I got downvoted by a whale recently and he would not give me a reason why. I was so mad and i still am- that cost me my hard earned reputation and $5 worth of rewards.
It takes a while to prepare content to post and after all your hard work , time and effort some "whale" can just come and down vote it and not bother telling you what you did wrong.
I think we need to find a way to put the whales in check or this will just become a nightmare for people starting out . Alot of people are forced to act a certain way and alot of the time people are just faking and saying nice things hoping to get a lucky upvote.
Its ridiculous.
Can we have like a way to hold down voters accountable or make them provide allowable reasons to down vote? And i know people do down vote others for personal reasons and it shouldn't be.
My Idea is to have a group of whales or just high steem power individuals /influencers who can down vote a whale or a person who does not provide a good reason for down voting another person's post. it will be kind of like taking the whale or down voter to court.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hi Leggy23. Although we could band together and downvote the aggressive censoring whales I believe this isn't the best way to react as its a waste of our time and effort when it could be used for better things - e.g. writing good posts. The fault they are exploiting is a flaw within steemit. I hope we can change the system and all voting power can be used in a positive way in the future. Can you please snd me a link to the post that was downvoted.
https://steemit.com/steem/@leggy23/poloniex-issue-resolves
I was venting/ sharing my frustrations after waiting almost a month to get an issue resolved with Poloniex. I used their hashtag which they advertised for all to use to get free upvotes and i did all the requirements- or so i thought. Next thing i know i got flagged with no explanation.
It seems you might have been downvoted by a whale who has an upvoting bot, because you used another bots upvoting service? I'm not sure on this but would appreciate anyone who understands the system better to comment.
Perhaps, we need a policy in place where flags can only be used for strictly specific criteria such as plagiarism/spam rather than the pissing contest we have currently. For instance, let's say when a user flags that they must select a check box for the criteria met. If that criteria turns out to be false, the flag may be disputed/removed.
Wonder if it is feasible for witnesses to be the arbiters in such a case. Hmmm
RememberORemember reading an interview with a philosopher saying the future might be a modern feudalism. Then we will get an email: «You just got sold»