You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit – We Need To Talk
So in the name of "surprise payouts" this guy is unwilling to comply with the 3.5 day rule? Seems fishy.
So in the name of "surprise payouts" this guy is unwilling to comply with the 3.5 day rule? Seems fishy.
ETA: Last minute upvotes (from everyone, not just bots) from the last 3 days total 298.33. Comment self-votes from grumpy during the same period total more than 1106.86. In the next 7 days, he's scheduled to make 3,697.65 SBD mainly from self-voted comments.
In all actuality, michaeldavid probably has more of a problem with the rule itself as it is being enforced without any discussion or input from him or anyone else for that matter. Why 3.5? Why not 3.6? Why not 3.25? Why not one? If this "rule" comes from the top of some unknown's head, what's to stop him from suddenly changing his mind? He is not bound to the people he proclaims to govern. Lastly, his solution will do very little by itself to stop the behavior he hopes to eliminate. He has not communicated or committed to any follow on actions on his part. he has not said "If you cut the votes to 3.5 days that will give me enough time to go through and downvote all of the spam." or anything like that to my knowledge. He has resisted efforts to work together with the bots for a solution. That's probably why sneaky won't simply cave to these demands.
He has said that by cutting the votes to 3.5 days that it will give curators enough time to go through and downvote all of the spam. He has said it.
It's not that 3.6 or 3.4 days or 1 day or 1 hour or 1 second. It's that curators would like more than 12 hours to stop plagiarists. It absolutely will make a difference!
A post does not need to be upvoted via a bid-bot on the sixth day. I know some honest people do it to give their voters better curation, as well as surprising unknown quality authors with a last-minute payout.
I watch plagiarists do this all the time. Having 12 hours to get the word out is not enough time. By the time any waves are made, the abuser has already been paid.
From the second a post is made, the community has 7 days to determine if it's original and not overpaid. When someone sneaks in and upvotes last minute on an obviously stolen picture or video, it gives less than 12 hours for a post that was buried and nobody paid it any attention. The plagiarist is not happy with his false efforts, so he pays for an upvote and benefits from the rewards paying out 12 hours later.
They would be less likely to use upvote bots, and more likely to find a different way to exploit so as to not get caught, but at least the bidbots would be cleaned up a bit.
Where is the discussion from the curators in which the 3.5 line was determined? Shouldn't the bot owners also have a say in that discussion? Also, why limit such a target to bots? Don't regular users like sweetsjj or whatever her name is do the same thing? What about solutions the bots have already implemented such as a 5 day limit? Is 12 hours enough time to get word to the bot owners themselves? I would think so. Has grumpy enlisted their help before trying to bully them into submission?
I am a curator and did discuss it with myself.
Self-curator discussing things with yourself?
My point exactly. You haven't proven yourself to be a rational decision maker in a vacuum. You need help. Just ask any of your victims.
His idea to stop the abuse is rational. His decision to take matters into his own hands, when nobody is doing anything about it is also rational.
Or are you saying that doing nothing is rational?
Once again. sticks head in sand
It is irrational to damage others in order to damage an entity you haven't tried to engage with to come up with a solution to your perceived problem.
I think those who believe nobody is doing anything about it are the ones with their heads in the sand.
Okay, so seems you know who is doing something about it.
So who is it?
Who's spending every waking hour monitoring the abusers so that they can flag their abuse 12 hours before payout?
And since you say that there are people working on it, does that mean nobody else can?
He did try to engage. He came up with a solution. It's called taking initiative. A lot of people agreed with his rule. If they didn't, there would be zero bots complying with his new guideline.
People were doing stuff about it. I do believe that. They weren't doing enough though.
If I am flagging abuse as a minnow, and my 0.07 SBD upvote at 100% charge is most certainly not enough, then the abuse is being mostly ignored like a social experiment.
And rightfully so! We have stuff coming up in the future that will really help eliminate abuse.
If you were paying attention you would realize that plenty of people are in fact doing a lot about it. Those of us that are have even offered countless times for him too join us in the fight against bot abuse. Proof? Read sneaky ninjas last post.
Two things about the time limit...
First, there are simply not enough people curating good or bad posts for it to make a difference.
Second, as grumpy has hypocritically pointed out, it shouldn't be the communities job. It's the responsibility of the bot owners themselves.
Why make you guys spend countless hours combing our lists when we could simply keep an active and shared blacklist? Thus preventing the community from wasting so much time on something that is our job to clean up.
Had grumpy or anyone else bothered to talk to us, they would have found out that before he started his rampage, we had collectively started working on just that.
If you care to know that is finally very close to becoming reality. I've just picked up a list of over 25k abusive accounts from steemcleaners, added it to my blacklist and passed it to any bot owners willing to use it.
The issue here is that all our hard work goes un noticed unless we post about it. Grumpy crusade actually slowed that down because now the community is in an uproar and I'm now having to defend myself instead of work on the issue.
If you took the time to look you would notice that this point is already nearly mute because our lists of bidders has been cleaned up significantly. This is due to all the work that myself and other owners have been doing behind the scenes that we have not had time, or felt the need to post about.
By not feeling the need to post and/or talk about the abuse, it appeared as though no one cared. I've also been given reason to believe that people that can truly help stop the abuse are not because of future updates that we might get.
You're right, why make us spend countless hours combing through bidders. I've done it. It's tedious. I'd rather do anything else.
I never agreed with his approach. I've asked him to stop the flags and talk about it too. I'm glad you guys are doing something about it.
I still think that the 3.5 day limit is not too much to ask for, but this is just my opinion. I highly doubt it matters, but it is what it is.
I've been watching themarkymark make some pretty extensive digging into blacklisting abusive users. It's not like I haven't been paying attention. I have.
I can see bidbots getting cleaned up a bit. I don't see the abuse or the arguing going away.
I also don't see grumpycat stopping his unjust flags either, so it seems like a lose/lose.
Although I can see the humour in the comment, do you think its worth 76 bucks?!
Did you know it takes 4000 100% self-upvotes to get your investment back instead of power down? Do you think @grumpycat should've invested the over 300k in SP into something else, a voting bot for example, to get more return from the scammers? Do your math, and stop complaining about self-upvoting.
I have a friend who is fed Friskies, I have tried to get her to switch to something better like Ziwi Peak but insists Friskies is the best.
Any suggestions on getting her to switch?
Well it's been an on-going debate/discussion for at least 2 months now. He obviously didn't give a sufficient warning as even to this day not everyone has heard of this new unofficial rule. Let's just call it a guideline with more potential as opposed to a rule. People around here seem to hate rules of any kind.
If I really spent the time I could find countless articles (as well as upvotes, indicating "hey, I agree with this" where people are saying what grumpycat is doing is both good and bad. Even I have said it. Yup, the bully approach sucks. I don't agree with it.
Seems any approach is frowned upon though....
When people are nice about it, the abuser typically laughs while he runs off with his unearned rewards.
When people are mean, wow he's so mean. How dare he act like this.
Sticks head back in sand
So if we as a community (or you) (or the bot owners) (we can exclude me if you want) can't come up with some kind of agreement, then this platform is screwed.
Don't change anything to 3.5 day. Everybody ignore the millionaire cat.
Just ignore the reasons, ignore the abuse. Ignore everything.
Just let him flag and maybe he'll go away after a year or two.
Here’s the thing, though — @grumpycat flat out refuses to work with anyone else to collectively address these issues and find viable solutions.
The abuse is most certainly not being ignored. As far as I’ve seen, no one disagrees that the problem he’s combating is significant — most everyone takes issue with how he’s doing it, particularly his insistence on self-voting.
If the ultimate success of this platform is truly a motivating factor, then why so stubbornly insist on doing it alone? Why refuse to even consider combining forces? When has that ever worked, historically?
I said something nearly identical to your above words just yesterday, in a comment to @berniesanders : if we can’t figure out how to unify around our shared goals, than I fear Steemit’s days are numbered.
Good point! Thanks for your response, I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees that we need to be more unified. Great minds think alike!
I was being sarcastic when I said ignore the abuse or that it is being completely ignored.
We all have an issue with how he's doing it. I can also say I had an issue with how it was being handled before @grumpycat started his...campaign.
It's a lot of bickering back and forth. If we want steemit to be taken seriously, we need to get serious.
I wasn't fully aware that he was unwilling to work with anyone.
Work with us who are at least willing to work with you, @grumpycat.
I should clarify — he’s (or possibly she) unwilling to work with anyone who doesn’t blindly agree with his approach. As well, if you read my other comments on this thread — we’re inviting him to join a live panel discussion — a healthy debate — so that these things can be openly addressed. Everyone else is ready and willing... @grumpycat flat out refuses. I also invited @berniesanders, whose response was simply ’meh.’
So — we’ve got at least a couple powerful whales championing their causes alone, complaining that no one else is willing to properly address their chosen battles, yet patently refusing to discuss the issues openly, in any kind of productive manner.
Instead, we have all these disjointed, peripheral threads of petty flag wars and mudslinging — like we’re in fucking high school.
To the less seasoned Steemians among us, it just looks like a buncha insecure teenagers, all vying for king of the mountain, shoving everyone else aside as they jostle their way to the top.
Why even read this.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There is quite a lot to read when it comes to this topic so I've been bouncing all over the place as it all unfold.
I wasn't fully aware of the invitations to the live panel discussion until late last night/early this morning.
I've mentioned the comparison to high school drama in the past.
It doesn't surprise me that those hiding behind popular names are reluctant to be a part of any healthy debate.
It's either their way, or the highway it seems, and it is indeed childish.
All parties have what I consider valid arguments, and those that are actually willing to talk it out are waiting on what appears to be the "bullies" taking the "bully" approach.
At one point or another, someone's going to have to budge. At one point or another, we'll have to meet half-way. What is the half-way point?
Well now that you've brought it to my attention, I guess the live discussion is as about half-way as it's going to get.
It kind of makes me feel like I have foot-in-mouth but alas, what's been said has been said. I still think that the idea of a 3.5 day bot limit is justifiable, and it can help. And of course, the approach being taken sucks.
It's unjustified. I feel that it's theft.
It would be so much more effective to flag plagiarists than innocent bidbot users.
It doesn't surprise me that neither of those two want to join the discussion. It doesn't make the situation any better though.