First I don't know if I should cry or laugh..... But all I know is that I'm damn happy. I've never been this rewarded in this platform before. In fact, there was a time I almost lost hope in blurt, but @oneray gave me more reasons to continue. @world-travel-pro, I want to tell you the biggest THANK YOU from the dept of my heart. You've truly made me feel special here, and I promise to pay back to this platform by contributing largely and by obeying the system's rules. I'm truly grateful, that's a lot....
A big congrats to all of us that were acknowledged and to the overall winner..... And also to those who participated in the contest. We all are winners🚀🚀🚀🚀
Thank you so much for the kind words. I'm very happy to have helped make a difference for you here on BLURT!
Thanks sir🤝
"the system's rules"
I'm still looking for those! Do you happen to have a link? ; )
I think something about plagiarism when he first got here but not sure. Other than that there really are no rules other than those set by the parameters of front end code and the blockchain it's self.
That's what I figured. It's interesting to me that we can have only 1 rule! Everything else is coded out of possibility (for example, we don't have to have a rule "do not vote more than once on any post or comment" because it's not possible). Or it's already illegal and covered by those laws (like don't defraud other users, don't post underaged nudity, etc).
As for plagiarism, I was looking into it, and realized it's actually a complex topic. It's not the same as copyright infringement, for example (but they are related). And some countries/cultures don't really prohibit plagiarism at all, which is interesting. It's more an academic concept, originating in the 1700s or so (although some ancient philosophers discussed it in various forms). The main meat of it is "don't take credit for content you didn't create".
This hearkens to something Wil and I were talking about recently, which is "remixing", and how essentially everything we create is derivative in some way. So while almost nothing is 100% original, we must avoid posting content that is almost 0% original, especially if we don't properly cite the source(s).
I was talking about this with @OneRay, too. Many people post nothing more than a link to a YouTube video someone else made, which they want to share. I think that's fine. I'm not going to curate that (unless it's a very small "finder's fee", or if they include analysis/opinion of the video). But it should not be punished, either (unless they claimed it was their own content).
I hope you're having a great day!
exactly....the more social rules you try to apply to this platform the more it will look and feel like....ummmmm HIVE! lol
Hahaha, yup.
I'm really interested to see how this place does as it scales up! And not just talking about the price.
Sometimes I have come to think that the problem with Hive is the excessive punishment of anything they consider "bad" for the interests of the most powerful, and that is where the negative votes and silencing on that platform come from, more than because of the content own. Understanding that there, an article is allowed to contain a small percentage "not original" and declared as such when citing the source, but they are established rules and their users must adhere to them.
Certainly, here at Blurt, there are no such rules (at least not written) and much is left to the conscience of each author, especially those of us who come from other platforms with that background; However, seeing new users who have never been on the sister platforms, they believe that anything on the internet (images and content) is a good material to copy and paste and get rewards for it.
So, where there are no rules, everything is valid, and it only remains in the judgment of each user if a piece of content is worth it or not, whether it is original or a copy and paste.