Bringing this to the attention of @steemcurator01 and @steemitblog.

in SteemitCryptoAcademy3 years ago (edited)

Hello respected @steemcurator01 and @steemitblog sir hope so you all are good today i want to address one issue with you guys.

Yesterday i was warned by one of the crypto professor @reddileep for the accusations of buying upvotes which is completely false.

IMG_20210919_210136.jpg
It is written very clearly that if upvotes have been bought then we are not liable that's true but as i have delegated my steem power to @nutbox.mine for getting higher apy so they give 1 random upvote on any of your posts daily without buying it. It is just there call to upvote also if you will be checking my account than there has been no vote buying since last 1+ years except one which i just bought to check the profitability of nutbox which was really very profitable but still i chose not to use that service as i know buying votes is wrong and not organic at all.

So the accusations that i have bought vote and build my reputation is extremely wrong. Some of the professor is also accusing me for my earlier practice of vote buying which was done around 2 years back which i completely agree but when rules are made it should be abided from that point of time and should not take into consideration from past.

Vote buying was the trend past then we all know that and are the witness for it but the thing which matters is that despite having the access to buy upvotes i have not done it.

I do accept everything and i am sorry for this unintentional thing as if i would have known then i would have undelegated it very early.

The only thing which i am demanding is one last chance so that i can post in the crypto accademy and if ever i will be delegating it to any upvote bot or service you are free to stop me from getting ranking in crypto accademy.

I have also undelegated my SP so that i can start fresh and without breaking any rule you can see below as i don't want any partiality but you guys must agree that doing a mistake intentionally and unintentionally there is a difference between the two and if i am ready to accept and change it for a better then it should be a win win situation for both.

IMG_20210919_123825.jpg

As the motive should be to eliminate bid bots by making people understand as that is the only way to do so by making them understand and not by punishing them.

Rules are made for the general good and if someone is willing to understand it and change then it's a victorious situation for the team so why to punish rather help them overcome it.

Also i am really sorry to professor @sapwood for wasting his time and my intention was never to say something which will make you feel bad but it's just about the situation which has made me frustrated.

A last chance for anyone who has done it unintentionally would be a great thing hope for an positive outcome for everyone.

Thanks friends have a great day ahead.

Sort:  

Hello, I am very sorry that you are going through this situation. You are correct in saying that the rule should apply from the moment it was created and not be retroactive, to give the opportunity to correct the error.
I have met other people who are going through this situation and they have been trying to correct this problem and stop using these services. I hope that the response to this case provides some opportunity for those who wish to be able to remedy this situation. And give them some alternative solution.

Greetings to you, God bless you.

Yup that is what the team should target to make people understand and bring them to right track but unfortunately don't know why the members around are too rigid.

Thanks for your concer hope for an positive outcome.

I really feel sad to hear that. I am following you from a long time you have been a good user. I hope the community will give 1 chance.

Hope for the best i wish they could have understood the situation better.