under what moral framework is "self-voting" considered a "crime" ?
RE: If I Was Still On Hive
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If I Was Still On Hive
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Everything is a crime to the hive thought police, although it’s ok for them to do everything they downvote others for doing 🤣 like multiple accounts, shit posts, self voting from multiple accounts, farming. It’s all ok for the thought police just not the minions.
ingroup versus outgroup dynamics
💯
Why do you think its a crime?
because "self-voting" is often used as some sort of explanation for why someone has been downvoted
Does that mean it's a crime?
is downvoting "punishment" ?
It's curation. It's exactly like a museum choosing to shelf certain exhibits all the way at the back or at the end of their displays: everyone can still enjoy them, they simply must go to those exhibits that precede them first to get to the last.
it's more like taking money out of a bartender's tip jar and redistributing it evenly to the other bartenders
or scooping coins out of a street performer's hat and redistributing them evenly to the other street performers
The curated rewards aren't guaranteed until the payout and until then they are fair game to be redistributed.
exactly like tips in a tip-jar
at the end of the night, the tips are split up (tip-share for busboys and hosts are distributed) and only then does the money actually BELONG TO the individuals involved
I think bah completely misunderstands the terminology in the meaning of Curation. curation is about organising posts into categories and displaying and curating ones that you like. Curating is not silencing everyones opinion you don’t like, auto down voting somebody before they’ve even posted, down voting somebody because you either don’t like them personally, they defended somebody who got down voted, they took their own money out of a site, they post on another site. This is not curation I don’t know where you’re getting your definition of curation from. If you curate art for an art gallery you simply organise and display the art that you like and don’t display the art that you don’t like. You don’t make it so that artist can never ever earn money again from their art because you don’t like it or tell them they’ll never ever be able to display art in your gallery at any point in the future.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/curation
well stated
Except you're not silenced.
💯
✅
✅
It's not about criminality but social norms. Selfvoting is not considered to be a good thing for society as a whole and should be discouraged.
how is "selfvoting" harmful ?
How is it benefiting the community?
all active stakeholders are contributing to "the community"
"The community" is self voting. Bravo!
"the community" is the userbase
Up is down, self voting is no different, no worse than voting only for others.
it's like a bartender putting money in their own tip-jar, who the fuck cares
How? They are contributing only to themselves. Up is down, self is others, truth is fiction.
everyone who buys your token contributes to the market-cap and userbase
without market-cap and userbase, your coin is valued at $0
from an economic standpoint, "self-voting" generates exactly the same totals as "masterful-curation"
No it certainly doesn't. Stop lying. Someone who uses their voting power only for themselves doesn't distribute anything while someone who curates on!y other people distributes infinitely more than the selfish stakeholder.
please explain
Opedia almost exclusively self votes and she just gets barely any interaction. You don’t need to downvote just let the community use their votes for what they feel.
Unfortunately those aren't the rules. It's not a upvote only game, if you can't abide by the rules, why should they change for you?
There is no need to down vote people self voting, it tends to weed it self out look at the people exclusively self voting here that don’t do much for the community they don’t get much and it takes I think a few years to even break even by self up voting from your stake.
That's your uninformed opinion, since one of the largest accounts on here, the upvu is exactly that, a garbage machine that can't be weeded out and at the current pace, will only continue.
✅
Exactly. I don't get the folks who have their non stop meltdowns. Just do what I did and power down and leave quietly. The level of expectation folks have is absurd. I can see it if one has a realistic expectation to affect a new direction but mostly we see tantrums with unrealistic expectation. Just move on if you don't like it and let it go.
Yup, they throw temper tantrums instead and rage quit.
what are "the rules" ?
The white paper Jonny!
the white paper doesn't say anything about "self-voting"
Strange, page 17 talks extensively about it.
https://www.docdroid.net/0TuBFv2/steem-whitepaper-pdf#page=17
Well that’s why I left LOL and came here for less money. If it was one down Vote per person with the same weight that wouldn’t actually be so bad it will just be a different type of community voting, allowing about four people to take away everybody’s money that they don’t like isn’t what that site is supposed to be. It’s actually false advertising because Blockchain social media is supposed to give power to the people and not be controlled by a central body. Most platforms just can’t get it right I think actually these days Steemit is the most free I never see any problems on there anymore LOL
You're still trying to argue about a Cabal..
Of course I am it’s a disgrace to what Blockchain stands for it’s acrually comdedic they try and suggest the site is in any way decentralised it’s actually more centralised than Facebook and definitely than YouTube.
Yeah, so centralized that nobody can stop anyone from commenting and posting wherever they want.
💯
@opidia is very generous and helpful
and has over a million blurt
i see no reason why they shouldn't be able to post whatever they want and vote however they wish
https://blurt.one/blurtmeme/@opidia/very-interesting
I agree, I just said community tends to vote on self voting without a need to downvote, it seems a lot of people don't like excessive self voting as she doesn't get much on her posts outside of her own vote. I am not saying she shouldn't be able to self vote at all, she holds stake and it's her right. I am just saying the community has pretty much voted at this point they do not like it judging by the engagement she gets, or did last time I looked which, admittedly was ages ago now, since she is the only person on blurt I have ever muted.
This has been my position on self votes and VTS. Folks will determine for themselves if they support those doing such, and overwhelmingly folks haven't been rewarding those who act with more self interest as you mention here.
This is a crude analogy and not meant to imply those using such are trash.
But there is a saying that the trash will take itself out. This is a much cruder way of saying that water rises to its own level.
Give folks the rope to be who they are, and they will almost always run with it. This allows those who find the direction repugnant to look elsewhere and those who support it to do so as well.
good point
mute or ignore
in economic terms, self-voting is no different from voting for others
I put down voting instead of self voting
It's interesting... the topic of self-voting (which on Hive was an excuse to downvote etc. those who picked the low hanging forbidden fruit dangling above their heads).
I think that if it was something that was so taboo... for purposes of user-friendliness (and new users especially) it would be best that the code simply did not allow for it... rather than have a bunch of humans taking it UPon themselves to police and stirUP trouble (like on Hive).
Because the code does make self-voting possible... it shouldn't be considered taboo. However... Is it good for the price of Blurt? No. I don't believe so... as it releases inflation into the system while also opening the door to low value content (SPAM even) being rewarded and highlighted.
Still... the system does allow a self-vote.
But I think there is something being missed when someone self-votes their own content. When you do that you give yourself a little Financial Capital... but I believe it comes with a cost to ones Social Capital and how others perceive you. (big picture vs small picture)
That's why I choose NOT to self-vote (even for ranking my comments for visibility) but rather choose to fall into the arms of the community where value is concerned.
@logiczombie @ultravioletmag @bahh @lazerlazer @opedia @world-travel-pro
i'm not sure "self-voting" is any different than BUYING ADVERTISING SPACE
"self-voting" is "self-promotion"
and anyone with enough stake to put themselves on the all-trending page is also necessarily a big contributor to the value of the community token
first by buying, and second by holding the token
✅