RE: What's the point to downvote a post until it reach zero rewards & zero payouts?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
This was always a risk, exactly like Justin, with ill gotten gains to be cancelled, on steem it was understood that consensus is king, on hive it was expressed as the very first principle, consensus is king. I would be happy to see what you base your idea on that shaming them is effective when they show no shame by their flagging. There's no fighting abuse to hide behind, it's simply relentless punishment.
It serves for them to control the pool by driving people away, which is something that ought to be punished. If you leverage your stake to punish, others should effortlessly be allowed to punish you, shaming would be nice, if it had any chance of being heard, but I bet they'll hear power down and gtfo much more clearly and since that's their entire thesis it'll be that much more deserving. This was always the issue, without a way to deal with bad faith actors swiftly they brain drain trying to "reach" them, at least if some whale that cared about this could begin an effective end to it with such a tool. It's long past time to do something about it, scrap RC, make transactions cost steem, nullify stake and every % over that effectively diminish the power down potential and burn the difference with no max cap making it into another prisoners dilemma where the consensus can form to banish you or make you into an impotent thorn.
I am not sure that the theory is true that punishment is the only thing a punisher understands. Since "being punished" seems to be something that every human being deeply abhors. While punishment may be effective in getting someone to shut up or back down, it probably does not achieve an understanding of one's shortcomings. The reactions I recognise to punishment are stubbornness, obstinacy, helplessness, victim mentality.
The question of where a punished person turns to and on whom they take out their punishment, which they perceive as unjust, is rarely asked. A punished person may be chased off the field, but that does not mean he is out of the game of life.
Humility, which is supposed to be a consequence of punishment, is this something that can be observed? The punishers who receive much praise and prize fall for flattery, that is true, they may think it is love.
But because it is not love, and everyone knows that too, the gloating is only a very short-lived moment that glosses over the fact that everyone loses.
Beneath the righteous surface there is another field that knows about the loss.
Every action has consequences, punishment for punishing people is very poetic and deserved. Considering how many have been chased away by these petty tinpot dictators I wouldn't give them a second thought of "how they respond". I for one believe it will be ineffective and instead turn into another tool used against the community by these faggots, but then there's not gonna be any more allusion that this place is a "community".
True.
I don't think that this place is a community as a whole. But that there are a number of interest groups here who enjoy a certain topic and exchange ideas about it. The garden people, for example, or other subject-specific groups who want to give each other tips for their hobbies or show their latest results. Nothing earth-shattering, but useful, depending on the perspective. Whereas I think that the quality of the contributions overall does not provide enough meat to really be a fund of valuable knowledge transfers. But if you lower your standards, you might find some things, I have received good book tips from some of the users here or sources that I could follow up with interest, but I have to say that the search function on the hive frontend is very poor. What I find most problematic is the seven-day window, as it affects users' habit of not looking at older posts, and monetisation of past publications remains forever impossible, unlike on yt, for example.
I had once suggested re-posting your own posts that you think are of high quality and received too little attention, but there were divided views on this and generally there is too much fear that you would be downvoted because of it.
The whole place suffers from too much superficiality if you ask me. But there's no cure for that anyway, so it's pointless to complain about it.
Anyway, I for one would be bummed if the place would close down. I have published many articles which I consider to be valuable. I often thought of saving them somewhere but never did as they are so many now.
Would you like to see this place shut down?
No I don't want to see this place shut down, I would like to see this place actually go through another whale experiment. I believe that the major flaw is irrational actors working for immoral purposes being allowed to disturb and defraud the community. These people promote their irrational behaviour in others, and punish rational honest people, and this then drives them away. This has effectively resulted in the less than mediocre content on here. Discussion has never been rewarded on par with posts, so comments aren't encouraged other than to assvaccum the OP, making much of the conversation disgusting to consume and which explains the thorough tongue cleaning these dignified folk generally respond to, further driving the rational honest individual away, and why nobody cares to engage.
I also think this place is not a community which is what these irrational people prefer, you can't have a community of suck ups and so we have a congregation of the most devout brown-nosers that join to pray to the altar of rewards and since these large accounts are incapable of introspection or intellectual honesty they can’t cope with disruptive behaviours from rational and honest people which they will silence by punishment as none of their "friends" or people they support will manifest a moment of honesty or push back are more likely to denounce, deflect or find some insignificant objection to make against the disrupting individual since they lack the same introspective capacity like the large accounts. The message is constantly "quit, leave, if you don't like it why are you here" and soon enough this will have effectively been realized, the apex reached when nobody but Irrational Dolts are left here and I wouldn't be surprised if this place persists solely as a card game.
I almost missed your answer since your response was not shown in my notifications (or I might have overseen it).
There are many contradictions here at work. I responded in another blog post to the problem in my own language and give you the translation:
There is also the assumption circulating that the big accounts do not have an interest that Hive becomes mainstream for they might fear a hostile takeover and so, as a consequence of that anxiety, keep the place small.
you mean Splinterlands? Yeah, I personally find that utterly uninteresting.
What exactly do you mean by that?
That whales negate other whales votes, but I would like this to be done with delegations that nullify stake and even burn it if for example 2x the stake is delegated so at that point if the penalized tries to power down they forfeit 50% of their power, and preferably at 4x the size of the nullifying delegation vs their stake powering down would be burning 100% of the power.
Like that one account did with marky? I don't know if he nullified his postings or comments but we saw two wales at war with each other.
What do you mean with "nullify stake" and "burning" it in combination with delegation power?
Can you give me an example which I can understand better?
Like "A" abuses and "B", "C" and "D"-wales come along and nullify "A"s stake, for example.
Would they delegate part of their own stake into a special created account in order to have bigger power to counteract one or more abusive players?
In order to have a case of "abuse", you'd have to have an investigation and the partaking of the parties involved (involvement then is key, for a wale who wants to establish a rule against abuse, must involve himself and have an understanding of legalities). In combination with that, there has to be a certain protocol to which the wales commit themselves.
Like in the customary law of the country, according to which all the considerations and preliminary investigations have to be made before a judgement is reached (the famous trial).
It seems to me that there is not the necessary seriousness on this portal that the actors would really want to put as much work into it as is expected outside the platform, for example.
The witnesses would have to agree on a protocol and procedure and set up the separation of powers similar to the way it is done in democracies. You would need a judge at the end. But he cannot be part of this reward structure and should not have his own account here, in my view. But then the question arises why someone should do that if he is not remunerated for it. He would still have to have a high level of non-participation and not be loyally associated with those who program the code or are big players. I don't see how that could work?
After all, the crucial point is: how exactly and by whom was abuse committed, and what exactly justifies the punishment that goes with it? You need proof, don't you.
As this post, and many other such instances of punishment ought to come with harsh consequences. We don't need a judge, we need consensus of the large accounts who can intervene stop the faggots. It'd be account x can delegate -y to account z, where y is vests/stake/powered up. It's not a "punishment" as much as it's a reproach, the downside is that they can simply power down and continue their objectives of being faggots, which it ought to come with such consequences that after the second intervention they agreed once more to stop and instead they simply powered down and started with another account then that should be their last time they'll power down.
There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.
No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.
I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.
While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.
I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)
You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.
I do not see this form of consensus coming.
Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.
Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.
Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.
A judge is only needed when a crime has been committed, this isn't the issue, there's no crime, even when Justin lost all his steem stake on hive, there wasn't any crime. I call them faggots because that's how they act, that's how they operate, they're not criminals, they are irrational and incompetent, a rational whale should distinguish between the superficial and the factual, but because they are triggered by such descriptions it demonstrates that they lack the ability to do that, and thus they clearly demonstrate that they too are faggots, utterly incompetent and irrational. I don't hold much hope of the suggestions being considered, let alone implemented because it seems the place is captured by the retards, tinpot dictators who police opinions they don't care to understand and ideas they deem dangerous, but regardless I believe the only way forward is by implementing drastic changes and I've little desire to "mock" the retards or to avoid calling them as I see them because I believe it will only go hand in hand with the ass sucking culture they promote. As long as I can yell
Idiots
I'll be content with causing them mental anguish, nothing hurts more than Truth, if what I said wasn't true my words wouldn't elicit their 'ire', exactly like @gtg, monumental faggot triggered by Truth.
Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes indeed, you don't need to call it a crime and I got confused by the constant chanting down of terms like "abuse" and "rape of the reward pool".
It is true what you say that a rational person need not and does not feel provoked by insults, but since it does happen and rational responses are exceedingly hard to find, the irrational dominates. You have to be very solid in your existence and not mind receiving caustic attributions. To simply put them to one side and look at the facts requires a great deal of composure.
Well, you have your own way of dealing with it and I don't judge you for that. Everyone plays some role in the spheres they move in and I wouldn't know how to assess that in totality. As a rule, I try to work out my own impulses more with myself in silence or publish articles that cannot be forced into a camp in terms of content. I don't care about expressing insults, rather I still have to learn how to deal with them myself and to understand every insult as a chance for my own maturing process. Nothing less is what you expect, is it not.
I understand that you don't feel insulted when someone calls you names? I would call that "one in a million" - it never occurs that you have sensations of revenge or other so called sinful impulses?
The anger you evoke, yes, that is an interesting approach and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your action is necessary so that it is clear what is hiding under a mask of righteousness. You have chosen the most difficult of roles. I myself do not do that. I would perhaps do it if I felt mature and stable to do so, and I am not. ... Not really sure about that.
I am not what others think of me, or beholden to their opinion, and if I value their opinions I'll engage in dialogue to flesh out their validity, otherwise I move on.
I observed that. Flashing out validity is something to go for, yes.
I first disliked your aggressiveness and was hit by the attributes you gave me in our very first encounters. Then I went to your comment section and saw you talking to practicalthought and others and changed my mind about you. I am not saying though that I see you as perfect or always correct in what you express. But I learned something about directness.
I'm certainly with faults and can err like everyone else, my opinions aren't always for everyone.
P.S. The problem with your approach - as I see it - is that you yourself are not seen as a rational actor, because you hurl insults and the intention behind them is not clear if people do not "know" you or let themselves be unsettled by you and refuse to get to know you by argument. On the surface, you seem like an angry, lashing out actor who is being accused of irrationality for that very reason.
This reminds me of "things aren't what they seem, nor are they otherwise". If some see me as lashing out and disregard what I say that's fine, it's not as if they even acknowledge those who don't seem like me, as far as I can tell they are just as disregarded and ignored like the faggot who thought it necessary to explain why people zero out others posts, no matter how you approach them, they will respond in the same dismissive manner.
Are you saying it doesn't matter if you approach someone rationally or (seemingly) irrationally if he himself is not rational and no matter what you say, it doesn't hit home anyways? So, you can as well cause them pain? ...
Hm ... I am thinking about my own encounters where I thought I argued from a rational point of view and received an irrational response. The way I inwardly dealt with it was that the response might be senseless because the other one doesn't like to give in. But my message nevertheless might stuck and being accepted without the other one letting me know.
Where is this to be found?
The top coment under this post by Jacob. Yes irrational people aren't receptive to rational messages, they suffer from cognitive dissonance and deflect, avoid, deny, and ultimately ignore them. No amount of facts or logic will get through to the imbecile, no matter how self evident and simple it might be, they only understand asskissery or punishment.
You deserve the downvotes for your behavior. I hope they decide to mute your content across the Blockchain.
I'm happy to help them downvote you.
Mr -11 rep... Hahahahhahahahaha
Lolol seethe away retard