Let's face it, voting for blockchain witnesses is a pain in the ass. You get 30 votes, and the sages of the platform say that one should use all of these votes for maximum effect. Until the other day, I was perfectly content with not voting for witnesses at all. However, things have changed for me remarkably on that front. I've decided to organize and collaborate with a veritable army of people in various HIVE communities.
We (and other like-minded folks) have a shared vision where those who stake troll, grief, and abusively downvote intelligent content creators on the HIVE blockchain will get marked and ostracized for their repeated persecution of those that aim to grow the social dApp in good faith.
It's one thing to see demonetization and censorship campaigns on BooTube, Fakespace, and Twatter. I mean, what can you expect from shitty and centralized platforms like that? The thing is, we've got a pretty centralized platform ourselves.
Chea, HIVE sells itself as decentralized, and it is to a certain degree. However, despite all the good intentions and best efforts, power has a way of centralizing even on a so-called "decentralized" blockchain.
Witnesses get comfortable in their positions of power, and based on stake power and the mutual aid of witness-vote trading—we end up with a sort of established Polit bureau, or an untouchable class if you will. And most of these people are pretty okay individuals.
Politics is confusing and fucky at best. I comprehend that much. And sometimes, when you go to Washington to make a change, it's Washington that ends up changing you. It's the curse of money, power, greed, and stagnation. And although I can't do much about the former three, I can aim to fix unhealthy stagnated offices of power by voting new people in.
When I came across @logiczombie's list of '30 Free Speech Witnesses,' I was invigorated and excited about the idea. I thought to myself: Wow, now I can finally use my witness votes in a way that's meaningful to me! Some people would like me to STFU. Some people would have you believe that I am complaining. And to a certain degree, they are right.
If you see that something is going wrong on the blockchain and you don't pipe up and say something about it or do something about it, then who would ever be motivated to innovate and change things? As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
However, I am not only "complaining." I am complaining in addition to changing how I vote. Not only am I changing the way I vote, but I am also aiming to empower others to do the same. We have a handful of incredibly wealthy stakeholders on the chain who run amok and terrorize lowly content creators.
These individuals are perfectly content to use their HP to control the way that other witnesses behave. That's right. If you fall in line and laugh at the people that azircon, smooth, acidyo, pharesim, altleft, and ocdb downvote, then maybe you'll make their good boy list and get a witness vote, FAGWAN.
But I don't respect that. It's not good enough. When people put forth an effort to create quality content, and then the reward potential gets obliterated by a handful of sociopaths, not only does this type of thing have a chilling effect—it also creates a hostile blogging atmosphere. It creates an atmosphere where people become afraid to express themselves in any meaningful way.
And this, my friends, this makes us no better than the other socials out there. It also goes a long way into explaining our user retention and user experience problems. Some of the old-hats here believe we need to indoctrinate new users to accept reward censorship because of ideological differences, stake trolling, abusive downvotes, and the like.
The above mentality is retarded, and let me explain to you why this is the case. The law of the jungle is perfectly-fine if you live there. However, most people do not want to live in a jungle. They are going to expect something realistic. "In an age of censorship, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
The truth is that the market needs to make a product that fits the consumer. I've used this analogy before, but I'll use it again for good measure. Imagine you go into a shoe store to try on some shoes. The salesperson approaches you and says: "Can I help you?" to wit you say: "Yes, can I please get these in a 13?"
Now suppose the shoe salesman comes back with a size 16 and size 10. Thus, they give you the option of wearing clown shoes or the opportunity to engage in some sadomasochistic foot binding ritual. Are you going to respect the salesperson or the outlet that employs them? Of course, you will not. You'll take your business elsewhere. Or perhaps you'll demand that the manager fire or retrain the said employee.
The only realistic maneuver for that salesperson is to apologize for not having your size in stock—then, they can politely ask you if they can order your size and give you a phone call when it arrives. Now, this is a laudable and customer-forward approach to an easily solvable problem.
Some people like to diminish the social dApp that started this whole thing. But honestly, that was the seed that made this platform capable of growing in the first place. It was the seed that drew people in and made it wildly popular for a short space in time.
All of this was before Smooth got his way after flexing in the Github and suggesting that flags should get used on "overrewarded" posts. The move essentially paved the way for the new dystopian GUI and low-key opinion downvotes to run amok.
If you ask me: We'd do well to respect the roots of what dApp made this blockchain a quasi-popular phenomenon in the first place. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels. Facebook will come out with the Diem in short order, and if we want to compete with them, we cannot allow our decentralized users to make us anything close to what they are.
I want to outline a reasonable path to achieving this goal of a less toxic HIVE atmosphere. For starters, we need to bring back the flag function and strip the downvote button of its ability to affect a post's value. In this way, people can harmlessly show their ideological disagreements without adversely affecting a post's rewards.
Secondly, we need to run a stronk education campaign on how and why to use the flag button. "Censorship resistance" can go to hell. It's meaningful. However, it doesn't cut the mustard in these dark times. And let's face it, this lame-ass word combo is code-speak, for we wanted to do something specific and did it, kind of, but not really.
Yeah, fucking cute, but we can do better. We can outperform and compete with ourselves and get so damn good that no matter how hard Fakebook tries to become us, they'll fail. However, if they launch that shit tomorrow and we have not gotten good at not being them overnight, then we're fucked and fresh out of luck.
As pertains to the suggested downvote education program, it's simple. Scams, spam, plagiarism, and improperly labeled NSF imagery are widely accepted reasons to cast a legitimate downvote. For the most part, you'd do well to forget about overrewarded posts. If you see something that's overrewarded and you're such a busybody that you feel it's your business, take it up with the stakeholders who are upvoting them.
And much similar to how I am saying: "Take it up with the individual stakeholders who are voting for them," I want to address the top 20 witnesses to ask: "Have you considered who you are endorsing for witness and why? Are you voting for them for the right reasons? Or are you voting for them because of where they can get you?"
In summary, I've chosen to proxy my witness votes to @logiczombie's '30 Free Speech Witnesses.' I've done this because it appears that his list includes people who don't vote for the on-chain sociopaths. Yeah, I'm pretty much a single-issue voter at this time. I want to see the sociopathic stakeholders get weeded out of the top 20 and to see their abusive downvotes get neutered.
For this to happen, we are going to need a lot of help. All concerned HIVE-folk will need to chip in and promote a simple idea: "To get the chain out of the hands of malicious types, the thought controllers, we must support witnesses who do not support them."
Now, I don't know all of @logiczombie's metrics to get on his list of supported witnesses. However, for starters, if you are a witness and you'd like to make the grade. A great starting point, I would imagine, is to stop supporting the blockchain bullies.
Having a handful of tyrants all willy-nilly cancel out people's rewards is on a par with the same type of insanity that causes corporations to cave to the LGBTQIA2S+ movement. I got nothing against gays, lesbians, trans-folk, and whatever the hell all that other noise is. But that FAGWAN cancel-culture bullshit, that's not for the HIVE that I know and love. What say you? Use your witness votes wisely to do the speaking for you.
So, yeah, if you've made it this far, it's put up or shut-up time. Consider this the clarion call which also appeals to logic, reason, and some god damn common sense to prevail. Stop tiptoeing around the few psychopathic whales who can ruin you when we're at the end of civilization as we know it.
If you cannot stand up to fight on the blockchain, then when you're getting culled off in real life, you'll die a thousand deaths before your permadeath. You'll think back, wincing and writhing in agonizing pain, all the while knowing that you could have done the right thing online a long time ago, and it would've cost you nothing in comparison, but even back then, you couldn't muster up the oomph.
If you're not that person, and you want to do some shit before the end comes and slaps the ever-loving shit out of you. Consider tossing your proxy vote to your local @logiczombie! Now off with you, and spread this message to the four corners and various communities in HIVE. No single one of us may have a lot of HP. However, between all of us, we have a lot of HP!
I honestly believe that a DPoS blockchain should not only provide the possibility to choose the witnesses through our upvote. But aside to unvote, it also should have a mechanism that allow us the possibility of downvote them, as a literal analogy to kick their asses out of their transient privileged position and tell them directly "Fuck off chump. You are not good for this job. You are fired!" so they can also feel the heat of a downvote just for differences of opinion and disagreements on their rewards.
Well, next soft or hardfork... hopefully. };) LoL
LOL, that's the spirit!
HERE HERE!
@logiczombie for KNIGHT!
I have to write that this discussion is a bit beyond me for now. I didn't know the voting governance went so deep. I've been reviewing LZ's recommendations since he commented on them. I also appreciate oldoneeye's input into revising LZ's witness-list suggestion.
Post rewards are always a slippery slope. I've been working on fraud in our community through a "DV by justification" process for months now. I have touched on over-rewarded posts, but only at it's extremes where there was a logical fraud connection:
I can't get to the middle of the spectrum because there's no agreement...anywhere. I can't DV a post I disagree with because there's no justification for it or even a standard for reference. Can we even approach an agreement on rewards? Is that even possible? There are so many factors that go into an article's rewards it's difficult to manage the topic.
I can follow LZ's list pretty easily, but I want to drive people towards voting on making their own educated choices. Is there even a process to fully vet a witness's activities? Is there a way I can direct or educate new people on this process?
Anyway, thanks for writing the article and thanks to LZ for providing the list for review. It's always good to see how votes get used and how the people we elect utilize their authority. What I want is to make sure the right people are in the right place. You've shown me a weak area I need to address.
See, that's the thing, early on, the GUI wasn't always this way. There was a flag button for prescribed uses, and there was an upvote button. Over time, that evolved into this nightmare that we have now, and if you want to understand it: Watch the 'Black Mirror' episode called 'Nose Dive' (s03e01), watch 'The Orville' episode called 'Majority Rule' (s01e07), and watch the 'Community' episode called 'MeowMeowBeenz' (s05e08).
These thought experiments demonstrate why it's more natural to act more naturally. I prefer to treat HIVE like a market. If I see content that I like, read, and enjoy, I'll upvote it. If there is something that I don't like, I'll do like in the marketplace--I won't buy it. In the case of HIVE, I won't upvote it. But sometimes, I'll upvote stuff I don't like. And this is especially true if people challenge my thinking process in a way that makes sense and causes me to think about something differently.
What I don't do is downvote. Just like I wouldn't firebomb a storefront for selling things I don't like, I'm not going to downvote a post. It's impossible to come to standards for overrewarded posts. Some of the biggest enforcers that demerit the so-called overrewarded posts are the biggest violators of their own rules. What I'm saying is, they're hypocrites, and they'd do better off letting it go.
Besides some of the most overrewarded posts, these people are either untouchable in two ways. They are either highly regarded in the community and do boatloads of personal sacrifice for the blockchain. Either that--or they have enough stake to completely obliterate the rep of anyone who presses that downvote button on their post.
And this is why I say people ought to focus on: Spam, Scams, Plagiarism, and NSFW images that haven't gotten tagged appropriately. This way, people's hard-earned posts do not get penalized for ideological differences, and people don't have to concern themselves with the so-called overrewarded posts in the most hypocritical ways this blockchain has ever seen.
As far as witnesses go, I'd prefer to vote for those who don't vote for witnesses that target some of my favorite communities with opinion downvotes, stake-trolling, or abusive downvotes. I don't care if they are particularly-skilled witnesses in that regard, as far as I'm concerned, once someone learns how to run and update the code--it's mostly autopilot from there on out. That may be a gross over-or-under simplification depending on who you ask in their level of involvement on the chain.
Completely agree with every word
Thank you so much, that means a lot! 💖
I'll take a look at those episodes you mentioned.
That's one practice I'm promoting. And if someone's content is suspicious people would let me know and I'd evaluate it. I'm trying to get others to do that in POB. They don't like the DV outside of fraud control. Actually, they don't like it at all, but they accept it for fraud stuff now.
No doubt, fraud sounds like a scam to me! Enjoy those episodes. It will give you a good look into the human psyche when we turn the natural market on its head. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, @scholaris.pob!
I can see your point of view. When I write fraud I mean something I can verify like plagiarism, NSF stuff, scams, etc. I can't DV for something like an opinion. People have to agree with it. I also started waiting. I'll make a comment, wait for a response, and then act.
If, for example, someone quoted something from another source but didn't cite it, I'd bring it up and wait for a correction. That part can take some time, but it seems to make people happier. Mind you, none of this is a hard requirement. I just hope to influence enough to follow something similar. We tried to make it a hard requirement, but it failed.
That's very good, it sounds to me like
you have laudable downvote ethics!
I prefer not to do it, honestly. However, if I present a method acceptable then maybe others can follow suit. Ideally, my goal would be, instead, to avoid its use and utilize engagement as a means of deterrence. Unfortunately, the ecosystem is too large. While I can focus on a small community and start driving a small population to engage, there are too many other instances that escape my notice.
Oh, you're very welcome. I appreciate the conversation.
You mean escaping the -ship for good... do you not?
I'm not sure if that was for me or not, but I do love expanse!
I felt good was done in the world when Amazon picked it back up. I love that show and I don't know why.
just needed a good reason to watch tht clip : /
HORRENDOUSLY EXCELLENT RE-TORT!
Thank you, Sir Bacon!
Thank you very much for sharing 💗💗🙏🏻
Thank you for choosing @logiczbomie as
your witness proxy! I'm sure he will be
thrilled, @ultravioletmag! This is how
we give the oligarchs the middle finger.
The momentum 'builds'..
stay tuned!My vote always goes for freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of speech. I don’t like a system that abuses those who have less, rather than helps build them up. I just didn’t really know who to vote for before so never did xx 💗💗
Long ago I dug into the cross voting amongst the witnesses and voted accordingly. It became a quite difficult thing to resolve past two hops IIRC, and took the better part of a week, and digging into their past interactions, economic endeavors, and etc.
Many of the witnesses have moved on since then, and others have changed their strategies and no longer meet the standards I sought to meet, so I recently was happy to get a heads up from LZ for that reason. My attention has been elsewhere mostly of late, and hearing the learned opinions of them as have been affording Hive attention is welcomed by me, and few merit more personal respect for their stands on integrity, free speech, and plain old honor more than them IMHO.
Same goes for you, and I appreciate your call out to action.
Thanks!
Thank you, and likewise, Sir. Your
thoughts, they're always appreciated!
Ok, newbie and stupid question time. I've only got 15HBD. How many witnesses can I vote for (already voted one one the list)? Do I lose my HBD when I vote? I'm just starting to understand Hive and I want to help stop this shit😣
Hey there @katou.kanga, you can vote for 30 witnesses! The quickest way is to vote for LZ's Witlist, is to proxy your witness vote to logiczombie. And that means every time the list gets updated so does your witness votes. Easy as can beZ!
Ok, just saw that I can proxy my votes to him directly on his page. I'll do it that way as it's easier for me. Thanks😊
There you go!
Done! I've loved zombies since the original Night of the Living Dead in B&W🤣🤣🧟♂️🧟♀️🧟♂️ But I'll only pass on the convid apocalypse ones lol😝 Relieved to entrust these decisions to someone trustworthy💞
Ok, so I scroll down to Procuration and I put @logiczombie and voilà? I've already voted for one on his list (proof I do indeed have a brain lol😂😂) so it will cancel out but be revoted by the zombie? Is this correct?
that is correct
I still didn't vote. Because never get that much time to investigate who should I vote for. Maybe I will follow your way too.
Right on, Brother! All power to the people!
UNUSED votes are de facto votes for the oligarchs
each and every account has 30 votes assigned
Done! Hopefully I did it right😅 All hale @logiczombie 👏👏🙌🙏💞
Really good insight. I agree with you.
Welcome aboard, me hearties!
I still didn't voted too,,I agree with you☺️☺️
That's the fighting spirit! I bet my drunken
monkey style is no match for your taekwondo!
Keep training, get strong, and be like water!
Yes,, thank you so much,,I will☺️☺️
How dare you @azircon, good Sir. How dare you! Those rewards were for the top eight witnesses. I wanted to help them to put food on their family! You are #literallyhitler. I am so sorry to @arcange, @ausbitbank, @blocktrades, @good-karma, @gtg, @roelandp, @steempeak, and @themarkymark. I know times are tough and that doing the witness thing is often a thankless job. I merely wanted to show my appreciation. But that guy, apparently he doesn't want your family to eat. You all probably need to get carbon neutral and greenwash your amazon servers with new rainbows. Whatever FAGWAN says goes. Them's the breaks.
Unless, of course, you all ever decide to get creative and give people a good reason to invest in the token. So far, @aggroed's splinterlands takes the cake for bringing the business here. Meanwhile, we can't fix the simple social app (what got this place started) to not look like something out of a science fiction horror show. (Watch 'Black Mirror' episode called 'Nose Dive' (s03e01), watch 'The Orville' episode called 'Majority Rule' (s01e07), and watch the 'Community' episode called 'MeowMeowBeenz' (s05e08). How is there an App for everything but not a single dApp to fix the thought controllers? What if accounts that abusively downvote get a DV time-out for a couple of weeks?
Get good. You can do it! Hold secret meetings and don't invite these r-tards. @acidyo, @altleft, @azircon, @pharesim, @smooth. They're actively crippling everyone's investment, one user at a time. Bad news travels infinitely faster than good news, and this is why we're failing to launch proper-like. What if you capped the rewards to 50 HIVE and eliminated downvotes? Shunt the overage to votable chain development programs. Let's not get into PoB. I discredited it entirely on numerous occasions. The system we have here needs to evolve.
Nothing ought to get done with haste. Ignoring the user experience aspect of what happens on HIVE will only continue making the token look ugly. If someone ever strikes the right balance, your entire investment of time and money will be fucked because there will be a mass exodus. Blurt/HIVE is a false equivalency. HIVE maintained a quasi-first user advantage because the exchanges fucked us. Then they listed us to save face among the crypto community. Blurt didn't have that. And I'm not even saying get rid of downvotes. We need a solution to handle problem downvoters, to nudge them towards being less troublesome.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." ∴ SunI know most of these witnesses personally. They all know me. I am positive that they did not ask you to set them as beneficiary. Don’t worry about it. Stay away from drama if you can. If you can’t, so be it.
Oh. And none of those people need your help to feed their family.
You are right and predictable, it was a tongue in cheek conversation starter. Perhaps the people you downvote need help to feed their families? Has this ever crossed your mind? I don't even know why I bother to ask. You clearly do not care. You're a big stakeholder man, please do not ruin the user experience it suppresses demand for the token and that limits it's potential value. The way you run around and downvote people may as well be a downvote on the tokens value. If you do not have fellow feeling for your fellow HIVE-people, perhaps the above appeal to logic will make sense? Is it schadenfreude? Why do you do it? Is it for the lolz?
I have had plenty of conversation with you both on and off-chain.Also I have seen you talk on chain and off-chain. No further conversation is needed.
I have muted plenty of people. One more doesn’t hurt.
@sqube
I honestly didn't want to do this, I thought I could just proxy my vote to some reasonable person, but every account I looked at supported witnesses who had either downvoted me directly or downvoted someone I know.
I'm willing to talk to any of the witnesses, I've had conversations with blocktrades and marky and guilty and even logic and I'm convinced they are intelligent and well intentioned individuals.
I never expect to agree or disagree with ANYONE 100% on everything.
If I can't disagree with you on 50% of what you believe, then I'm not a proper skeptic.
Never blindly agree - - NEVER BLINDLY DISAGREE
If you don't mind my asking, what was your process for review? How do you determine "good" versus "bad" witnesses? I'm trying to learn and spread the process to others.
you can also set @scholaris as your witness proxy for your alt-accounts and then they'll always vote with your main
in other words, don't vote for any witnesses supported by @blocktrades
or if you want to make it easy
you can set @logiczombie as your witness proxy
just click here - https://wallet.hive.blog/~witnesses
and scroll to the bottom of the page
you can change it back at any time
and it saves you from having to make 30 clicks
check to see which accounts are downvoting you and then check to see which witnesses they support
check to see which accounts are downvoting your friends and then check to see which witnesses they support
ALSO,
check the delegations
for example, i received a large downvote from @usainvote and it's not obvious who controls that account, but if you look at the delegations...
and then it just makes sense to check...
Don't see you crying about the 50+ upvotes I gave you. As usual, your logic is way off.
isn't it strange that a street performer doesn't complain when money is thrown into their tip-jar
and then they get all bent-out-of-shape when you kick their tip-jar into the gutter
how strange is that ?
ItsaPartyPoliticNow
... frankly
You have MY Vote ... I will keep My Proxy
Rocinante is Don Quixote's horse in the two-part 1605/1615 novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. In many ways, Rocinante is not only Don Quixote's horse, but also his double; like Don Quixote, he is awkward, past his prime, and engaged in a task beyond his capacities.
there it is
[SKIPTO97SECONDS]
[SKIPTO97SECONDS]
net-neutrality
platform-neutrality
HIVE layer-one opinion neutrality
they've switched you from spaminator (68) to adm (60)
If you don't mind, can you please provide a link to this comment? Thanks in advance.
https://peakd.com/@deepdives/r1ex6s
the comment that was deleted simply said, "this happens a lot" - in response to someone asking why they'd been flagged for plagiarism for something they wrote themselves
and the "comment spam" was merely 13 comments where I was attempting to highlight THIS:
Uh.. Where are the comments and posts that they claim have farmed hundreds of HBDs worth of rewards? I don't see them: https://peakd.com/@cryptopoints/comments
who needs "evidence" when you have @blocktrades backing your every play ?
it certainly seems dodgy. they seem to act as if they think they are cops - maybe just provide the logical evidence without trolling. lol.
i am always calm and logical.
here's an example,
https://peakd.com/hive-122315/@acidyo/re-logiczombie-r1sy4i
I meant the comment about citizenship. It seems that people who view themselves as saviours of the world through policy enforcement (their own) seem to lack a sense of humour for some reason.
here's part two - i have never been a proponent (or opponent) of qanon and or flat-earth and or anti-vaxx
i considered "what are your demands ?" - but decided against it
here's hivewatchers "official response" to my simple request for a "path to citizenship":
I'm wondering why are people really throwing shade like this
please consider reviewing your witness votes
each and every account has exactly 30 witness votes assigned
UNUSED votes are de facto votes for the oligarchs
even small accounts can make a difference if we combine our votes and vote together (consider delegating your witness vote proxy to @logiczombie)
Oligarchs with the iron heels,...
great link
Reads like it was playing out now.
they seem to be irritated that people are reconsidering their witness votes
all trending
HIVE!D
Thank you, Sir!
ItsyouithanK
https://peakd.com/@krnel/witnesses
https://peakd.com/@krnel/witnesses
https://odysee.com/@LOGICZOMBIE:0/2006:e9
https://odysee.com/@LOGICZOMBIE:0/2006:e9
I called for a boycott on a witness and it was hated by a few of the witnesses friends, but even 1 of the witnesses developers of hex tech agreed that I was in all rights justified to boycott their witnesses for the downvotes it issued to antivax content.
Funny enough, I now have over 500 video witnesses to adverse reactions to the vaccine saved. All of them are social media posts I downloaded for reference where people are saying which vaccine they took and tell their whole life story of health care so there is zero doubt they were health before taking the covid-19 vaccine.
It's honestly shameful and embarrassing to be sharing a stake with the malfeasance of these stake trolls, we can just start our own Hive Witness network and abandon this sham all together.
For now I am using Blurt blog because they don't have downvotes whatsoever, and charge a fee for each post to dissuade spammer's.
Hey there, @phusionphil. Thanks for sharing your experience! I'm curious about these 500 videos. How much space does something like that take up on your hard drive? Maybe we can get them all uploaded to mega and then get people to download and share them? I'm not even sure how relevant the future of blockchain will be if we can't cut through the vaccine propaganda fast enough to save people from marching into their demise.
It makes sense to downvote spammers/plagiarists/abusers, but the notion of an "overrewarded post" is plain stupid and ridiculous. What is an overrewarded post? Who set the bar? Is there a consensus on the limit? Was it a thing when acidyo and friends were reaping hundreds of STEEM/HIVE for their own daily shitposts, upvoted by automated whale bots? Do you remember that berniesanders with his daily shitposts (literally, posting dick and poo picks) milking $500-$600 each? Did acidyo, themarkymark, smooth, blocktrades, and other super whales downvote him? Nooooooo, not a single one of them lifted a finger or wanted to confront the #1 abuser. On one hand I totally disagreed with bernie's posts, and even flagged many of them, but on the other hand he intentionally demonstrated how broken this system is. The whales readily flex their muscles against the little man for making an extra buck. I guess the rules don't apply to them, the old adage remains true: do what I say, don't do what I do. So, you know what I think about the self-righteous whales, to put it mildly, they can go make love to themselves.
Wonderful! I'm convinced that this
might be the best comment I'll get
all day. Your A-Okay, me Ninja! 👌
ArrrrrGGGGGhhhHHH!
I've been a witness for 4 years, never had a super stake to make an impact, but everyone that knows me know very well how I fought hard for the interest of the small users. One big incident was involving that jackass grumpycat flagging everyone left and right (and berniesanders of course), I was the only witness that actively countered grumpycat's abusive actions, despite my small stake, we had a little group that organized a resistance. The whales, again, never lifted a finger to help; and believe me, I asked many of them.
Yeah I'm sure your autovotes with free delegated stake did wonders for this chain.
I'm sure I wasn't posting every day and getting $100's of rewards for it. When I posted most of the time, it was useful tools for witnesses and technical stuff, unlike your streaming games...
Yeah cause gaming is such a small part of the internet, god forbid I try to get gamers to join a p2e platform.
I don't see any value with someone streaming for hours what they're playing on their computer. But that's just me.
Damn, well thank you for doing that, @drakos!
The chain needs more people of that caliber.
Pretty shitty that the whales wouldn't help!
Maybe there's other reasons they felt I should get some extra rewards for things I did for Hive in the form of post rewards. It's cute you think I abused that with shitposts, though.
Tell your little men that they should provide some value to deserve autovotes cause to me it doesn't matter who's doing it, I downvoted korean abusers who retaliated on me with 50m sp for months so I'm not one to shy away when I see overrewarded posts, I even downvote my own. It's not a flex thing and I barely downvote unless that person is being a complete dumbass on top of it all like most people you're talking to here, but I guess you're not that far off.
Ah so you stream gaming videos to get rewarded for your other unrelated efforts, I'll try to remember that. And your efforts are more worthy (because you're doing something for the blockchain) than the efforts of authors who spend hours researching topics and writing about them and getting rewarded for them. Besides, the autovoters issue has been revisited countless times that it gets boring, but in a nutshell, many people don't have time to curate, so they select a list of users whom they like the content and autovote. Others prefer to curate manually. Nothing wrong with any of those approaches. Besides, when 10 "good" whales decide to upvote a certain author, wouldn't that qualify as overrewarded? I'd like to see you downvote those one day. But if rancho or haejin upvote someone, all heaven breaks loose. Stop being a hypocrite.
You don't stream gaming videos, the stream is the video, you play live or post a recording of gameplay which is a video. Unless you meant video games.
I'm way more likely to reward someone with stake who isn't just an author providing nothing else of value, not even interacting, socializing or attempting to bring in any traffic to hive compared to someone who also actively curates. Curating isn't autovoting, it's not just clicking a button and rewarding someone, it's a shame you even use that word with your autovotes. If 10+ people were to reward someone consistently on content no one is consuming or reacting to then yes I would downvote it, especially if that's all that user does is rake in rewards without providing hive any other sort of value.