No one single author should have 6% of the total reward pool. However awesome his/her content is. Also, downvoting is just one of the Steem mechanics, it's part of the system.
I'm not defending or agreeing with the flagger in anyway, btw, just showing you that there are different viewpoints on the matter AND...
your post is still there once it's flagged.
You are flagging my comment, I'm cool with that. Don't really like it, but I think everyone on this platform is entitled to use their Steem power to the advancement of this community in any way they think is best.
Yeh everyone can use their SP however they want and a lot of people choose to use it to upvote @haejin because they value his content
The issue isn't that so many people upvote his content and make him successful. The issue is that one individual (with an upvote worth over $300) in particular is upvoting all of his (@haejin) content indiscriminately and nobody else's. This is further exasperated by the fact that this particular individual (@ranchorelaxo) seemingly came from nowhere and seems to have no other opinions or associations with anyone else but @haejin. It's reasonable to suspect (while far from being proven) that @ranchorelaxo is @haejin or that the two of them are colluding. If that turns out to be the case, he would be defrauding all of us.
@haejin is good at analysis. He should be able to analyze this situation and come up with a transparent solution on his own. It's very easy for an objective thinker to see the importance of the issue to the overall community.
Ok yeh an account worth $4m with such little activity is suspicious, still, no hard evidence that its @haejin's secret other account so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt
Still no hard evidence, but haejin just mentioned an affiliation with rancho. I haven't seen any contact between them on steemit or youtube. Not sure how contact would have been made. Take a look.Let me know what you think.
True, but we can still correct it. If the community doesn't believe these upvotes are rational, they kind of have a responsibility to correct it. Maybe rancho is just a dude who doesn't realize that if he gives a single dude $11k of the community's funds, he does so at the community's expense.
hmmm.. interesting thank you for posting this.
You're welcome.
Ok this seems like you are just talking shit.
EVEN if he was colluding, why aren't you talking about Bernie and his 120 bot accounts? Is that not collusion?
Or is it because this man who produces free content that is backed by his expertise and YEARS of experience is getting more rewards than you can get and it makes you jealous?
Who cares what % of the reward pool he gets. He's EARNING it. He's giving TONNES of people insight into a world they may not have the time to learn or the means to figure it out by themselves. He is generous, caring, and selfless.
And these things scare evil greedy people. It's no wonder all these attackers are after him. When they pay thousands for bots and can't compete with the general good will of the public, you know the system is working!
@Haejin Keep it up, we support and love you for all your hard work!
I'm not sure how you are perceiving this as talking shit. What's your take on the @ranchorelaxo situation? I am no fan of Bernie.
I also want to point out that I never mentioned anything about percentage of the reward pool. I am l am making a concentrated effort to look at this thing from an objective viewpoint. I see Bernie to be a bit of a hypocrite and stated my agreement with the OP on his bully tactics, but the rancho sitution is fishy as fuck. @haejin has benefitted from this attack in terms of added exposure and community charity. The community at large has also benefited as Rancho doesn't seem to be indiscriminately upvoting all of haejin's posts anymore.
Moe, you should know that some are here purely to troll. I admire your efforts in staying reasonable, but on some the wise words are wasted.
The number is then later found out to be 0.6% instead of 6%.
Even after all those massive downvotes, the author is still picking up about 2% of the rewards pool. For me facts are not open to debate, I don't believe in 'alternative facts'.
http://steem.supply/@haejin
I flagged your comment to make a point.
Sure you can use flagging as a tool to control reward distribution. It's an idea that's sound in theory, and I obviously believe in it hence my investment, but it needs a lot of work.
When too much power is in the hands of too few, we all know what happens. And what happened in this case went way beyond "expressing your opinion" when @Berniesanders started to have his followers to down vote not only @Haejin but also anyone who might disagree with him enmasse. That's just abuse of power, plain and simple.
@Haejin is helping people. He has taught me and many others Elliot wave counting and other good market indicators. HE IS HELPING PEOPLE SUCCEED.
bernie is jealous, because his "bot" accounts cannot rape the reward system when there is legitimate insightful content that many people follow.
Even if haejin has 50% of the reward pool I will still upvote him. He is helping me, and bernie is essentially paying himself to hurt haejin.
I will follow him to another platform. We all will. If you wish steem to become some cancerous site censored massively by idiots like bernie, well, you're succeeding. It looks more and more like this every day.
If you'd been following this controversy at ALL rather than just blurting out whatever comes to your brain you may realize it was .6% not 6%. Was told to you here in the replies but yet you repeat incorrect numbers.
You call it facts, but you really, seriously, have changed your number from "6%" to "2%" in the last 2 comments within the period of a few minutes.
You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the topic so don't expect anyone to take your word to mean anything.
Just my 2 satoshis.
I have seen 6% before the flagging on haejin began. It's now at around 2%. Show me 0.6% with source please.
Have you tried using the tools avaiable that show How much someone is taking from the pool?
Seems you don't want to believe in true facts either, go and find out what he actually gets paid, not what is due.
Look at the $0 payouts which have been down voted, moments before payout time expired.
Well then why don't you contact Steemit Devs to tell them that you are not happy with their program instead of punishing someone who is using the thing the way it's designed??? I don't get it
Just because something is designed in a way that makes certain actions possible, doesn't mean those actions should be abused
Ok genius...then how is he supposed to use steemit then...that is the dumbest response i've seen in a long time
We're on the same side of this, I just realised your comment was in reply to somebody else and not a comment on the post itself
Sorry cap.....i apologize....need to get some sleep...yeah i just don't think it's fair to penalize an innocent person just to get to someone else...it's ridiculous..im really shocked that anyone would even feel this is justified...i mean, i understand they are upset with this guy but to punish haejin to get to him is just ludicrous..cheers friend..happy holidays
Yeh I totally agree, it's bad for Steemit as a platform if new users who are posting useful and enjoyable content are hounded off the platform by a few grumpy whales. Merry Xmas.
It doesn't work that way. Steemit is a self gouverning community. Or as close to one as it can be.
Is there any way to correct the massive power imbalance? so that a single individual doesn't have so much power to flag someone's post. If we are going to be a self governing community then the it should be "majority rules" and not a single person with multiple account holding all the power
That's the exact point of this attack. They see the massive power imbalance of one user, @ranchorelaxo, and see his upvotes as having a negative affect on the reward pool. The reward pool is for the Steemit community as a whole and therefore any one individual abusing their power is seen as a threat.
A few weeks ago, it was the community keeping Bernie in check. This time, a big chunk of them seem to be on his side. So, to answer your question, Yes there is a way....use your voice. Look into Bernie's position. Look at the behavior of the @ranchorelaxo account. Determine if you think it is innocent or suspicious OR determine if you think the posts on which he voted have a proper reward when compared to similar posts. Then act accordingly using one of the following options: your upvote, downvote, abstaining or posting your thoughts.
Not really. I guess this is what usually happens when power and money comes into play:)
The way Steem works is very counter productive IMO. I have noticed that ever since Haejin started talking about the local bullies his calls are off target and he does not seem to be as focused.
This is reflecting in his analysis. Primarily for Bitcoin as that is the primary crypto I follow.
His calls use to be spot on. Lately, not so much.....
Hey man I feel you but a TA can't always be right. @Haejin has said this time and time again, it's about being aware of all the possible price pathways and using your limited information to determine which pathway seems most probable.
It is, quite literally, IMPOSSIBLE for him to always be right if he choses ONE prediction to go with.
This is why you see him make mid and late day updates and corrections to his predictions. It's a limited information game you're playing and as new information comes up, your prediction must change or you will suffer.
As @haejin has taught us.... 36 possible corrections. To be spot on a correction you would need to have a crystal ball (also in @hajin's words).
The correction occurs when others with similar power counteract an action by someone with huge power.
Putting aside the nasty rhetoric on both sides, that is exactly what happened here. One whale upvoted and another downvoted. Whales on either side of the argument are free to weigh in with their votes.
More looks like lord of the flies to me
Flagging is legit. The abuse is not
I must admit I don't understand the purpose of Steem and as an outsider looking in it seems to be unfair, unbalanced, and pointless.
But that's just my opinion based on my limited use.
I would never attempt to do what haejin is doing if the entire time I was trying to help people I had to fight off jealous and greedy astholes too.
It just wouldn't be worth my time. Matter of fact, taking the time to talk about this nonsense seems to be a waste of time to me.
Dear @kwaman, when starting with Steem don't try to understand everything, just build relationships, support the people that post stuff you like and start blogging at a relaxed but steady pace. You will have many great experiences with the community here.
So far I've been unimpressed. I don't like echo chambers, group think, cults, or bullies. That's all I've experienced so far.
Obviously it's working for you guys or you wouldn't be here. Hopefully my experiences on Steem will get better over time.
If not, it won't be the first Internet failure I've seen nor will it be the last I'm sure.
Dig deeper.
I hear you but what you mention is a part of every country, city and community, both in real life and online. There is no avoiding it so it is better to not let yourself get bummed out by it and to simply rise above it.
These periodic drama flareups occur. They usually follow the same pattern.
Some user is getting oversized rewards and is happy than a pig in shyte.
One or more stakeholders (whales) spots what is going on and starts to counter the rewards.
All hell breaks loose because the recipient is happy to receive but is not happy to lose.
They fail to realize that the rewards are not theirs until payout takes place. Until then they can go up or down at the whim of the market.
People take sides and through posts and/or comments the debate rages.
While it seems all consuming when you are in the middle of it. The fact is for the majority of those active on Steemit, life goes on. They post, get voted on, get paid or not paid.
everyone needs to read this post for clarity on the issue:
https://steemit.com/steem/@pawsdog/the-curious-case-of-the-errant-comma-haejin-berniesanders
I think it was actually .06 percent at the time of that original bernie post, but is around 1.3 percent now.. Regardless it the amount is ridiculously high, but this is the system we have as far is Steemit features, so we have to work with it.. I will write about this later as there is an errant comma in the original post by Bernie that I find a bit concerning; It may be nothing...
I think what can be done is to have the payout be 50/50 when it reaches a certain amount , call it levelling if may need to. But this is another topic , more on the payout for authors and curators.. in fact nowadays if i dont write anything, being a curator you dont get sbd but only sp and steem. How about making it 50/50 so that curators can get the sbd too. the other thing here i would say that in my own thoughts it looks like bernie is worried too much on the payout to authors, so again as mentioned, if it was a 50/50 that would not be an issue anymore. So bernie would not need to flag good authors like haejin, as i had been following him and learnt alot. We cannot have moderators to flag people (good people like haejin) just because of the underlying issue of the payout, we should fix it. If it is not fixed then loads of good contributors will be leaving soon due to bullying. And then i cannot imagine how steemit would be... a place where all the good and promising contributors that just became and gone. Isnt this something that we should ponder about? fix the real problem, not aggravating more internal issues?
I can certainly see how it is bullying at this point and cannot agree with the behavior. But I have no dog in that fight and will wait to see how it shakes out and just keep doing my thing... I did write an article about that random comma.. check it out here.. you may like what you read... https://steemit.com/steem/@pawsdog/the-curious-case-of-the-errant-comma-haejin-berniesanders
You sound jealous
https://steemit.com/steem/@fractalfreedom/join-me-in-voting-haejin-for-witness
Source?