You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tron and Steemit Join Forces
Once the two teams are able to come to a consensus on the roadmap, that information will be shared with the community.
And what about the community coming to a consensus regarding those potential changes?
Only the top 20 witnesses need to reach consensus, the communities' input is via stakebased voting for witnesses.
And if high ranking witnesses are taking actions you disagree with, I advise you to remove your vote for them or campaign for yourself or other witnesses.
Adding you back. Thanks for the reminder.
"And if high ranking witnesses are taking actions you disagree with, I advise you to remove your vote for them or campaign for yourself or other witnesses."
Does that include using their steem power and high reputations to downvote all the posts from members they do not agree with for any reason, like the scumball witness @themarkymark does. That is censorship at its worst, to say the least. And some will even call it fraud.
Yes, I literally said if you do not agree with a witness then do not vote for them. That is entirely the point of voting.
If you don't want anyone to vote for a witness, campaign against them or something.
If you think using downvotes is fraud, you need to get off a social platform of any sort quickly. I can only imagine how you must feel when someone doesn't agree with you.
"If you think using downvotes is fraud, you need to get off a social platform of any sort quickly. I can only imagine how you must feel when someone doesn't agree with you."
First of all, there is a vast difference in having a post downvoted by someone because they did not like it for some reason, and having a vindictive hateful witness who out of sheer spite and hate, retaliates by going through and downvoting all of a members 100s of posts so as to completely destroy that person's reputation. These scumbag witnesses, i.e. @themarkymark and his band of criminals, have not only done this to me, but have done it to 1000s of members, which is why Steemit was sold, and will likely be shut down sooner than later.
Secondly, no other forum on the Internet offers rewards for posts/comments or curation, and then allows its management and witnesses to downvote all of a user's posts in order to completely destroy that person's reputation and get paid nothing for all their efforts, yet at the same time, pay out 100s of thousands of dollars to those witnesses. If you think that is fair, then I really feel sorry for you, and people like you. Have a nice day!
You should follow #informationwar as you may find some people who might upvote you.
I understand that, it's more of a worry regarding the fact that those witnesses and that entire structure itself is merely ignored with changes being implemented without asking the community to discuss and vote first.
I try to vote for witnesses that are engaged with community for that reason, so they at least hear feedback from actual people who use the Dapps and site. They don't have to agree, but being willing to hear it matters.
"witnesses and that entire structure itself is merely ignored with changes being implemented"
Witnesses should have no say whatsoever in what rules are implemented. When they do, they do so only for their own personal advantage, and not at all for the community at large. Is it fair that scumballs like @themarkymark can earn over $135,000 while downvoting and cheating lower-reputation members out of all their rewards so that their reputations are ruined and they get nothing at all? I think not! I call that fraud, but what else can you expect from such a lousy scumbag?
Star World, do you prefer a democracy or a republic? My question is in reference to what you wrote: "Witnesses should have no say whatsoever in what rules are implemented." My second question is, do you like free markets? It is true that Steem has problems. One of them might be relating to witnesses. Another issue is the downvoting which can be problematic. Now, all of this can be pretty complex. I encourage Steemit, I mean Tron, to mirror free markets and a republic type system as opposed to the potential of mob-ruling democracy, etc.
"Star World, do you prefer a democracy or a republic?"
A combination of both! While I am certainly pro-democracy, there are instances where there must be a certain degree of control over those who are abnormal in some way and lack the ability to reason the difference between right and wrong.
Would you want to allow a mad man to buy a gun without question, knowing that he planned to use it for no good? Would you want your kids to fall victim to your corner drug pusher, or to some pervert, or perhaps even worse? Would you like to fall victim to a major scam or have your bank account cleaned our with no recourse to get your money back? Would you like to drive your car on a road where insurance was not mandatory, and there were no laws to protect the innocent from the villains? If you are normal, you would not be in favor of any of those scenarios.
Indeed! Without such control, clearly society as a whole would decent into total chaos. Power is not something that you are given, but rather it is something that you take if given the opportunity to do so. When there is no one to stop a power hungry person, they will more than likely turn corrupt and try to destroy the rest of society. History is filled with such people.
Are you against the second amendment? Who do you want to help keep your family safe, federal government or you? I prefer local communities over the tyranny and authoritarianism of global government. Do you want government to grow and grow, bigger and bigger? History shows patterns of how people try to take more an more power. But they generally try to do so by pretending to help keep us safe.
"Are you against the second amendment?"
No, I am not totally against the second amendment! What I am against however is the fact that there have been no changes to it since its original drafting, to actually define the term "arms".
When the second amendment was first drafted, firearms were no more than single shot pistols and rifles which had to be reloaded after every shot. That fact alone would have made mass shootings as we see so widely today, totally impossible.
The second amendment should be changed. Otherwise one day (perhaps not far off), some mad man is going to come up with a micro-nuclear firearm, and claim that under the constitution, it is his "right" to carry it. Really? If you truly want your family and kids to be safe, you will do all you can to make sure that day never happens. Changing the constitution now would be a great first step.
In the 1700's, didn't people own canons?
"And what about the community coming to a consensus regarding those potential changes?"
Don't count on it. What management does will be done solely to benefit those at the top, not the rest of us. History has proven that fact rather well. They get rich, and the rest of us get virtually nothing.