I believe he is talking about someone who actually made the argument that he is arguing against.
Can you find the instance of it? Given his argument style, short of contrary evidence, my best guess is still that it was indeed a strawman argument. It's a very popular tactic used by people who prefer to manipulate rather than rationally debate an issue: they like to mix up a lot of nonsense with some obvious truths to confuse the easily swayed. I think the method was ultimately turned into a science by cold callers who start with obvious questions that get you saying "yes" to, in order to create a trend of agreement.
I'm also curious to know if you are aware that he has been the target of a downvote campaign by @azircon. That could explain (not justify) him being hyperbolic.
I wasn't aware of it, because I'm much more involved on the technical side of Hive than the social side. But I agree it doesn't justify lucylin's response. And that's what I'm voting on.
The downvote system on Hive is deeply flawed, IMO. I even argued against it in one of my early posts on the subject, because it does have negative effects. But I think it also has some positive effects, despite it being a weak system.
I absolutely do believe we need a signaling system for calling out bad behavior, rating bad information, etc. But a downvote on Hive doesn't do this nearly well enough, because it's too one dimensional, and it assumes that the reaching of one consensus is the optimal state. We need something much more nuanced, and that's what I'm planning to create eventually.
I have been planning to publish a post about this, but my personal take is that a downvote should 'cost' the same voting power as an upvote. If I choose to negate someone else's upvote with a 100% downvote (or replace many minnows' upvotes if I have a lot of HP), it should also replace one of my own 100% upvotes.
You obviously missed the entire Haejin drama where that proved to be at the detriment of those who wish to counter abusive behavior.
I've done that with others before "free downvotes" were a thing and let me tell you this:
It's incredibly stupid to expect someone else to sacrifice curation so "bad actors" won't get anything while everyone else who doesn't care gets their returns.
Even with the compensation programs set up by @steemflagrewards, it was still doing it at delegators' expenses with little to no upsides.
There's a free-rider problem, for sure. But the current DV system is itself ripe for abuse. And it will encourage ideologic DV wars once the ecosystem begins genuinely expanding.
Also, it punishes legitimate curators when the "bad actor" is the author and vice versa.
I get it that 'free DVs' had their place in the past. I am not convinced, at all, that they represent the best solution moving forward. It represents a small-minded solution (imho).
As long as social rewards exists on layer 1, it is necessary.
Until the day ALL social rewards cease to exist on the base layer, your idea only punishes good actors.
A robust second layer is the only way your idea can be viable.
That's good to know, if you're wondering what it might be good to have terms and conditions or something.
Could you rephrase your idea above: I wasn't sure what you were referring to above, especially as to how terms and conditions could apply to it. In other words, my comment had several points and I'm not sure which one you're referencing.
That you're working on a new project to address the abuse.
OK, I understand now.
So I should probably make two clarifications about the new project then: 1) it won't rely on any single centralized web site (although we can expect that helper sites will merge), so there'll be no need for terms and conditions associated with it, other than the basic legal terms and conditions involved with use of free software and 2) the new project is focused on giving people more tools for evaluating the truth of the all information they receive, not just reporting intentionally-generated false information (i.e. it's not narrowly focused on what I suspect you're referring to as "abuse").
In other words, some people say false things intentionally, sometimes by mistake. I want to build a system that helps you decide the truth in both cases. The second case is really the harder problem, as you might imagine, although even spotting simple deception can be tough enough sometimes.
Ah yes, that sounds good. Kind of like a fact check system. There was alot of misinformation going around about the Vax and deaths from COVID etc. I try to avoid those posts, I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and free speech but there is also a line when it can cause significant harm.
@lucylin would you please confirm this by showing the instance where the argument was made?
Well, that is weird as @azircon just told me that you and him had discussed it. Both of you can't be telling the truth here.
Are you saying that's why you downvoted it and why you are affirming your actions. Because he was hyperbolic? Your original reason that you gave for downvoting has changed then?
That may be true, but I haven't seen a better system proposed and I don't believe the problem here is only a flaw in the system. As I have pointed out there are flaws in your logic, and I believe that you are abusing your power. I'm not sure why you are doing those things, but my arguments have shown that you have.
That could be cool as long it is does not depend on a central power.
Do you realize in the white paper, there is no comment on giving 'explanation' regarding why a DV is given? Yet, here we are giving you explanation for 2-3 hours plus on our actions out of sheer courtesy.
Do you give a reason on why you upvote Lucylin's every single post? Because I like to ask you that. Is 'his' every single post is of equal value to you?
Mind you, you are not required to answer me. But maybe you fail to realized, and any tribe token is quite centralized. You are the largest owner and creator of the token. We are just mere investors. But you are in our courtroom, not the other way round :) If you satisfy us, we will buy your token and price will go up, if you don't satisfy us, we can sell your token and price will go down. This is very simple. This is a question from your large shareholder, not from me. He was asking you, why do you upvote every post by these two individuals. Again, you don't have to answer this question :)
But your community is watching you :)
You see, I don't have that problem. I didn't make a token and sold it on the market. I paid money to buy your token :) You see? @proofofbrainio :)
I upvote what I consider to have value. I have also followed @calumam's trail based on the grading system he uses. To give a more detailed answer, it would need to be post specific.
I agree with all your points in this particular comment that I am directly replying to. Of course that could change if you continue to edit it.
I consider the fact that the community is watching as a good thing, not a problem.
I sincerely don't mean to be rude, but I have some things to take care of and won't be back online for while. As usual, I will get back to as many replies as I can when I get back online.
Yet you can't fathom why people downvote things? The literal opposite?
I'm baffled how someone behind one of the currently most popular tokens (according to hype, I don't care much about its current price) is spending all his time defending someone who's pretty known to be an asshat dramaqueen who's mainly just been complaining for the past few years why he doesn't get upvoted and most content was about that to then get overrewarded and instantly turn the content on why people are disagreeing with the rewards. For someone as intellectual as he tries to make others believe he must be really self-destructive to manage to get more people to disagree with any rewards he may get.
Reading your comments lately I find it really, really obnoxious how against downvotes you are, reminds me of the old korean stakeholders at the presentation they held on steemfest. You also seem weirdly obsessed with defending the same user you're giving most of your rewardpool to. Since your tokenomics are similar to BTC, imagine if such a big part of the early mining had gone to someone as unstable and obviously in it just for the money as lucy instead of making sure it has a wide distribution without favoritism.
Edit: I see now it wasn't your votes in the screenshots above but other stakeholders. Seeing as how against downvoting you are and allowing blatant votetrading to occur I'd stay far away from investing in that token.
Where did you get the idea that I can't fathom the reason for the downvote? I use it often and consider to be a valuable tool to fight against plagiarism and abuse.
You don't seem to be paying attention and I don't feel like taking the time to bring you up to speed.
You literally explain it in your next sentence, downvotes can be used for a lot more things than plagiarism and abuse.
I did read through most comments in this thread and the way you talk is pretty similar to Lucy, trying to use any word you can to make others bothering to explain to you the reason why they used their stake to downvote something against them and making it out as they're lying or trying to trick you. Basically being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Keep spending your time like this if you want your token to look like a bigger joke than the top earner's list of it.
I was referring to the rest of your comment. I'm doing the best I can and I've spent too much time today responding to @azircon whose stated goal was to take away someone's POB rewards. I don't see the downvote campaign against @lucylin as justified, but if you do that's up to you.
The question was asked regarding lucylin and frot.... not calumam
Since @proofofbrainio is not only the founder, but also a human being, it makes sense (at least to me) that they'd want to read @lucylin and @frot's content because it gives you that warm feeling inside. Now, you'll have to ask @frot all about the warm feelings inside if you really want the details, but as far as "why" someone votes for these two POB legends, I can see the merit.
What kind of content are you looking to share on Proof Of Brain @azircon? Do you like animated jiffies?
video coming up about the love certain accounts have for me on hive...no nudity (yet, I haven't finished..lol)
I am not a legend !
.... I will never be a legend, and I've never been a legend - and I have documentation to prove it! lol
Alright alright, let's not start giving titles, it's very early morning for me, didn't expect to wake up to hilarity so early (and I was planning to take a break from commenting for a week as well).
I was actually thinking about content like this
https://hive.blog/introducemyself/@lucylin/hello-steemit-i-m-lucy-my-first-post
You like it?
Sorry @calumam ... forgot the tag :) now it's good, eh?
Just because you're unable to read, doesn't mean that everyone else has the same disability (you appear to have quite long list of them, going on there ).
....Bless...
You continue firing blanks - yet still seem capable of shooting yourself in the foot. A dubious talent indeed.
Has masochism always been your overriding passion ?
Is your obsession with me purely platonic, or do you have other ideas?
(soz, but you really couldn't afford me).
Part copy + paste from other convo...
If you take the time to read why I use this account now, you'll see that it's explained.
I was @patriotwargamer back in the early steemit days.
The account stopped working , I couldn't access it.
My girlfriend (lucy) opened an account around the same time, but she didn't use it. (half a dozen posts).
So I took the account over, rather than making another one.
As I say, if you read some posts, it explains all that.
But jumping to lazy conclusions is fine to...lol
This kind of lazy practice says far more about the commenter, than the content producer.
I saw that post the first time you shared it and made a cunt of yourself. Pretty sure @acidyo jumped on the bandwagon as well, it was a month or so ago though, my memory is a little foggy.
You missed my question, do you approve of animated jizzles?
Have you got some more animated jiffles!
Thanks for the shout out, I am a legend in my own eyes too...
I responded elsewhere in more depth on this issue and azircon has confirmed upon review of the conversation that my recollection was the more accurate one in this instance. But it's very easy to read intentional deception into cases where people simply have slightly different recollections of events. Our mental context influences our perception of what information was conveyed and we can easily think we've shared information that hasn't been shared.
I downvoted it because I thought his post wasn't a good post. I don't have the time to go into depth on every reason I downvote something. I added a comment to explain one clear and simple reason, which I thought was more than generous in this case.
This is probably going to be one of those "agree to disagree" issues. I don't think you've shown any flaws in my logic, nor do I believe I'm abusing my power in this instance.
Yes, in fact, that's a fundamental aspect of it. There's some very preliminary discussions about the ideas behind it here:
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/a-peer-to-peer-network-for-sharing-and-rating-information
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/modeling-information-in-an-information-rating-system