You're not getting it I think. @grumpycat is not downvoting people at random here. He/she/it is downvoting those users who use the voting bots at the last hour to suck up upvotes.
Now I think it is fair enough punishment for them as most of these users are boosting their non qualitative posts very near to pay out and hence decreasing the voting power of the bots for genuine users.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That may be, but they're not very selective either; otherwise, more meaningful downvotes would be made. They may not be random, but it's not better than just throwing mud on a wall and seeing what sticks either.
You can't just hurt people and take the moral high ground thinking you help more than you hurt, so that's ok. Taking is taking. Stealing is stealing. The point of the downvote is to adjust the value of the post.
I worked for hours in the AZ heat to get nice sunset photos on my way overpriced camera that I really can't afford. I used the upvote bot to set a fair value for the photos and the time I put into taking them. Then @grumpycat comes and downvotes it to $5.
Yeah. Maybe they're not random, but they might as well be random. This is a ABSOLUTE ABUSE OF A DOWNVOTE. The point is to adjust and prevent abuse, but this account has taken it to the extreme and it's just abuse on the other end. There is no balance.
Also, @grumpycat dinged me on a post that was only 2.5 days old https://steemit.com/sportsphotography/@r351574nc3/tucson-soccerfest-sunset#@grumpycat/re-r351574nc3-tucson-soccerfest-sunset-20180117t025602468z
I might be leaning more toward random.
I still think it is not random. It is not only about the time, read the first few lines on the comment and you'll understand, I hope.
I've read it. You'll have to spell it out for me. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Let's say for the sake of argument it's not random, then it's arbitrary. @grumpycat arbitrarily chooses. Here are my points.
Even better...@grumpycat also uses @appreciator
So maybe it's not random. If it's not, then it's definitely based on an arbitrary set of rules that can be changed on a whim because they have nothing to do with actually compliant voting bots or 6th day voting. It's more like
Maybe I don't get it, but I'll say something about what everyone else (including @grumpycat) doesn't get. The purpose of downvotes is not to correct voting bots. Downvotes are to correct rewards. I think we all look at them wrong when it comes to @grumpycat. We think
But in reality, the downvote is intended to adjust the payout to what the community thinks is appropriate. By completely negating a bot's influence we forget the see if we're actually adjusting the payout to what is appropriate or not. What ends up happening is a guy like me that wants to get what has coming to him uses a bot to adjust his payout to be proportionate to his effort. Here's an example:
I spend several hours in the sun to make sure no one gets my prime spot for taking a sunset photo. I sit and wait in the AZ heat and sun for hours with no shade with my camera that I really can't afford. I finally get a series of photos that I post on steem thinking people will appreciate with some upvotes. I notice that I'm not getting upvotes. Why? I have no followers and I have mostly no steem power compared to anyone else. I get a voting bot to help me out and push the vote up so more people will see it and so I can get paid for the hours I spent in the sun.
@grumpycat comes along and wipes it out down to $5. $5 for hours in the sun.
I get @grumpycat is trying to change the community and hit the voting bots, but voting bots and their management don't care. The only ones getting hurt are content creators. Voting bots will survive, but we suffer and die. It's not voting bots killing us. It's @grumpycat.
my brand new post wasn't downvoted ... If I got a comment that said don't use particulate bots I would listen. Especially if the self upvote of $40 was given to me as an upvote with a warning comment