happened with you are avoided.
Have a good day.
So not a positive upvote to promote what people like or support of certain information getting out, but just popular posts win out because they have the most views? Those that don't have the views get downvoted because the supporters aren't allowed to positively affect what they want to be seen or rewarded?
So those who have the most SP get to decide in a negative way and deny what the others want to support, rather than positively affirming support for the content they do want to support more of. There isn't a positive affirmation to denote competition. Competition and stake influence -- that is often promoted as the basis for Steemit -- is suppressed by those who don't want that content to be promoted, as it's not in the direction they have for Steemit, not in their view as you say. You don't see a problem with that? Just because it's not the content you like, you get to deny the voter support to allocate rewards as per their stake. So then it becomes about a flagging game where the only way to even out supporters of one content flagging down others posts is to do the same...
And that means 1 post in a day or in a week it doesn't matter, all that matters is that it's not the content someone wants on Steemit, so they are justified in flagging/downvoting.
And so it will be here? That if you don't have the matching SP support from others to counter flags, then those who don't want certain content to be popularized get to downvote as they like...
meep
tldr?
meep
I'm not going to read past your first sentence
When you assume "JUST" you are wrong, I do upvote content that I believe is good for the platform or projects I want to support financially.
I said post globally are about 30x overvalued, there is nothing I can do about that.
Many of your post are about taking away value of SP by wanting to regulate downvotes by your, I believe, fallacious politics.
It seems like, given your reputation, you're not going to go anywhere with that.
I didn't say there was no positive upvoting, the point is that when your promoting the downvote for any reason, and how its fine to do so to take Steemit in the direction you want to with the posts you don't want to be downvoted, that's the issue.
See? I didn't say "no positive upvotes". I said that supporting flagging/downvotes os not a positive upvote, it's about the attitude of how to go about supporting content and giving the others a fair chance as well with their supporters. Otherwise it turns into a flagging game.
Why does the downvote need to come in to guide Steemit into view of what you want it to be? Use the positive affirmation of content, not denying content based on you not liking the content topics.
My posts are about how any of the high SP users who have the most power can step in to decide to do whatever they want, such as suppressing others content or removing rewards that others allocated because they don't like it being rewarded. Meanwhile, other content is fine. If the people who preferred my type of content acted like you seem to suggest and agree with bernie, then they should be downvoting the other types of posts so that their type supported content is promoted more? I already tried to explain this above, but you don't read what I write for some reason, and then make responses based on not reading it.
I think you're reading way too much into it, and it's possible that some people don't like your style of wrtiting. It seems like you could always write the same thing with 1/5 the length.
There is no way I'm going to analyse your post for meaningful content. It seems like it's going nowhere and it's full of typos and grammatically incoherent uses.
Their type supported content is promoted more ????
Maybe assume that curator cannot do a perfect job and that a down-vote is just more efficient than up-voting everything else and maybe that should help you move on with your life.
I've deleted my post. Don't feel safe responding.
The moment you turned up and started flagging the trending page I thought things were going to be looking up for steemit. I'm not advocating for "equality" but I do believe every token is more valuable when spread out and I see the same users getting thousands per day as a flaw that holds back the price.
I also appreciated @smooth and @abit's efforts with the experiment but saw their system as robotic and flawed but they must have seen it as a temporary solution that didn't target any specific authors. I didn't see the point in countering a whale vote if it was on content that doesn't always get high rewards. I had wished they would take the approach of just flagging those who were on the trending page every day, to give those who don't always make it a chance of exposure. There is very little space up there at the top and those who make it every day just continue to get more and more supporters while others don't get the chance.
I'd like to see the flag normalised but also think it will never really happen as long as there are new people coming. People were getting flagged when I first joined 11 months ago but even after I came to terms with it when I actually got one it was an emotional rollercoaster.
I want to join your anti-abuse flagging group @krnel
Sent you an email, last night, which I see you replied, thanks :). Sent you another for meeting later.
If anyone else wants to contact me: [email protected]
or join discord @ https://discord.gg/bJCnv5j and send me a message there.
Thanks.
Me too
@matrixdweller would not stand for the harassment
Heyy I'm new around here and my friend Barry Dutton offered to help me with my first #introduceyourself post... We worked on it together and I thought it was sooo nice of him and it came out great. I'm not sure how the whole system works yet so I'm not pointing any fingers... But from what I understand our post which started off doing great, went down to $0.00 after being flagged for whatever reason I'm not sure - wanted to avoid any drama so just let it go,but it's never a great look to be mean or bully people is it?
Please visit my post dedicated to security, thank you.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@niceviewsua/my-cryptostoge-for-storing-crypto-wallets-manual-guide-how-to-in-post-store-your-crypto-in-safe-for-steemit-only