I really approve of these posts. I almost feel I could use your posts on KURE to teach myself programming LOL. They're that well made.

I don't know if you still seek any comment from me on desirable features of KURE, but a couple things I think would be very beneficial have come to mind over these last few days, and I'll mention them here. Please note I have no idea whether they're realistic or not, or reflect your own interests, but put them out here for your consideration without expectation of any kind.

First, Steemit nodes are being used in conjuction with the irredeemable list on github (or unredeemable, don't recall atm) to censor the accounts on that list in front ends using Steemit nodes. I have no useful grasp of nodes, other than to hope that MIRA soon increases the nodes available from other parties, but am very alarmed at this censorship mechanism being adopted. There's an objectively good reason that is justifying this censorship, but I think we all know about slippery slopes, and once a good mechanism becomes available, bad actors find ways to use it for bad purposes.

I think Steemit should make that power available to individuals, rather than make choices for them. If those accounts produce intolerable spam, users should be the point of censorship of their own feeds, not Steemit. Accordingly I officially request such feature in KURE to the degree it's possible to avoid the spamming of the front end thereby. Perhaps merely listing such accounts as are censored and enabling people to uncensor them (like clicking greyed out posts), and restore that censorship after being horrified by the spam flood would suffice. I hope you can evaluate the mechanism being used by Steemit to centralize the censorship and find a way to decentralize that mechanism with nominal effect. Since I don't know much about nodes, programming, or the particular mechanism at play and the specific needs that must be met, I can't make any judgment about whether you can make that happen.

I'll be gratified if you give it honest consideration, and that's all I ask. If you can succeed in this, you'll provide an example that Steemit can follow, and since censorship is what I am here to avoid, it's a pretty critical matter to me.

Another request is regarding reputation. The fact is that reputation is completely subjective in the real world. Your reputation isn't the number next to your avatar to me, but my subjective assessment of your posts, comments, and actions based on my personal values. The number next to your avatar isn't really reputation at all, but reflects how long and how rewarded you have been for posting here, and how hard flaggots have opposed you (as I sadly see is ongoing. Sorry bro!). That doesn't have as much meaning to me, and isn't your actual reputation.

Resteeming is based on actual reputation IMHO, as I hold you in high regard, and am pretty likely to have a look at anything you resteem as a result. That's how reputation actually works. I wonder if you might be able to construct a mechanism that each KURE user can use to make reputation useful by enabling them to rank and assign metrics meaningful to them. This would make each reputation score unique to the user, and restore utility to reputation as a means for folks to assess those unknown to them by the reputation they have in the eyes of folks whose assessment they find relevant.

I am willing to discuss this in more detail, and suspect it might be less complex and more doable than it might seem at first blush. Reputation is actually fairly important in real society, and I think that makes it potentially useful on social media, if it can be done right. Doing these things right can strongly recommend KURE to the potential market, and add useful depth to Steem as a social force for good.

Thanks for all your hard work. It's quite inspirational to me, and particularly that you continue to post important pieces besides these on KURE development. To quote Bladerunner "You've done a Yoeman's job." (probably misquoting lol)

Thanks!