Smooth is a commie ,... dictator , thinking he can decide what should be rewarded and what not ,.. even when many upvotes by others already tell different opinion's .
His mental model is clearly stating a snowflake mindset thinking he own's the whole dam place .
The red 5 pointed stars in that comment must tell everyone what this prick really stands for ,.. A commies dictatorship powered by his capitalistic gained wealth .
All commie dictatorships are always powered and started by capitalist's wealth ,... all of them .
Try start a communist community without some capital wealth ,... to keep order and make everyone obey the bogus commie rules .
Yeah man , @lucylin ,.. go do your thing ... :-)
If you follow the steemd trail. Smooth was in very early on, he ninja mined the stake so is most probably an insider from steemit. Ned or Dan alt.
So , hes's a flat earth commie then ,.. ;-)
Sweet transvestite lover more like :-)
LOL ,.. then @frot must have a picture of this creature ,.. ;-)
If he was a Dan alt he attacked Dan when Dan spoke up against this type of behavior. Dan did try to speak up against this. He left the company and made EOS not long after that. I think Dan does believe his stated goals and he views steemit as a failed experiment that he learned some things from. Yet I notice they never spun up a social media platform to fix the problems on EOS.
Dan has big ideas, and they are usually pretty cutting edge. As such they also have cutting edge problems that are hard to predict.
As to smooth being Ned. I don't think so. I paid attention and those early miners didn't seem to be the same people. On steemit berniesanders and smooth were definitely big actors but did seem to be different people. I don't know who bernie is here. That is probably a good thing (maybe altleft?). I think I got along the least with him out of all of the whales on steemit.
The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.
ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
I like that. This could still deal with spam, plagiarism, etc. yet the jury could nullify votes that are obviously opinionated or targeted. EDTI: That may be the best idea I've heard yet since I started using steemit. To do this though would require a code change. Do you think we can convince the big guys to try it?
AND MAKE THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO THE SAME EXACT PROCRUSTEAN "LAW" AS EVERYONE ELSE ??
we can certainly ask them to explain why they might object.
And there in is the problem. Nobody knows who is who.
I have seen bernie talk like a girl, and then talk like a boy. I watched the pure theatre of him being voted down to minus 15 yet still having a voice.
The world is a stage and everyone is an actor!
Dans father is a gov ex CIA stooge. You work it out. I got bored of it. Steemd helped, not sure it works now.
The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.
ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
That's awesome.
∴
I don't actually consider that definitely a problem. I'm not a fan of generalizations. So while I don't like the CIA that doesn't mean I think everyone is a clone that works there and is immediately a bad person. I knew a guy in High School and Some College who was geeky and studying physics and German and eventually he went to work for the CIA. He wasn't a bad guy at all. That doesn't mean the CIA may not have changed him.
Likewise, while I know there are definitely some not good people in Free Masonry I also know there are a lot of good people that are.
Likewise, some white people are assholes. That doesn't make all white people assholes.
I saw some dicey stuff in steemd. I don't recall seeing anything memorable involving Dan.
Some others... yes.
That doesn't mean it wasn't there. I just never saw it myself and I used to poke around checking out the powerful people from time to time. Mostly when I was trying to identify their alt accounts.
That seemed like a "everyone is everyone" and "anyone can be anyone" A defining principle is finding a definition yes? You just firmly sat on the fence. It is a yes or no, not a maybe bud.
I can give you an example. I don't think all Democrats are assholes, and indoctrinated fools. I do think a large portion of them that saw what was going on are likely no longer registered as Democrats. Some of them could see and be stubborn and be trying to fight a battle from within which to me looks like a losing battle at this point.
If I go off of probabilities though I think it is a very high probability that those that remain Democrats at this point are indoctrinated, foolish, or just evil.
It is not an absolute but a high probability is about as close as I get to that when dealing with people/groups.
EDIT: TO be clear the same problem is in a lot of the Republican party too. The battle from within has gained ground there over the years that seems to be the only true difference.
Nah that is a a false dichotomy. It is again trying to put me into a group.
There are usually more than two choices. I work off of probabilities. What I think is probable. That does not require a yes or no. Also trying to indicate that I am sitting on the fence is purely an emotional appeal. I can likewise say what you are doing is knee jerk. That too would be an emotional appeal. I don't think you are.
I actually would have agreed with you completely probably a couple of years ago. Now I am not so haste to lump people into groups and generalize.
I use generalizations just as "It is more probable that X is the case but that doesn't mean it is the case". I personally would rather not lump innocent people in with assholes just because it is mentally more convenient for me to do so.
The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.
ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).