The text contains the same information, but is obviously a different text. Probably you should contact some spanish speaker before pasting this crap here just because some proper names and dates coincide.
The post sound as if the author had read the information, either on the webpage you call "source" or, more likely, in original source of the information i.e. the history books that the webpage mentions at the end, and then recall it when writing it here. More or less what any serious author would do.
Word on the street is that OP may be recycling a previously published work. If so, do you think that sort of thing adds unique value to the blockchain?
I don't think either of us want Steem devolving into a place where folks just recycle their previous works they had published previously. If I wanted to read work that was already published, we can just go to the library.
I mean folks can do whatever the hell they want I guess but, if it's recycled, there is a good chance someone else will think it doesn't really deserves to be rewarded highly over content that is novel or exclusive to the Steem blockchain.
If this is novel content, great! It shouldn't be flagged. People kiss and make n with our lives. Concur?
I heard this was being handled by email between @done and some self-voting, punk and they were working it out. Within half a day @done was set to meet with @hosgog to see the source of dates and documents he used. Then this new @abuseteam guy prematurely spewed all over himself with a power trip and called @Steemcleaners into action.
@done said it was a blackmail tactic and has an email from said newbie guy, saying, "people you support can do what they want as long as you support my blog and witness." I won't name the runt but I trust @done and his actions afterwards. His answer to this guy was was "No."
I dislike self-voting as well but @done (aka @htooms) also self-votes with his numerous alts. I haven't really figured out the core of this dispute just yet but, if you see my comment above, that is what I hope we can flesh out.
Did the guy reword his previously published work for rewards? If we allow that sort of thing to be rewarded highly, we're just going to get every author that has written a book to just reword it and post to extract relatively easy shares of the reward pool?
It takes more effort to actually come up with some new shit and think that's what we should be oriented to rewarding. Is that what the author actually did or not???
Bullshit.
The text contains the same information, but is obviously a different text. Probably you should contact some spanish speaker before pasting this crap here just because some proper names and dates coincide.
The post sound as if the author had read the information, either on the webpage you call "source" or, more likely, in original source of the information i.e. the history books that the webpage mentions at the end, and then recall it when writing it here. More or less what any serious author would do.
Word on the street is that OP may be recycling a previously published work. If so, do you think that sort of thing adds unique value to the blockchain?
I don't think either of us want Steem devolving into a place where folks just recycle their previous works they had published previously. If I wanted to read work that was already published, we can just go to the library.
I mean folks can do whatever the hell they want I guess but, if it's recycled, there is a good chance someone else will think it doesn't really deserves to be rewarded highly over content that is novel or exclusive to the Steem blockchain.
If this is novel content, great! It shouldn't be flagged. People kiss and make n with our lives. Concur?
Yeah, sure. He should change hystorical and geographical facts in order to make them "novel"...
I heard this was being handled by email between @done and some self-voting, punk and they were working it out. Within half a day @done was set to meet with @hosgog to see the source of dates and documents he used. Then this new @abuseteam guy prematurely spewed all over himself with a power trip and called @Steemcleaners into action.
@done said it was a blackmail tactic and has an email from said newbie guy, saying, "people you support can do what they want as long as you support my blog and witness." I won't name the runt but I trust @done and his actions afterwards. His answer to this guy was was "No."
I dislike self-voting as well but @done (aka @htooms) also self-votes with his numerous alts. I haven't really figured out the core of this dispute just yet but, if you see my comment above, that is what I hope we can flesh out.
Did the guy reword his previously published work for rewards? If we allow that sort of thing to be rewarded highly, we're just going to get every author that has written a book to just reword it and post to extract relatively easy shares of the reward pool?
It takes more effort to actually come up with some new shit and think that's what we should be oriented to rewarding. Is that what the author actually did or not???