@onealfa.pob, I'm cool with you not supporting this; however, was there anything in @trostparadox's proposal that you do agree with or that you think could be morphed into something useful? I see no reason why just because it once was, it must always remain the same. The whole point to proposals is to hopefully continue bettering the system.
I would have found value in your comment if you had expounded on why you feel nothing should change or how all his points were bad, if you feel/felt that way. Instead, you simply posted old guidelines with a major upvote as a bully pulpit? Don't get me wrong...I don't care if you upvote yourself. It's also in the code that you can. I don't care if you take it down on the 6th day...Essentially what I've read from the context in your comment is "I have a bullhorn and a recorder. I've turned it on to say I don't like this, and I'll turn it off before the week is over." Then you put it on loop so all can see/hear your opinion. I find it funny...
ps.
- Note #1 This is why I wish POB would allow the proceeds of ads around the author's posts to be paid out to the author indefinitely. You have to have a lot of immediate traction in this world to make posting profitable if you only get 7 days worth of rewards, but I understand the reasoning due to the underlying code. Even then, POB should make the ads pay the author for evergreen content, in my opinion. It encourages great content, not just "good" content.
- Note #2 It depends on how you define "post." I don't usually expect upvotes from my comments on a post, but I certainly expect upvotes on my main posts...or why post?
- Note #3 I don't know how you can prove this. Perhaps this was the intent, but not provable.
- Note #4 There obviously is a difference. Psychologically, very few ever get offended over the upvote. Inversely, very few do not get offended over the downvote.
- Note #5 There have been many, consistently repeated instances very recently that prove the intent of #5 was not kept.
- Note #6 The lopsidedness...that's funny. That's how you got your post to be the first under the OP...again, I don't care that it happens, but your upvote to be the first comment anyone sees is evidence of this note in reverse.
This expresses what I thought, too and I think also how others view it.
This "rules" were copied from another user.
It is an attempt to take out emotions, which of course does not succeed. To use a language and to mark the definitional sovereignty over terms as "set" is, in my opinion, very daring.
Of course, you can go to the Hive FAQs and refer to the set of rules published there. Then you claim that these rules are carved in stone there and that you are "only following them". But you can try to ignore the fact that these rules are not fixed, cannot be fixed at all, but always have room for interpretation, but you will fail, as the debate around this topic nicely shows.
I was most amused when I read that these are only mathematical prefixes. HaHa! Yes, if it were really the case that we just exchange maths exercises and on the other hand behave like Zen masters, then, I'm exaggerating on purpose now, everyone here would just set up an account, switch on some random text generator that produces automatic content, throw the whole thing on their own blog and make a nice life for ourselves, wouldn't they? Then it wouldn't matter what the content was, would it? The Zen master would get a kick out of it, or call him the court jester ;-)
But that's exactly what it seems to be about, showing the cheeky, "only cheap text modules producing bloggers" what a rake is, isn't it? They fight for the rights of the weaker ("true") authors and put on their Robin Hood hats. For the good of the community.
If I get carried away sharing angst about the sacred reward pool being emptied before any of the fish have made it to true subjectively aspired greatness, I am lost, I think. I get lost in the game of those who claim word-definition and presence-supremacy and play it with all the arts of learned propaganda - turning learned terms and intuitive self-evident matters on their heads.