Is There A Whale War Going on In Steemit?
As I was checking my replies on my latest post about Dan and Satoshi, I noticed that Dan's comment was greyed out. When I checked the flags, there were 11 of them. Then I checked Dan's comment page and noticed that his comments are all being flagged by the same accounts and are also greyed out:
I don't know what's going on, whatever is, there has to be a way to resolve such things. Dan's comments are clearly not abusive or spammy in any way, so they don't deserve the flagging.
The presence of unresolved issues is obviously creating discord, and there has to be a different way for us to resolve them. Do we have any professional conflict resolution specialists in here?
I think Steemit needs a conflict resolution specialist now.
Real communities have them. When I visited an ecovillage, there was a sign underneath the phones that read:
Call Timothy if you're having a dispute you cannot resolve on your own.
Disputes are common in smaller communities. I think it's time we paid attention to getting disputes resolved. This could save a lot of conflicts moving forward.
Any volunteers?
I'm noticing a big vulnerability in the design of Steemit: whale wars and no way to resolve conflicts. Is there really no way to work out differences so far in Steemit? I think we are better than this, but clearly, I don't know what the crux of the problem is, so I have no way of judging this situation. But I'm noticing it, and it doesn't look promising right now.
Speaking of flags, I will continue to flag one individual who has done enough harm to people for 5 lifetimes and who has basically abandoned the Steemit community.
I say we all get out our frustrations, then make up, sing kumbaya and watch this video that no one will ever be able to un-see:
Wow. I just read through all the comments. I don't know who is right or wrong. But what is certain, is this will create fear. Fear in those who are interested in posting and those who want to continue to participate. Drama is caustic.
We all want Steem/Steemit to succeed. That is the common thread. Creation of fear is in opposition to our collective goal. Time to put our big-boy/girl pants on and compromise a bit. Perhaps a little bit less downvoting and more upvoting, not downvoting out of emotion, but rather for content. Worrying less about policing how much someone makes, and instead promoting those who contribute the best. Just my 2 cents.
A quick note: @dan downvoted on ozchartarts post to reduce reward, while @berniesanders downvoted dans comment seemingly to revenge because dans comments had no meaningful rewards when bernie did.
Two things are totally different.
@stellabelle what happened is that @dan started downvoting a bunch of content that was neither, trolling, abusive, spam nor a violation of copyright and managed to start a flagging war.
It'll sort itself out. The investors who disagree with this approach will power down and move their coin elsewhere, meanwhile new investors will see this sort of thing and stay away. The price will crash further, but a handful of people will have a nice empty room to shout into and no one interested in buying their coin.
Meanwhile this BS has cost me 3 restaurants and 2 hotels that were interested in accepting steem and blogging on steemit. So yeah guys keep this up, let's see where it gets us.
I'm pretty sure that voting habits on Steemit.com aren't why hotels and restaurants aren't accepting STEEM. And if that is the reason, then you're not pitching the concept to them properly. STEEM is not Steemit.com. The blogging interface should have little to no bearing on the acceptance/use of the currency. Also - you should probably be selling them on SBDs, not STEEM.
Haha, had no idea it was Black Friday today. Do you really believe that a bunch of downvotes will be the beginning of the end? I definitely don´t do that :-)
It's naive to think that the constant content wars are not having a negative effect.
This has been going on since day one and is one of the main reasons that the early adopters, many of them, have left or are now just watching from the sidelines.
We can't ask all of them. But I bet that a lot of early adopters left due to the heavy prize drop... I joined in July and haven't ever felt being part of a war. That's surely my personal point of view.
You have to look at it from the perspective of someone interested in joining.
The specific content being censored is price information. It's literally censored, you have to click through it like it was adult content or something.
First question I had to answer today when I woke up was "What's the deal, what are you guys hiding?"
I dont think that new investors would really read content and struggle on hidden posts. They much more focus on numbers.
We are still in beta. I have always seen that as a testing area. Don't you?
The first question that I had to answer today when I woke up was "Where is my coffee?!" ;-))
oh so the ozchart post was greyed out earlier? I didn't see that. It was already visible by the time i saw it.
i dont get why he was flagged? first master yoda and now him? why is their content acceptable one day and then not the next?
were you also on the phone to your millionaire friends?
Well I just brought on La Fonda restaurant and hotel in Baja, so no, not a phone call.
do you accept steem at your hotel? and if not, it it because of how bernie sanders votes on dan's comments?
I really don't know what to think anymore to be honest. Conflicts like this if left unresolved become toxic and obviously, i think that we are witnessing a toxic situation. The constant warring is just getting too ridiculous. I was thinking of teaching a class of high school students to come onto Steemit, but until we have some really good ways of dealing with this kind of conflict, I am hesitant. I see that I'm not alone in this feeling of hesitancy. I think by continuing to avoid the central conflict, we will be disadvantaged. There are a lot of smart people in here. Are we too stubborn to find a solution to this? Surely, there is a way.....
Flagging for disagreement on rewards is considered a valid reason to flag/downvote. I think a large part of the problem is the perception of getting flagged is that someone did something wrong, and that a lot of times it is taken personally (even though in reality, getting flagged does not necessarily mean that the person did something wrong).
It seems that many in community are moving more towards subjective flagging - which is allowed, but may take some time for the community to adjust to.
the weird thing about OzChart is that I can see both sides. I understand why Dan flagged it (although using 2 accounts seems extreme) but I understand why it was viewed in such a negative way also. What's clear in all of this: scaring away users is not the answer. (case in point, Masteryoda). What is the solution, when everyone has a completely different opinion about the reward allocation? Development of groups? I think if we were all engaged in our different groups, we perhaps would not be so focused on the main page?
Seriously? He got probably over a hundred grand all told for posts which required zero work. If thats not good enough for him, the platform is way better off without him.
he used two accounts because bernie called in backup (steemd/itsascam/the badger army)
Rewards should be capped and the ability for flags to effect rewards on posts that are not in violation of agreed normas (ie plagiarism etc) should be eliminated.
I'd be willing to act as a dispute mediator if others were willing to have me serve in that capacity.
Better to fix the structural issue that is CAUSING the problem than to add yet another layer of complexity to deal with the results.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@onceuponatime/flagging-etiquette-and-practice
The structural issue is the lack of a mediation system.
I beg to differ: I think the problem is the implementation of the flagging system itself. In my opinion solutions should avoid adding additional layers of complexity if at all possible.
There is a need for flagging though. It does filter out spam and plagiarism quite effectively. I think it remains a useful tool.
I agree. I just needs to be re-worked to limit its effect to the issues you've stated above.
good. Now I guess we would need to agree as a community that we need it. What would be a good way for it to work since we don't have private messaging in here? can a 3-way chat in skype work for this?
What about a channel in Discord for public outcries and DM on Discord from mediator to mediatees?
well, can it do voice? i think texting is a problem for real solutions.
It can absolutely do voice. Discord made for gamer chat so voice works well over there.
then that sounds like a good idea. the big question remains: do the two people who are warring want a resolution? If they don't, then nothing will change.
sounds like a plan to me.
Yes, you can do voice on Discord
a new post for every dispute. I think that would put our transparency and trust in the blockchain in full view of other social media users
some issues are too personal in nature. there needs to be a private way to mediate.
once the first party starts using flags to resolve a personal issue, that becomes a public issue.
especially for a whale...if they're going to throw that weight around, they need to be accountable for it.
a very long time ago, when I was a corporal, and I had two guys lock horns, I would make them go fight...most of the time that got them to shake hands and work it out. but sometimes they would go ahead and punch each other a little.. When that happened I couldn't chase the lookyloos away fast enough.
if these folks dont want to air their dirty laundry, they need to avoid slapping each other in the face with it on the platform in the first place
good points. how would someone orchestrate a virtual fight? It's like we need a separate place for aggression.....ha ha but that might open up a pandora's box.
I'd be the first in the ring....
We should settle disputes like gentlemen - in a Blacklight: Retribution deathmatch!
How public should such mediation be? Perhaps an outside forum is in order, like through invisionfree. There are some things Steemit just isn't suitable for yet. In a forum environment, we could even establish juries of verified Steemians acceptable to both parties instead of a single arbitrator.
edit Discord, as suggested by others, is certainly a good option too.
I have the domain SteemitForum.com . Let me know if you want to put it to use.
I know nothing about designing a forum. I have been a long-time admin on an InvisionFree forum for a NationStates.net region, and that is the extent of my experience. Perhaps your URL could forward to such a site?
Yes, it could. I'm just here to help for sure!
yeah, that's a good idea. the mediation should be totally private between the parties and the mediator.
In that case, I know forums can be set up with private threads and subforums limited to specific groups or members. I don't know enough about Discord to offer any useful info there.
I think this type of outward facing discord amongst adults is terribly distasteful. If there is serious issue it should be taken up in chat instead of being put out for the world to see. When newbies are coming onboard the last thing they want to see is a platform exploding from the top down...No one will stick around for that.
I also do that believe flags should be thrown around just because there is disagreement. In my opinion, they should be used only when harm is being done. Otherwise we end up with a community that uses the flags as revenge, or a way to eliminate whales reputations and it's going to be abused. What if I flag you just because I'm jealous that you got more votes than me on content. If the flagging accounts are abusing the flag then they need to be handled. If it's a serious disagreement then it should be handled privately or in a chat environment so that everyone understand the resolution.
me, too.
But I do see a need for the flags. In the case of the person I continue to flag, it is because I do not agree with monetarily rewarding someone who is a con artist. There has to be some mechanism for reducing rewards that is separate from flagging for abuse.
I think there is a need for a separate downvote option. Give a post a frowny-face with no reward penalty to show disapproval without being punitive or abusive.
I'm ready for that.
Oh I completely agree that there is a need for flags. I think that there should be further tools that can be implemented as a community when it comes to con artists, scammers, and the like. Maybe a community board of shame where the community can come together and vote against accounts that have been proven to be scamming the system and eliminate them altogether. I don't know, but I do think we need options to deal with those particular issues as well.
cheetah and the steemcleaners do a great job actually. I think they are handling the spam, plagiarists...
what I am talking about is someone who is a real con artist in the real world...
I saw cheetah upvote a post that was a complete copy of another website earlier...perhaps it was ok because the poster did share the website as well but it definitely was not original content. I guess there aren't really any rules against sharing content from other places so long as it's stated.
A real con artist...well that would definitely be grounds for flagging.
The flagging accounts are whale-owned accounts. There is so far no method in place for dealing with abusive whales.
That's one problem, right? There should be a tool as well to protect people from abusive flags...for minnows and whales alike.
there's nothing to protect one from a whale.
Well, that kind of eliminates the idea of being decentralized then, doesn't it?
yes
I think Dan wouldn´t be the boss if he didn´t know how to deal with that ;-) I furthermore don´t believe that the whales who flagged did it without any reason, independently if they were right or wrong. But we cannot be their judges here without having any background information.
War is a big word. Flags can be used to express simple disagreement (on rewards). I don´t really understand the hype. We have agreed on a world where power is distributed amoung ALL of its participants. As in any other world, power can be abused. That´s a simple rule of life.
EDIT: But we don´t even know what the conflict is about. I wouldn´t want somebody to solve 'my' conflicts without my explicit agreement. EDIT END
If you planned to install mediators (independend authorities), you´d deny the idea of self-governance which is the basis of our ideology.
Exactly, I think if there is something going on it should be handled by the parties involved and if it's a broader issue then the community should have tools to handle it as a community.
I see no "Whale War" here, what I see is some misbehaving little brats that cry for attention, everyone ignores them, I suggest you do the same.
35% up.
I don't see any problem :)
Its about a sock puppet proxy war. there's basically 3 groups of whales the steemit.com whales like dan, ned val and michael, who are running a group of sock puppets to funnel the rewards pool into the "outreach program"
The second group is nextgencrypto and the accounts associated with him, running a huge amount of sock puppets. IDK if theyre all just him or if theyre just like a coalition. But its way way more than you think (including your old friend mibenkito)... if you know how to look, its pretty easy to find them. They weren't being especially
In the middle you have relatively neutral bigguns like smooth, blocktrades, abit etc who lean towards one group or the other, but could probably be swayed.
I suspect that there's very little money going to individuals not associated with (and almost certainly kicking back most of their money to) the first two groups.
I think they all need a time out and sometime on the naughty step. Play nice now or Ill take your toys away lol