@pharesim: "Here are no rules" as you stated in an above comment.
There are no official "rules" at all.
So if there are no rules, there is no need to use the term "no excuse to not go after bad actors".
Nobody here needs either an excuse or argument for this or that behavior. It's just tastes and whims and everyone can act as they wish. That's what you are basically saying - So I see your fight as a random preference. Not being supported by facts. Your rule is that your rule counts. Your targeted bad guys see that in the same crooked logic.
If you had read the whitepaper, which is even linked in the post, or simply understood the quote from it which is also up there, you would know what it's about. Not about rules, but making the system work as it was intended to.
I don't share this human image, which gives them a crab mentality. As far as you want to fit into this image of man and place yourself under it, you are at liberty to do so. The White Paper is just a collection of assumptions about people, which you can of course confirm if you want. I don't.
No need to confirm again that you didn't understand :D
Ever heard of fables?
"a succinct fictional story, in prose or verse, that features animals, legendary creatures, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature that are anthropomorphized, and that illustrates or leads to a particular moral lesson."
The crab is used as an example how many can keep something in order...ah, forget it, it's not worth trying to explain to you.
What is it with you that you cannot accept a different view on things?
You have the very annoying attitude telling me that I don't understand instead of asking me how I have understood or read your post. Assumption, no question. I have read the post and also saw the quote. I just don't share the same perspective on it. You don't have to "make me understand".
You addressed your post to small accounts. I am a small account.
You refer to the guidelines or whatever you prefer to call it but then you say "there are no rules". I see a contradiction and that is what I did, to point it out to you. No rules, no excuses needed on action or inaction.
Fables leave room for reflection and DIFFERENT interpretations as an outcome or consequence.
Besides, the same white paper also says:
Oh, I don't have a problem with different points of view.
What I can't stand is someone coming to participate in a system, and then bitching about important core functionalities. If you don't like the premises on which the platform is built that's your thing, but don't annoy those who try to make people understand what the whole idea behind the reward pool distribution is.
And sure, you are right. There is no rule to participate. It's just that the system can't work as it was built when people don't.
You yourself question the premises by saying "the system can't work as it was built" and so you invoke rules. I take the same freedom in questioning: Are you saying that non participating in the downvote-actions makes a person a questionable up to a bad participant? Does this imply that they will face disadvantages even though they write in high quality (whatever that might be)? Does that not translate of being in service for the readers and distract them from the exhausting conflicts?
Do you see how this "must be a good steemian" leads towards corruption if someone even thinks (even if he is reassured otherwise) that he will be left aside when he is not a "good steemian, fighting for the good"?
To take part in actions which require detectives investigations skills to find out about using bid bots and multiple accounts requires totally clean records and credibility on the side of those who want to work on the regulations. So far I have not seen one big account "A" not voting for himself on "A".
Correct me, if I am wrong but that is the role modeling with a very high impact on how people perceive a system. Otherwise, they leave in masses and note it as "hypocrisy" in their minds. Even though, they have done it themselves. But from what I think it's like advertising for own content, not paying for the ad, but compensating for it instead. Which is the strangest thing.
No, I don't. I say it helps the system to work as intended, but I don't judge. There are many reasons to not participate in it, and I accept that decision.
My upvotes distributed by curangel don't depend on having used the downvote power. That'd be silly ;)
And our downvotes don't target people who upvote themselves once in a while, or even daily. It's always a decision on the individual case. The infographic above shows what clear abuse looks like. People trading votes on a constant basis, giving 50% and more of their rewards to always the same users. And again, we don't ask everyone to agree with that being worth a downvote, everyone should make up their own mind what kind of behaviour they want to see on here. As I wrote, it's provided as inspiration, not an order.
Regarding the edit and the other quote: yes, it's not possible to completely eliminate it. Not using downvotes is giving in though, and when we do that we could simply switch to pure PoS where everyone gets a share of the inflation depending on their current stake.
If we want to have the best content rewarded, we need to do the work.
I think there might be a miss interpreting in "giving in". Nobody, who is not taking part in downvote is necessarrily giving in. He serves the crowd with other themes and thoughts by adding variety and abundance. It's more of an indirect influence.
Maybe this makes more sense to you: in a democracy, there is no rule to use your vote either. If only the "bad guys" (whoever you see fit there, don't know your political alignment) do it though, what will happen?
I don't understand. I have no chance to talk to "bad guys" which are out of my reach. I can only partake in a democracy by using my voice in the local realm through my work and moving in public and private space. Talking and interacting from person to person. Whenever I want to give power to my voice in elections I have no other chance as to make my cross on a toll. As you already know, I'd like to change the "yes or no" options into systemic consensus methods. It's the only chance to talk about themes, not people.
The serial abusers here don't talk to you either when you criticize them. At least not as long as you don't have an option to make them lose rewards when they don't. As in politics, you need to vote for others to make the ones you think don't act in everyone's best interest think about what they do. A downvote is just a much more direct way to vote for everybody else.
This post is asking people to make use of their votes, like many campaigns in real world politics do too. I don't understand why you see a reason to come here and criticize me so hard, blaming me of making up rules and shit.