RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal (My Response)
I don't think it tinfoil hat worthy to question the agenda of powerful people in any ecosystem's motives, considering the world we live in has shown us that 99 times out of a hundred those motives amount to acquiring more power. But with that said, I very much agree with your point on hiding the payout. It does impact transparency and may cause problems for mid-level content.
What are your thoughts on the second suggestion? - to create a part of the site where one can vote on a random stream of content within selected tags and earn double curation rewards? I think this would incentivise fair voting and give new users a chance to have their content discovered easily. Understanding though that trending/hot/new tabs would remain, and content could be discovered that way too, just for lower curation rewards.
Also, why are you being flagged? Have you pissed someone else off?
Lol yes, I just saw who this seemingly nobody is that wasted 80+% of their voting mana, it's @ackza, a complete douchebag that tried to say shit about Elie Powell saying that she has no stake and does less than any rando on here, under the 3 month retrospective post by steemitblog. He seems mad at the truth, that it's not her job at all to hold stake or pander to the community. Dillweeds like that are hilarious, they latch onto anyone that they think will mildly approve their unadulterated hatred for steemit and try to incite them to hate as well. Fucktards that I especially enjoyed calling em out on their ridiculous asshatery, good on him for thinking I am worth all that voting power and the perfect encouragement for me to keep going. Flagging to me, is like Prison is to Bronson.
As for your suggestion on a new section that would roulette content for users to choose from it's would be a good idea, especially with tags, but it could also work with filters, so that for example you use search engine notations with -actifit to avoid certain content. Right now though, there's not that much activity that one can easily scroll down the new tab and discover all kinds of stuff, but certainly in the future there probably will be a need for better content categories.
I'm not saying don't question the motives, just that it's not only speculation, and even if you get the answer from the horse's mouth, that's not much but their story. If the intent is malice and you have reason to suspect so you need to gather all the evidence and present it to them or the community, because simply questioning or being skeptical of people's motivation or intentions isn't doing anything but casting doubt and uncertainty and it's borderline slanderous.
Posted using Partiko Android
We disagree massively on that. Perhaps if I said, "these cunts are definitely up to some shady shit" that would amount to slander. But, being skeptical, and encouraging others to be skeptical, of a party that has historically made changes that have hurt this community, especially when I have made it abundantly clear within my language that I do not know for sure, is far from slander - I'd consider it closer to common sense. I am certainly optimistic that everything is above aboard, but I have to consider otherwise, especially when I have been expecting since the bidbots started to monopolise the network, for there to be a future, further power grab of sorts.
I'm not one to devalue inquisitiveness yet there is a line between valid questioning and pointless questioning, just as there is a line between slander and borderline slander. I can't think of any questions that are pointed to one's motivation or intent that don't also fall squarely in pointless questions, maybe I need to ruminate on it some more. It's exactly like asking a bankrober "why did you do it" or "don't you know it's wrong", or "are they trying to pull a fast one on us".. Even if you hear it from the horses mouth, not that such insinuating question deserves an answer, it never does, but even if it's answered it all amounts to their story, you couldn't know it's true until later, after the fact if their actions contradicts their answers, and asking "are they trying to grab more power" is purely speculation, it's not productive or insightful what so ever. I didn't say it was slanderous, but borderline slanderous, because there's absolutely no reason to answer such a question and it serves then, as it's purely speculation, to cast doubt or shade on their intentions. Equally, you can ask them "did you know that such and such changes would be this catastrophic" and they can say that it was a possibility, or that they did not forsee it, though you can't blame them for taking risks or for not being able to forsee it. Now, is it slander to ask about their intentions? It depends on the point of the question, the premise, which could be an innocent mistake or ignorance/naiveté or much more insidious. I'll say this about your last remarks,calling it "a power grab of sorts", that speaks enough to say that you don't think much of them, and if you were in their shoes I'm almost positive someone calling your remark slanderous (not borderline even) would be meet with approval from your part.
The changes, such as linear, and delegations, were demanded by the community at large, these changes were almost necessary as well, so we can have the invaluable experience that they brought and not have any excuse to repeat them.
Posted using Partiko Android