To make a point: you can't build or keep a community together if each member of it makes his/her own rules, if each member of it uses it's own "yardstick" to measure what's "fair" and "unfair". If you downvote the post of someone you don't know, not because that person violated some commonly-agreed rules of "fairness" but because he violated YOUR own sovereign (to you) / arbitrary (to everyone else) rules then you should accept that the same thing happens to you. You downvoting my post - you cannot be hold accountable for your action. Same holds for everyone then, including me downvoting your post. Do you see a problem with this ? I do. This leads directly to either the dissolution of the community or to the worst form of organization, the "wolf pack".
Do not downvote unless enforcing clearly stated and commonly agreed rules. Better still if you are a community-designated rule enforcer ("reward police").
As long as there no agreed rules do not downvote of your own accord.
There is no police. There are no clear "laws". There is no legitimate authority and no accountability. I don't think there should be a reward police. You seem to feel the need for one because you take it upon yourself to police rewards.
What I'm saying (and frankly, I'm just echo-ing Hobbes) is that for as long as there are no commonly agreed rules, it is a very bad idea for each participant to make its own arbitrary rules and start behaving as "the law" or as "the police" - as you did when you downvoted my post.
I have read both the blue paper and the whitepaper which I quote in some of my older posts. I believe there are some good ideas (no transaction fees, a novelty at the time) and some very bad ideas ("even spam is work" - page 15 of the whitepaper)
To make a point: you can't build or keep a community together if each member of it makes his/her own rules, if each member of it uses it's own "yardstick" to measure what's "fair" and "unfair". If you downvote the post of someone you don't know, not because that person violated some commonly-agreed rules of "fairness" but because he violated YOUR own sovereign (to you) / arbitrary (to everyone else) rules then you should accept that the same thing happens to you. You downvoting my post - you cannot be hold accountable for your action. Same holds for everyone then, including me downvoting your post. Do you see a problem with this ? I do. This leads directly to either the dissolution of the community or to the worst form of organization, the "wolf pack".
Do not downvote unless enforcing clearly stated and commonly agreed rules. Better still if you are a community-designated rule enforcer ("reward police").
As long as there no agreed rules do not downvote of your own accord.
Posted using Partiko Android
Another one thinking there is a police. Reward police is quite an idea.
Go and read the Bluepaper.
Also check out bid bot abuse and revenge voting @steemflagrewards
There is no police. There are no clear "laws". There is no legitimate authority and no accountability. I don't think there should be a reward police. You seem to feel the need for one because you take it upon yourself to police rewards.
What I'm saying (and frankly, I'm just echo-ing Hobbes) is that for as long as there are no commonly agreed rules, it is a very bad idea for each participant to make its own arbitrary rules and start behaving as "the law" or as "the police" - as you did when you downvoted my post.
I have read both the blue paper and the whitepaper which I quote in some of my older posts. I believe there are some good ideas (no transaction fees, a novelty at the time) and some very bad ideas ("even spam is work" - page 15 of the whitepaper)
Posted using Partiko Android