Hey @onceuponatime,
I am somewhat familiar with some of the activity around @sweetsssj and @walden.
Now, what I personally had issue with was the conspicuous collusive voting amongst presumably her family members for contributions of questionable value.
Some had questioned this activity towards the growth of the platform. I think it could be an issue if too many users just decide to buddy vote instead of honestly curate based on content. Collusive voting is a debate in itself.
A while ago, I had called out one of the posts and strangely received a 100% vote from her on my latest contributions. Some had supposed this was some sort of hush money but I don't know.
Maybe they figured "Yes, my voting has been sketchy and let me show this user I intend to change it.". As cynical as I can be, I try to be optimistic about human nature when I can.
As for these people at large being assholes for the sake of anti-abuse, I detest it because it undermines these efforts. I had admonished the fellow you noted for the insults but he seems to suggest he was provoked. That does not justify it.
I mean I'm not perfect myself. Maybe I can be an asshole on occasion but actually do pray that I am made to be humble. The process by which I believe it is granted is not always pleasant but I digress.
I think JF does put a lot of time and energy into their investigations and would hope that it would be an asset to the blockchain but I think they could benefit from much in being more humble as well. I think the big thing they can do is lose the attitude with their dissenters. Also, understand being so matter of fact with people can be a turn off as well as I noticed that in a reply to you.
All I really care about is being an advocate for integrity and for us all to work and be rewarded together. Do I think that even if these users were involved in a voting ring that they are beyond hope?
Certainly not. I want them to turn a new leaf. I want rehabilitation so they may be users contributing positively to our chain that care about the future of Steem.
If they all want to contribute positively to the chain and share the same memo while doing so, more power to them. However, if there still seems to be accounts using dishonest techniques for gain involved, think we should probably act. I suppose it would be prudent for folks like you, @gtg and other stakeholders to work to take it down in such case. It is unlikely we would be able to do so on our own if it is as extensive as the Jaguars posit.
Another idea that I consider is the possibility "benign" accounts sending tokens to facilitate operations of the accounts currently engaged in abuse of the reward pool. In other words, the accounts may not be abusing but they are supporting those that do. Maybe a moot point but worth a thought imho.
Again, this can easily be defeated by using a more private exchange which is what I surmise they would do. It seems there is no recourse at that point.
Lastly, I want to state that despite the mounting evidence, it is far from conclusive nor do I think it ever will be. We can only make the best decision with the information we are given. Everyone may have different thresholds or criteria in what is sufficient to act.
This is a complex issue and wished I had more time to analyze it. Gotta get back to the ol' day job now.
Have a good one.
Posted using Partiko Android
So all those who vote for friends (or the same people) make a collusive vote. But then everyone is colluded on steemit.Could you tell me the precise Steemit rule that prohibits voting for a "friend". Thanks
This seems like an appeal to the extreme or reductio ad absurdum.
I am not suggesting it is forbidden to vote for friends and family. (The extreme)
What I am saying is these persons voting for friends and family without regard to the content is not profitable curation for the platform. This can extend to communities or other groups.
I actually been working on bringing my brother to this platform and hope he will contribute music and other things but will only vote to what I believe is reasonable granted the contribution.
Most people don't give a shit about that sort of thing and I think the market will reflect that. We think people observe a bunch of circlejerkery is going to bode well? Not me.
Curation (when working properly) could be one of the greatest strength of the platform but currently it has become a mechanism of folks serving their wallet rather than serving the value of the currency.
It works fine technically but not for the purposes that it was intended in the WP that is gauging user contributions to the network. It's a broken economy where the few ride the backs of the many. I only persist in my efforts for the sake of the few honest people I know around here.
It is my hope to provide them an alternative to this current arrangement currently via a robust front end implementation. The current visibility via collusion (be it by bid bot or reciprocal voting rings) is less than ideal.
So voting "friends" is not forbidden. So there is no abuse.
Let me break it down more simply.
Voting (or flagging for that matter) based on identity is bullshit.
Voting based on content is legit.
Are you curating your friends content or are you just voting their content indiscriminately? There's a difference.
Posted using Partiko Android
jaguar, jaguarista, the jaguar is the whole zoo, it's a circle of votes. And I don't see your flags ... in fact! I see your vote.
You can't do sermons on this point.