You can disable but then it can be gamed by voting with an alt, so those who are savvy can do so and the common person cannot so creates a class distinction based on knowledge of the system.
RE: Self upvoting for witnesses ONLY - A proposal....For the future growth of Blurt.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Self upvoting for witnesses ONLY - A proposal....For the future growth of Blurt.
Yes, when people depend on tech more than their own morale, this happens. And if one door is blocked, many new open
Not only it makes a distinction between users based on their knowledge of the system, but also on their willingness (or not) to "game" the system.
Some users won't even think about creating alts for voting. They lack the knowledge.
Other users know that they could create alts to vote on their main account's comments, but won't be doing that for a huge myriad of reasons. They have the knowledge, but don't want to jump through the hoops to make more money.
And, finally, the last group know how to game the system and are willing to game the system. And this last group will be the one being rewarded, as they'll still vote themselves and will harvest more reward than the first two groups. And this is wrong.
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?
the only reason i even moved to blurt was because i am disgusted with the hive oligarchy constantly complaining about HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO VOTE
JUST LET PEOPLE VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO VOTE
I DON'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN MONEY
OPIDIA HAS MORE THAN 800,000 BLURT
WHY DO WE WANT TO RUN THEM OFF THE PLATFORM ?