RE: Blurt is just weird
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
"If you don't value your own posts by selfvoting then why should others?" is such a dumb statement it hurts, an even bigger brainwash than the one he insinuates happened against self voting.
Sure curation isn't perfect but I believe it's way better on Hive right now than it has ever been. Not voting your own posts just means you're spending your voting power appreciating other people's work, thus using your influence to get them to come to your posts as well. Of course I don't appreciate direct or preplanned quid pro quo vote trading but there is no issues with authors voting on others that vote on their posts now and then as long as it doesn't become a constant thing. I know this isn't easy and autovotes make it difficult but that's why we have downvotes and when used well and properly most people agree with their use. For instance if someone has been getting constant autovotes but their content has become farmy/low effort and the autovoters may be afk/not aware of it there's nothing wrong with some reward adjustment there. Most of the time the authors will agree and I've seen the general sentiment of downvotes becoming better and more accepted here as long as they are used properly and carefully it is slowly becoming normalized.
Their solutions to these problems just sound dumb and sound way more like censorship than well used downvotes could ever be.
I agree with you. A negative evaluation, if used well, can be a useful tool. As for automatic voting, it can be seen as an investment in a content creator, it's like saying "good you're doing a good job, better and better". My personal opinion is that the quality of what is proposed must always be good, the community must be enriched with interesting content.
I've been saying we need to normalise downvotes so people don't get so worked up when they get one. I never take my rewards for granted.
a dumb statement, I agree. the measure of how much I value my posts and content, for example, is how meticulously and time consuming I am writing them... but that's the other end of a stick.
I had a similar feeling reading this statement. It is funny and annoying at the same time.
If a downvote comes with an explanation, people are likely to understand it and improve. It is helpful for the ecosystem as whole. An even distribution of reward would bring more people in the system.
I have seen several people following trail and it has been long since they are active on hive. As long as they are getting the curation reward, they don't care whom the reward goes to. At least, the downvotes would alarm them to find out really deserving content writers.
That's true. On hive it has been the personal choice of people to click the downvote or an upvote button. In the coal system it is like aristocracy. If they decide to mute someone no one else can support it.
It's one thing to put a lot of time into a post and if you feel no one voted it or appreciated it to then upvote, nothing wrong with that. Some could even selfvote after 24h to give their curators and supporters some extra ROI on their votes as a thanks. Just saying what he said about selfvotes only gives abusers, votetraders and maximizers a reason to shitpost and be against downvotes turning this place into a proof of stake shitchain like steem has become where there is close to no genuine curation happening and literal shit posts by the same people on trending daily farming it to the ground.
Because the ecosystem allows to self vote, I can't argue about its being right or wrong. However, personally I don't feel it an act of high morality.
That's another important point. If self post is allowed backed by self- love and self- value, the spammers would have equal right to upvote themselves.
@themarkymark: Payout declined... No downvote here for you mate! 🖕
I like how he implies that he himself was brainwashed, since he occasionally self votes.