Dear @robinhoodwhale, at first you asked for the little fish to unite and send SBD and STEEM to you:
(Source: robinhoodwhale)
But then, you decided to announce you will support @anahilarski:
(Source: anahilarski)
This are the clients of @anahilarski:
(Source: anahilarski)
So basically @anahilarski manages the @dollarvigilante account, an account that clearly doesn't need any kind of help from the @robinhoodwhale initiative:
(Source: dollarvigilante)
@anahilarski is a graphics designer and he created the logo for @dollarvigilante he does not manage the account , please read the actual post before you say anything about it
Please remove your flag from this post. It does not deserve that response, even if you disagree.
I agree on that one , it is removed . I think that the fact that @anahilarski has not been noticed that much is the reason they are supporting it.
"the fact that @anahilarski has not been noticed that much"
That's not a fact. There are hundreds of good quality accounts unnoticed but that don't have the powerfull whale @dollarvigilante as their proxy. Clearly @anahilarski counts with powerfull friends since day one here on steemit and there is nothing wrong about that fact. But the point is, because of that situation she is clearly not an "isolated small fish" on this platform in need of the @robinhoodwhale initiative.
You "flaged" this post, so you are clearly against freedom of speech. @anahilarski is clearly related to HEAVY WHALES here on steemit like HER client @dollarvigilante. The open question to the @robinhoodwhale remains unanswered: why are they supporting an account that is clearly NOT a minnow and is already supported by whales, instead of upvoting real unnoticed accounts.
PS: The fact that you flag a simple question is not helping at all...
Steemjustice thanks for doing this. By the way, where does one see who flags a post ? I see the flag but no way of seeing who did ?
@azaan removed the flag, so our post is now without flags. You would see it as a "-" vote instead of a "+" vote.
I almost flagged it myself because this is a false statement:
and this entire post is accusatory. This is also untrue:
because @anahilarski is not a whale.
If your intention is to troll here on Steemit (something your first post, your account name of "steemjustive", and your response in the comments so far seem to indicate), you will probably be flagged more because you're harming the network (IMO). That's not a "freedom of speech" issue IMO. It's a community standards on steemit.com issue. If you want to create your own blockchain viewer which does not respect community consensus via the reputation system and flags, you are free to do so as it is open source. That's not a community many would like to be a part of, however.
This is also not true:
As the image I added to the comment you made on my post indicates, @anahilarski is, in fact, a minnow based on Steem Power.
"So basically @anahilarski manages the @dollarvigilante account"
It's not a "false statement" as @anahilarski herself is promoting the fact that the @dollarvigilante is her client. So @dollarvigilante is a client account of @anahilarski and that fact means she is already well conected here on steemit and that fact means she is not an isolated "small fish" in need of the @robinhoodwhale initiative.
So you may disagree with our point but please stop calling us liars when we just put facts into perspective.
To me, you're trying to imply @anahilarski is rewarded by @dollarvigilante's success, simply because they are a client. If you disagree with who @robinhoodwhale promotes, why not talk to them in chat in civilized manner unless your intention is to create public drama?
You're defining "minnow" in a subjective way regarding if they have important relationships (from your perspective), not in terms of something concrete like Steem Power.
I did not use the accusatory term "liar" which implies intent to deceive as a character trait. I simply pointed out, based on my understanding of the words used, the statements made were not true.
You have not answered my question as to why this wasn't brought up in chat with them directly instead of as a public accusation. I think the RHW project is a potentially great initiative as an alternative to individual whales' votes determining the fate of the content here. Accusing them of wrongdoing right off the bat is counter productive to building their reputation which will be important for their success.
An open letter is a civilized manner an actually we are already talking on this post with the @robinhoodwhale
And regarding this:
NO. We are not implying anything we are explicitly poiting at facts. And the fact is @anahilarski is not an isolated "small fish" on steemit. She is conected with @dollarvigilante (as she stated on ther introduction post), so he clearly doesn't need @robinhoodwhale's help. Remember those small fish that have no powerfull friends on steemit, those were the openly promoted targets of the @robinhoodwhale initiative...
My first post was a call to @steemcleaners to take care of plagiarist @foodie aka @ecoosha
This would be case #2.
@dollarvigilante seems to be a client of @anahilaraski for social media marketing (Facebook, Twitter etc) as far as we understand.
In terms of your comment below
A "featured author" for RHW is basically an author that has been upvoted by the initiative and "might" be reupvoted again after a 10 day cycle has finished, we just give a headsup in the comments.
The point is @anahilaraski is not a "small fish" in need of help. She already has @dollarvigilante and other big players as friends on steemit. You are using minnows collected resources to upvote proxy accounts of steemit's whales, basically the opposite as you proposed.
The point is what you said in your post is incorrect. Thank you for giving her plenty of press. You are a saint!
The point is @anahilaraski is not a "small fish" in need of help.
Yeah sure, just looking at your account's SP balance proves that she is a "small fish" in need of @robinhoodwhale...
I am starting to think you just don't want to read what I wrote multiple times. We are in no way in charge of the @DollarVigilante account. I have told @SteemJustice this 3X. Either the person refuses to accept it or they just want to cause drama.
You yourself prove as a proxy of @anahilarski the point that she is in no way a case of an underrated "small fish" in need of help from the @robinhoodwhale
Oh wow, you have whale clients? Please write an article about how you got them and how you ended up on steemit!
This is a legitimate question about the curation methodology. However, keep in mind that low hanging fruit like this often results in valuable curation rewards which will help the whale grow strong. Also, sbd and steem sent to @robinhoodwhale are investments which will be returned when the whale retires... so jumping on a sure thing like that is going to benefit everybody who contributed.
I think it is a good question, though... should @robinhoodwhale vote for curation rewards or limit votes to posts with merit from lesser known authors?
That's good conversation for us to have in https://steemit.chat/channel/robinhood
@bacchist there is no question that upvoting the well conected accounts will result in higher curation rewards. That is the standard on steemit. But the @robinhoodwhale initiative promises to take care of the small fish as opposition to the whale power game. So it feels like a treason after collecting minnows resources...
I think you are misinterpreting the situation and blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing in the least bit treasonous about voting on a post that could help the whale grow and produce more meaningful rewards for the underappreciated authors that are the project's focus. Every bit of funding received is turned into SP to increase the power of @robinhoodwhale's votes. There is no conspiracy here. The whale has voted on dozens of posts and has an excellent track record, which anyone is more than welcome to audit.
https://steemit.com/robinhoodwhale/@laonie/robinhoodwhale-28-08-2016
Look at all those authors! Go vote on some of them!
Yes there is. The mission is not just "grow" the @robinhoodwhale power (at least not the publicly stated mission). The mission was to collect "small fish" SBD and SP donations and with those donations create a whale that would help the small fish.
So upvoting a "conected fish" is wasting minnow's voting power. It is not that the voting power is endless, if the upvote goes to a conected account then it is less power for the small fish posts. Just as simple as that.
Right now the vote is on pace to add 0.079 SP to the contributions received from a wide range of users, from whales, to jellyfish such as myself, and yes to some minnows as well... that will likely grow, in fact.
But hey, if you are really that dissatisfied, and you want to divest from @robinhoodwhale, I will personally reimburse you the full amount of your contribution. That is, if you have helped fund @robinhoodwhale....
Once again, the @robinhoodwhale was meant to help non conected "small fish" and it was not proposed as a "power" game where the @robinhoodwhale would do the "upvoting the sure shots" (the whales choice) posts, but just to collect SP and SMD from small fish to upvote good quality posts from....small fish (aka NON well conected ones).
And our intention is to make sure (in this case) that the @robinhoodwhale doesn't deviate from the publicly proposed policy, as it is the case when they are upvoting @anahilaraski. And no "stunt" like "hey if you don't like it, shut up and here some money" will work, because there is nothing wrong on publicly claiming for a publicly stated policy to be implemented as proposed. Or what is wrong about that?
@steemjustice
I am involved in the project. I designed the graphics of the RHW. I am also the first person here on Steemit to critisize the vigilante douche, getting flagged from him, losing reputation, the whole package.
Here is the post
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kyriacos/why-i-respect-the-dao-hacker-but-not-the-dollarvigilante
I would never support that tinfoiled abomination
@kyriacos we have nothing personal against @anahilarski or her client the @dollarvigilante. We are not flagging any of their posts as well.
The point is @anahilarski is not an "isolated small fish" in need of @robinhoodwhale´s help. She is clearly already conected with powerfull accounts on steemit. There is no way to deny this simple fact and flagging our message won't change facts.
So we are just openly asking @robinhoodwhale to change his support of @anahilarski as it constitutes an account outside of the proposed mission.
Since you linked out to this post from mine, I'll link to my reply. There's enough real drama in the world to deal with. Please don't go around creating more.
Your reply is avoiding the fact that @dollarvigilante is a client of @anahilaraski, her account already has well conected and powerfull friends on steemit. On the other side @robinhoodwhale promised to help the small fish not the "well conected ones". So the question remains: why is the @robinhoodwhale using hard earned minnows resources to upvote well connected accounts that clearly are not in need of that type of help.
"Using" makes it sound like the resources are somehow depleted by this vote, when the reality is they will likely be augmented. This is nothing but FUD.
That's how the upvoting system works. The amount of voting power is not endless.
Also "upvoting" already well conected accounts is contradictory to levering the game.
Now why using the @robinhoodwhale to vote an account that is being already supported by the steemit heavyweights? The question remains without answer....
Keep On Steemin
Thanks!
Was wondering what was robinhoodwhale was. Didnt know there was a system for doing that.
They announced as an initiative to help minnows get noticed and asked for contributions in SBD or STEEM and they've got those contributions for minnows already. But now after a few days they are announcing they will support @anahilarski, the manager of the @dollarvigilante. And that's why we posted this openletter, minnows should know that their contributions will be used to support a well established and well conected account...
Removing my upvote, because I no longer think you were acting in good conscience in posting this.... it is now clear your intent was malicious.
The intent is exactly the same as when I posted a fact: the @robinhoodwhale was promoting an account proxy to already powerfull member of steemit.
@steemjustice
so, any member connected with a whale cannot be assisted by the robinhood whale?
come on...
The @robinhoodwhale is being promoted as an initiative to help the small fish. Of course there is no point in using the @robinhoodwhale to upvote an account that is already being upvoted by @dollarvigilante and @hilarski, actually doing that is exactly sustaining the statu quo. Is using smal fish resources to help well conected ones.