I have become accustomed to often being downvoted by swarms of those attempting to punish me
You can stop right there. Downvotes aren't punitive, they are voting on where rewards go. You are free to post and no one is punishing you, but you aren't entitled to rewards unless the blockchain voting allocates them to you, end of story.
I think this is the part enough people don't understand. Voting is a two way street.
No, we understand perfectly. You can't insist votes are a 2-way street and simultaneously say downvotes aren't punitive when they diminish rewards that were allocated to the user by other users who wanted to reward the content. Either it is a one way street and downvotes should not be used apart from flagging spam and plagiarism, or 2 way street where upvotes reward and downvotes punish by diminishing those rewards.
Taking away or diminishing a reward is very much a punitive action and would not be accomplished if the blockchain had not allocated rewards that are then being subjectively adjusted down, taken away from the user they were delegated to by upvote. Downvotes don’t allocate rewards, on the contrary they nullify to some extent what has been allocated by users on the chain, so what you really mean when you make this bs claim is that no one is entitled to rewards powerful users don’t want you to have.
More of the exact same defensive BS from the echo chamber inhabited by some of the most nefarious reward pool rapists this platform tolerates.
Users do not "allocate", they vote. The blockchain allocates at the end of seven days depending on the overall result of the voting.
"You can stop right there. Downvotes aren't punitive, they are voting on where rewards go. You are free to post and no one is punishing you, but you aren't entitled to rewards unless the blockchain voting allocates them to you, end of story."Let's be honest for a moment. In your downvote activity, you're not voting where you want the rewards to go. They are safe and sound in the reward pool and haven't gone anywhere. What you're doing is voting where you don't want them to go, and that is punitive. It's plain as day that you are blatantly targeting specific types of content with your downvotes. And if you're saying I want my vote to minusculely increase all other upvoted content at the expense of an [individual post], there's no way to see that other than as a punitive action of sorts.
I noticed you were talking to @truthforce about comments, balking at the number of comments on some of the content you're downvoting. Well, here's the thing, every time you ding a post, it drops a few if not many places in any given feed. This kind of action makes it less noticeable and almost ensures less engagement on the content. And if we address comments being the deciding factor of whether a post merits receiving one of your downvotes. Then why are you upvoting instead of downvoting the spam comments on your @hbd.funder?
Nobody is engaging with those spam comments with comments. And you have them upvoted to the tune of hundreds of dollars each daily while reaping massive amounts of curation rewards on autopilot by curating textbook spam. Now, I know this project is allegedly for a good cause. However, you're gaming the curation scheme in one of the laziest ways possible to benefit yourself and your project all-the-while griefing people who are trying damn hard and putting forth a lot of effort to make it in this ecosystem.
I know that code is law, technically speaking, but it's like the 'Law of the Jungle.' The best of men in days of old have expounded upon this ruthless fact, that there is a thin veneer between civilization and all-out chaos, and they've created additional layers of law for the betterment of humankind. The most simple, effective, and least-offensive form of these is natural law, and all other forms of laws are built on top of that one.
Here's a thought experiment, a crazy man can go and murder or rob someone and be in complete harmony with the law of the jungle. But that doesn't make his actions right, and that's where natural law comes into play. I think it would greatly benefit the HIVE platform if the DEV team tried their best to conform to natural law--this is opposed to the "law of the jungle." You see, if HIVE doesn't feel or gel right with people, then the lack of retention will be the sole blame of stakeholders like yourself who make it this way.
We're still in a quasi-state of first mover advantage. We got some time to get good and show how engaging HIVE can be. But if people like yourself keep shitting on the user experience of those who demonstrate intelligence and show an effort--then you'll have nobody except yourself to blame for just another random token that fails to reach its best potential.
Because I believe high(er) rewards there are beneficial to Hive.
Technical correction, though. I don't make those posts/comments, so they're not mine. They do benefit a project (hbdstabilizer) that I run, but which also does not benefit me personally except to the extent that I'm a Hive stakeholder and I believe it benefits all Hive stakeholders.
The curation rewards must be pretty sick, though. How many of those spam comments do you upvote at 100% daily?
My curation rewards are absolutely crappy because I do nothing to optimize it. Yes, if you have a large stake you get large curation rewards, but compared to the ROI of those who actually try, mine are terrible.
It isn't because I don't know how to do so either. I've both done successful manual curation and run curation bots in the past, and I had among the highest curation ROI for both. I just don't want to focus on extracting rewards at this point when there is far more to be gained by increasing the value of Hive. With the value circling the drain, focusing on maximizing rewards is fighting for second to last place here. No thanks. Let's get Hive to be worth a lot and then we all do well.
"Let's get Hive to be worth a lot and then we all do well."I bet you if you considered focusing less on downvoting the work of content creators, more people would feel comfortable telling their friends to come here, and when people start feeling good about HIVE, they'll buy more tokens. It's this kind of (block)chain reaction that'll cause market activity that drives up the value of HIVE in the marketplace.
We don't have enough clout to be ("the literal") 'Soup Nazi' anymore. The decentralized paid social media marketplace is rapidly expanding to places like odysee and theta. Once any given platform perfects the formula, then we've blown our chance at being the first (successful) mover, and folks will migrate there. I don't think you want that. Nobody does. Everyone I know wants HIVE to get good.
Everyone I know wants the "large stakeholders" to get friendly towards lowly content creators that do their all to make this place work. To give you an idea, I could earn more panhandling for a couple of days at an intersection in a homeless man's attire than I did for all these years that I've poured my heart and soul into this platform, and this should let you know that I'm not here for the money.
Although, I do get torqued when people interfere with my earning potential. HIVE might only pay in peanuts, but I worked god damn hard for those peanuts. So please don't be a (hold your tongue and say) peanuts.
For that matter, I'm pretty sure my rewards were higher when I just delegated to a curation project, even though they take a cut. I cancelled the delegation so I could concentrate my votes on to hbd.funder. Doing so likely cost me money.
That's the same thing and no I don't see it as punitive. Voting where they don't go means they go to others. They don't get taken by the downvoter.
I know that you are not "taking the rewards," but you are not allocating them either. When you diminish the earmarked rewards for a post, you are, in effect, invalidating the upvote actions of others who've mindfully read and resonated with the content. Your bold assertion that leaving it in the rewards pool is like giving all other upvotes a tiny increase is rather obtuse. I say this because people know without a doubt that you didn't read all of those thousands of posts to determine whether or not they merited the imperceptible boost in value. That said, some of your downvote activity has more of a harmful effect than anything else because you're handing out demerits to content you don't like instead of allocating rewards to content that you do. I want you to know it's a very demoralizing experience to be on the receiving end of a smooth downvote, but I think you know this already. I think you enjoy this aspect of your stake power. But mark my words, one day, life will downvote you, and I say this because it happens to us all eventually. Shitty things happen all of the time to good people and bad people alike. But whenever life deals you a sour hand, take the time to reflect on your past behavior and how you got off on doing shitty things to good people. Many of us on HIVE genuinely care about each other, so much that people will blog about their hard times or a bad experience, and we receive and give words of support and encouragement to each other. But I can't help but wonder when someone sick like yourself runs into hard times, if you have someone to go to, or if you've burned all those bridges down and to the ground. I had better quit right now. You're going to end up having me talk me into feeling sorry for yourself, and I just don't have that kind of time or energy for you right now. Get well, get gud, stop breaking HIVE, you're stinking up the joint!
That is the reality of the system and the way voting/code works, sure. But do you think it is in the spirit of the platform though?
If someone's post has dozens(previously said hundreds)of comments on it, or draws in lots of outside users, I wouldn't think a post like that should be downvoted. The rewards might look excessive, but those users are doing something for the platform in terms of engagement.
There is definitely a point in where your downvotes are accomplishing the opposite of what you intend to do(and you have recently done that at least a few times). You want more users coming here and positive experience and positive PR for Hive just like we all do. I think you should take a look at some of the criteria you use when downvoting. Some of the people you are downvoting or the people who are witnessing what is happening are going to leave, and they drive decent engagement with their content.
I'm not saying stop downvoting or anything like that, but maybe there is a possibility for a small change to your approach?
I made a post the other day where I was thinking we should just limit posts to 50 USD max per post(as an example). And the responses to that post is that people want to earn more than 50 USD max per post. The community wants to earn more and the people with the staked power want to see more downvotes. How we can square this circle I don't know, but some conversations might help.
Hundreds of comments? I just scrolled down the trending page and I didn't see any with more than 50 comments, a lot had less than 10. Some have zero! There are plenty of highly rewarded posts on here with very little engagement.
In fact, you could make the case that the biggest driver of engagement is downvotes.
I will update my comment to dozens of comments.
Curious though, do you have a post with your criteria on why you downvote? Like an explanation post?
As I've said many times, for the most part my downvotes are an opinion that the rewards are too high. It is completely subjective. The system tallies the votes and pays rewards after 7 days.
Of course, I will also on occasion make votes for other reasons, but that's 90% of it at least.
"For the most part" leaves a huge loophole for many instances of the possibility of dishonest intentions. That needs to be pointed out, whether there are good intentions or not. It's a nice get out clause that can be shaped into whatever reason you want it to be for PR purposes, and that is the problem here. Many people can see though this, and the clarification on this point is a lot more important than you make it appear.
"For the most part" in this instance means there may be other reasons such as plagiarism, but usually not since I don't search for those things the way others do.
Let's be honest though, you didn't downvote this post for excessive rewards or plagiarism, but because I called out your tactics as abuse and challenged the supposedly ethical nature of your downvoting, same reason you downvoted @thoughts-in-time recent post calling you out. You nullified rewards because you didn't like what we said, which is clearly punitive in these instances, which just proves our point. But hey, thanks for not bringing the posts down to zero, that is the commendable side of your less than honest actions!
👍
i'm dumping my 20,000 HIVE and buying THETA.
not because i'm being downvoted, i'm strangely NOT downvoted.
but because i've seen way too many unfair downvotes.
@truthforce, That’s the one thing I was really hoping he would clarify in response to this post, but seems to circle around the issue with a ten foot pole, instead insisting downvotes are never punitive despite others targeting free speech they hate without debate/engagement and repeating it is our right to downvote. I would think it only fair there be a criteria laid out, some method to the madness so at least the community understands why, and that is what numerous people have now been pressing for an answer on, but so far to no avail.
We know the chain is setup to allow downvotes, @smooth, we are only asking that you rethink whether this practice is the best way to encourage growth when it is causing people to leave for friendlier platforms, and I know it is not you alone giving so many downvotes without leaving comments with explanation on the posts you hit, but even just telling us how you determine what constitutes overcompensation in your opinion, when you are at the same time willing to upvote highly rewarded posts upvoted by the auto voting rancho and Haejin when many are under the impression you are attempting to counter their vote ‘abuse’ as many see those 2 accounts.
Some clarification would be appreciated, but nice to see you are using your power to upvote content now, especially folks that truly look to be in need.
That an account frequently makes dumb upvotes that overreward does not mean that every single vote is bad or that I will disagree with it. Stopped clock and all.
But you will not clarify for us what criteria you use to determine ‘good’ upvotes versus ‘bad’ or what specifically causes you to disagree with high payout in the cases you downvote, or what you deem to be ‘too high’ of rewards?
This lack of clarification, the upvotes not accompanied by comment explaining each time, and general subjectivity of it all without a completely clear reasoning for ppl to understand makes it easy to view your votes as targeting specific content and users, and the reason ppl are leaving Hive. As those whose rewards are being policed, it’d be nice to know the ‘rules’ of the game from those doing the policing.
Just know you along with few other whales helped drive many users away with this rampant abuse of power and lack of transparency on your part, although the pattern is rather transparent for all to see as to what you consistently deem over-rewarded and what you see as acceptable for high payouts. I know you have the right according to the blockchain code and view your actions as in the best interest of The community, but all tyrants do the same, so enjoy stamping us blockchain peasants down, it’s what the rich and powerful are usually best at anyway. Good luck using your power to punish rather than reward, its a sad path to travel being so negatively oriented, I hope you find a way to use your power in a more positive way in the future and wish you all the best, despite the 3 downvotes in a row and all.
He will never do that. He will also never admit that some of the downvotes are deliberately targeting particular types of posts/authors/themes. I'm sure that some of the flagging is legitimate for good reasons or intentions, but there are too many cases where it seems to defy the stated facts around it. Also, there are some others that you can be just as critical of, for doing the same thing, that are even more obvious about their targeting of certain themes and the contents of posts.
I think you know who I'm talking about here. Especially when it comes to certain "curation" groups and accounts that had links to certain individual accounts. This was happening way before the huge bullrun and increased payouts on posts that we have seen more recently, and in fact started before the fork from steemit.
We wouldn't have this problem with a 1000mv vote limit in place.
Let me just separate my stake out into multiple accounts and we are right back here again.
Yes, and once the community figures out you are a pariah, maybe they will downvote you and all who you vote, too.
But what if I'm acid?
I'll need more data.
PRESEARCH.ORG SOLVED THE "MULTIACCOUNTPROBLEM".