We've All Seen the Circular Conversation Over the Last 9 Months
It goes something like this: Community asks @haejin to stop the 100% self upvoting with his accounts ( @ranchorelaxo & @haejin ). He responds by saying the self upvoting is because of the downvoting.
You can see the whole conversation HERE
I Thought of a Solution: Olive Branches
I will pay for the downvotes he receives if he starts 'redeploying'. Basically he starts to do what he wants to do, but can't because he is being held back by because of the downvotes (his olive branch), and I'll raise funds/pay from my own pocket to nullify the downvotes (my olive branch).
I Wanted To Believe...
I really want to give @haejin the benefit of the doubt. It's looking not good though. It was 4 days yesterday since I shared my idea with him, and no answer. I went back yesterday and said: "4 days no answer, I guess I will take that as a no." And still there is no response.
I don't see any other way to test out the truth of his words, that 100% self upvoting with his accounts is only due to downvotes. You think he would be jumping at the chance to see me have to try and pull his lost STEEM and SBD together from the downvoting, while he finally gets to "redeploy" to all of the people he's been wanting to help but can't because of flags.
His Stake, His Choice
Absolutely he has every right to 100% upvote himself with his accounts. And absolutely the community has every right to disagree with the potential rewards.
So the Stalemate Will Continue Indefinitely
I'll leave off with a quote...
"George Bidault once said that a good diplomatic agreement was one with which all parties were equally dissatisfied."
Hi @lyndsaybowes, I've been reviewing your blog and I'm really happy to continue meeting people like you who are interested in helping others. I don't think I have enough "level" to comment on what's right or wrong in a world as complicated as Steemit. In theory, we will seek to vote for publications that we like, motivate or teach, even those that make us laugh. It is these actions that revolutionize the engine of any social network. I honestly don't know the causes of a flag attack between Steemit accounts(@ranchorelaxo, @fulltimegeek, @markwhittam... anyone), they obviously cause no profit but annoyance. But on the other hand I know how because of good deeds (a simple upvote) people are saved. The big question is: How do we find a common reason?
Just as @familyprotection has done through great people like @canadian-coconut, and many more accounts I have managed to help many of my new patients and needy people in my country, I have even managed to operate free of charge for children and people without resources. Now, my publications have witnessed the @haejin vote, and with just that action I know we will help many more people. So thank you!
Thank you to everyone who believes that a common reason can be: "to help people", and thank you to everyone because Steemit is a place where barriers are broken with written words.
He is obviously lying. A whale trying to claim that he couldn't possibly stop upvoting himself for a few days/weeks to try and get things back on track? That's super laughable. Guy makes more money in a day than I make in a month. And I'm not talking about my Steem income.
Does that mean we'll have the possibility to block accounts to stop unfair downvotes (aka flags) in the future?
(Could that be something worth mentioning to any of the witnesses?)
Downvoting is an essential part of balancing the ecosystem, so I don't see it going anywhere.
there are no "unfair" downvotes. As the post says: Your Stake, Your Choice
Of course there are downvotes that are perceived as unfair and that can suck, but when you can protect yourself by blocks, then downvotes are pointless and that will be bad for steem overall. So we all have to accept that there will be flags and that we just have to move on
I see Rancho gave your charity post a big vote, so that's a positive sign. H reminds me of those politicians who will never admit they were wrong, despite the evidence. If he even gave 1% of his massive earnings to others it might be appreciated.
Great first move. From how i see it, he self upvotes and then the community wipes it out, or tries to, as much as possible. Otherwise, he would be making much more than the sum of his own self votes.
Some people don't know when to accept the olive branch...sigh! Nice post, Lyndsay!
I disagree that he "absolutely" has the right to upvote himself. The reason people get pissed about self-upvotes and bid bots is because it's part of your "job" here is to curate. There's a social contract that you will use your SP to find good content and upvote it. It doesn't matter if he's getting flagged. He doesn't have a "right" to those rewards. He does, however, have a responsibility to curate good content.
Perhaps the better word is freedom. He is free to upvote himself; the platform allows it. But you nailed it, rights come with responsibilities. He is responsible for bringing negative feedback and downvotes on himself when he uses this platform to reward himself without regard for the others here.
i disagree. I dont have a job here, I dont have to curate, I do have a right to my stake and the derived profits.
The steem reward structure is flawed, "honest" behaviour is NOT a Nash equilibrium. Trying to fix that by invoking some kind of morality of voting will bring more problems than it solves. So either the whales will work together to propose a solution or the platform will die in a few years.
I totally think there are/will be possible solutions to modify such incentive-based economies to prevent people taking financial advantages while not contributing to the system..
I myself sometimes deeply think about similar policies and ideas to change the effects like downvoting, flagging and self-voting...or even having different accounts at once and intra-upvote eachone...they're not good for the health of the system..and if they're not controlled, they may cause unreliability of the network..
I didn't really understand your idea how you wanted to prevent haejin to do self-voting anyway..
If you read the article, you will see that he says he wants to vote for others.
yeah you're right... I skipped a line or two..
although I was more concerned about those who self vote intentionally for just taking profit from their steem power... its not related to what you said and I'm sorry to ask the wrong question..
Fabulous one!!!
Lyndsay owes nice post