You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Discontinuing my daily statistics posts
You should not stop because some are flagging you. There is no need to cap the reward. Users that rely on you to provide data will vote in any way they want. I've been flagged as well, but I am not going to cave in to some whales wishing to censor my posts. You have to continue doing the work that you want to do even if some will not support it. I would be curious to know why @ned downvoted it. Hmmmm.....
I think stellabelle is right here.
First, it is a sign of weakness, if @ned or @dantheman or whoever with power flags content just because it doesn't fit into their personal mind. this is nothing other then censorship. this is not what a decentralized blockchain should stand for, point.
If it continues to go this way, it will not have any future at all.
providing data and statistics has been a normal part of Steemit from day one. I could see why some of mine are flagged, but this? Providing data? I am very confused actually by this one.
I think that providing all data and statistics should be provided daily from steemit without need for users to upvote . We investing money and time to this platform and if there is enough steem for all kind of projects there should be some of it also for that.
maybe this also shows that the actual system has some weaknesses that are not yet correct balanced. but doing some manual interaction like flagging cannot be the right way to do it.
I feel like these series of downvotes from Ned deserved a comment at least as an explanation to MasterYoda. If we're going to suddenly start downvoting to try to force someone to change their behavior, it deserves at least an explanation.... Otherwise, how will we know exactly what someone is disapproving of and he we can personally improve? Just my 2 cents.
Agree with you. Whenever I flag anything, I always leave an explanation. I guess @ned does not subscribe to that philosophy.
The idea that in an autonomous, decentralized, and distributed network, there are a group of you who leave comments like the one above is troubling. While I get we are not all equal here, the fact that some act like gods, even if they are the creators does not exactly engender confidence in the future of this endeavor.
So, you feel an explanation makes this okay? Either this is a anarchical prototype for economies, or an oligarchy.
deleted
I said this action deserves an explanation, especially since it comes from the top. I did not say it is justified by an explanation.
Good, and I agree, it deserves an explanation, what it ought to get is an apology and immediate withdrawal of the downvote bot.
Agree with you and applaud you for not 'caving' even when others (including myself) have disagreed with you.
Glad to see an active whale exercising common sense. I am not sure why @ned flagged this poor guy's posts. I was under the impression flagging was reserved fire power to fight spam, not to censor legit posts in a centralized fashion. This goes against all the basic top attributes of decentralization, and it's worrisome to be honest that he seems to be out of alignment with the vision of the platform.
Using your limited and valuable vote power to flag because you believe the rewards are excessive is part of the design (white paper, etc.).
Earning less rewards is not really censorship though, it is just that people wanting to post and earn higher rewards need to find a way of presenting things that attracts wider support or at least indifference (including from people such as @ned).
The 'censorship' aspect that I personally find troublesome is the hiding of flagged content that can occur without any input from the reader about what they would like hidden. If someone wants to enable a filter that hides all posts that are flagged or all posts that have rewards of less than $100, all posts from people with rep below 50, etc. that is their prerogative, but I don't believe that the platform should take it upon itself to do this for all users.
In time I do think we will see multiple competing sites all working off the same blockchain so people will have the ability to choose a site with some preferred amount of filtering (or none). Understeem [Tor link] already exists with some filters removed.
I see it as censorship in that @masteryoda will no longer be posting stats because @ned did not like what hundreds of members of the community valued them at. I actually am ok with it if it were a non-founder whale doing the de-valuation (they earned that right as a private investor, it's nobody's business what they do generally speaking), but this user's posts are highly valued by many in the community, and have effectively been silenced by founder @ned because they are no longer a source of income making it feasible for them to take the time to produce these stats. A founder going against the grain on a particular user, wiping out hundreds of community votes seems a bit concerning to me.
The reports do reveal if the same people are rewarded and also if the payout amounts are decreasing. Maybe some whales don't want that information to be seen. But I'd point out that the reports also show when new names break through and start making the list.
Why woulnd't the same people be rewarded? What people are failing to see is that the only limit on cash rewards in this system is the price of steem, the actual coin. If it increases, each vote means more cash, a smaller chunk of investment in SP, but more spendable SBD.
If his payout is zero, he's going to stop. Plain and simple. I've been there - I thought I had a good thing going with my old game theory series, but then the whale votes mysteriously disappeared and now it's been months since I wrote one. We put work into this platform, and if the work isn't rewarded, we stop doing it.
Yes, phil. When i think about it, i imagine something like a scene out of an old-style prison chain gang. MY, sweat pouring off his brow, breaking rocks with a small pick axe to extract the stats. A mounted guard with a shotgun, barking at him every time he pauses or slows down in the completion of his arduous task.
I actually liked your game theory series (It was one of the first things i read on steemit and I and didnt even realize it was you until i read this comment) but that took work -- composition. And it added legitimate content that would interest people. These posts are posts on steemit, about steemit, of interest to no one besides insiders and they take money out of the available reward pool
I'm not sure whether these stat posts are done with an automated program or MY pulls them out manually, but one way or the other, these stats are easily ex tractable and formattable as a post in minutes with little work and no creativity required.
Especially considering the timing of their inception, these posts really seem like an excuse to throw money at a user who has a lot of friends with a lot of vests. IDK if thats the case, but thats what the appearance is.
IMO, posts like these being actively taken to task is a good thing.
The good thing about steemit is, you can be flagged, downvoted, or maybe in some cases being criticised in the comments section, say the 'Synereo AMP' episode few weeks ago. But end of the day, @stellabelle will still be able to post whatever she wants, so long as your reputation doesn't take a very strong hit, to the extent you will not be able to post anything here on Steemit. I remembered the time when reputation level was just introduced and some Steemians even received negative reputation. I'm not sure if this is still in place, but yea, that was quite a nightmare for guys who shares a different mindset from the 'general public'.
I may not agree with most of the post Steemians post here, but as of now I do not see much posts that deserves to be down-voted. As for @masteryoda case, its very simple that there're people feeling you're overpaid for the posts. But you have your set of fans, like myself. In the real world, Taylor Swift's concert tickets are too damn expensive as well to many people, but the concerts are sold out anyway. A similar case here, I feel that @masteryoda should continue the daily postings, and not be affected just because someone says that, 'your daily reports is just too expensive to read!'.
I'm more of a person who enjoys reading and listening, compared to myself talking or sharing, so if there needs to be a cap on what authors can earn on this case, then this situation will only be a precedent to what can happen in future to other quality posts that whales feel that is 'overpaid'. If the cap happens, or if @masteryoda stops posting after this episode, I guess its a step backwards for Steemit.
I agree! Eventually, they would grow bored of using their voting power to stifle this. It's nonsense to allow steemit terrorists to demand this type of change.
@stellbella
Why don't ask @ned for the flagging ?
Sorry, I disagree:
I get what @ned was getting at: it doesn't fit the format.