Hm. Yeah. Why think about his criticism and reflect the issue at hand? Maybe he got a point? Nah, let me write a whole shitpost insulting him and acting like a victim. I'm sure that'll end well.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sort: Trending
Come on, this is such a biased comment. I absolutely considered and respected his point of view on manual curation, and openly acknowledged this. Of course there was a point.
However, he simply refused to acknowledge that there could be a positive use case for these same types of projects which actually benefit smaller users. Maybe you should advise him to look at the other side of things?
And I'm not "playing" the victim. he literally started this by using my account in a video for 15 minutes where he painted me in a bad light, then a week later started downvoting the FC Community accounts because he didn't like that I was defending the use of these delegation projects. As much as I dislike using this terminology, what you're doing is literally victim-blaming. He could have just left me alone, but he chose to fight.
Whoever it benefits, small or big, doesn't matter as long as it's a paid service using the common pool for its business model.
If you hadn't bought votes you wouldn't be in this situation. It's not acidyo's fault.
So delegating to a single centralized entity (which votes on whomever it wants, usually within its own community regardless) is better than delegating to another centralized entity which votes on a potentially slightly smaller pool of people? Honestly, we're talking about a small difference in the actual way the votes end up being distributed.
I understand the principle that you guys are talking about here. However, in both cases, you're delegating to a curator whom you trust will curate content properly, even if that includes your own. Sure, I can just not delegate and then upvote myself, but then this takes away the ability for me to use the same projects to help other newer users who also benefit from my delegation.
Anyway, differences in opinions on this will persist. I just don't think it was worth destroying the community account over this when it actually barely engages in this, as I pointed out in the post. Acidyo decided to downvote me and the community account, which was entirely unnecessary and frankly, vindictive.
So delegating to a single centralized entity (which votes on whomever it wants, usually within its own community regardless) is better than delegating to another centralized entity which votes on a potentially slightly smaller pool of people?
It depends. The smaller the pool of vote recipients, the worse. And if there's a tit-for-tat mentality involved it's the worst. Not sure how you don't understand that.
Overdramatizing the effect of his downvotes doesn't make you seem smarter either. He took some rewards you bought, that's it. Get over it.
It's not about my rewards, it's about the community and its rewards. He's effectively removing the ability to continue rewarding members of the community who create posts and engage. That's very counterproductive to what we want when building.
Oh well, so be it.
Nothing is destroyed, a week's worth of bought pending rewards gone, barely $20 in total, I'm sure your community will survive.
Sure, I can just not delegate and then upvote myself,
try that, see how it'll work out of you do it excessively cause in many ways that's all you've been doing lately just through delegating to other accounts