RE: Is Hive Watcher's doing a good job?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
You aren't flagged anything like @por500bolos is, because the flags flown on his content are a substantial percentage of his stake
I beg to differ. I’ve been hit with $400 flags and all my posts and my curation was flagged for over a year. I couldn’t even vote how I chose without those users getting downvoted to zero as a result.
I don't blame you for being financially prudent, but I don't think you're being prudent allowing people to be flagged off the platform
I am not the police of this platform, that falls to Hive Watchers as they are the ones being paid for it. If you haven’t noticed I stopped selectively voting well over a year ago and only vote burn posts now. For a better part of a year I was forced to limit my votes to the stabilizer posts. There are 1.6 million other accounts you can also hold accountable for this none of which I assume are performing to your expectations. It’s been clear to me for a while I have little to no say regardless of how much HP I have.
It would probably be more accurate to say that "policing" is something you - or others - say you don't want to do. But that's how the witnesses are understood. As what else? If your stake makes you a player in the upper ranks of policing, there's nothing you can do about being seen as such. Either you are a high-ranking witness or you are not. If you are, expectations are placed on you. You can reject them, but then you would also have to give up your position as a witness. Why don't you do it? If you are not interested in policing, you could give up your position as a Witness. What's stopping you?
First off, I have countered more abuse than anyone, it was my thing for many years here. If you don't know that already, then you probably don't know me very well.
Second, being a witness has nothing to do with countering abuse or anything but protecting the blockchain, producing blocks, and auditing and approving code. Everything else is a bonus.
Don't be so vain. If you have countered abuse, and you have done it well, and what you've done can be held up to your highest possible standards, congratulations to you.
Nothing to say against keeping the blockchain and features functioning.
Of course being a witness has something to do with countering abuse, you just described yourself as a long-time abuse fighter. And as I said, there's absolutely nothing you can do about the fact that the users here perceive you that way, whether you like it or not. Especially since the functioning of a technique inevitably collides with the soft factors of interaction, as there is no collision-free space.
It is merely a verbally convenient separation between function and consequence of function that you are making here.
If you're tired of it, I understand, but don't sell me slogans.
I'm not, I'm merely explaining something you apparently are not aware of.
I'm not selling you slogans, the simple fact is a witness is not a do everything you feel like them doing job. A witness has a very specific job, abuse fighting, patting you on the back, making you feel good, hanging out drinking beers, writing posts about flowers in their garden, are not part of that job. Doing more than just protecting the blockchain and producing blocks is great, but that's not what a witness is, they are not the police you call when someone misbehaves. This is a common misconception about what witnesses are.
Are you a technician? If so, you are someone who keeps the technology you are responsible for up and running with your expertise and the use of hardware and software.
You are paid to maintain a server that enables blockchain transactions. Okay.
So far, so good.
But what makes you a "witness"? What makes you a spokesperson for the blockchain?
Since when are technicians the politicians of a platform if they have not previously agreed that a certain interface should be established between them and the user community? Ergo, you are doing politics, because why am I voting for you or voting you out?
Should my judgement of your performance be based on the fact that you maintain a server that continues to facilitate transactions? Hardly.
Your performance is measured by the changes in the code. And since the code is inevitably related to issues such as the features that create an impact among the actors (all users of the blockchain), your issues are inevitably political in nature. So I'll say a third time: there's nothing you can do about it.
Otherwise, you could save yourself the whole Witness act, couldn't you? You could be a "technician" who keeps things running in the background, gets paid for it and that's it. But it's not like that, you all have to decide how the next hard fork will play out. So you're more than just technicians, you're politically active.
Logic dictates since you are politically active, you cannot resort to nothing. You have to take responsibility as a politician. If you don't want that, you cannot be a "witness". That's all I am saying.
P.S. So if you want to keep your crypto income, but you don't want to do politics anymore because you're either tired of your job or don't really understand it yourself, you're not entitled to that crypto income. Of course, if your view is diluted by the fact that there are enough opportunists to keep you in your position, you are the only person who either gives in to the seduction that you are legitimately elected or you think that your political fatigue is a reason to give up your income.
I'm the only witness fighting abuse. You are barking up the wrong tree. But I still disagree "fighting abuse" is in the witness job description, I bet if you ask around they will all agree. You can probably just realize that when you notice none of them do.
I am not barking but enjoying to talk to you. And wanting to have a reasonable dialogue.
Let me ask you again: since the code is inevitably related to issues such as the features that create an impact among the actors (all users of the blockchain), your issues are inevitably political in nature, you still disagree?
"Fighting abuse" doesn't need to be a job description since your work implies it. Is it correct that you want to protect your source of income? If it is, then taking measures against abuse or hostile attacks is the right approach. You agree? If you stop caring about your source of income, is it correct then to quit your job?
Yeah, they stopped doing that. And in disagreeing that this is their job, and as a consequence in stopping to do that, they and you need to lay down your witness position. And hand it over to more fresh folk. Why would that not be reasonable?
Can you answer my questions in a coherent way, please?
There is politics (which I never really got involved in myself) for getting votes. That isn't an excuse for lumping everything into the job description.
This is true for every stake holder, it has nothing to do with witnesses. In fact, every one who invests here needs to write posts daily, downvote abuse, upvote 10-100+ times/day, and potentially have a DHF proposal just to prevent depreciation of their relative stake.
How have I not bent over backwards answering your and other people's questions here.
Are you or are you not compensated for your witnessing activities? Do you run a server and do you participate in the voting process on planned code changes/hard forks, yes or no?
No, this does not apply to every stakeholder. I am not a witness, so I am not eligible to vote among you witnesses on planned code changes. That is different from a stakholding alone. I am in no way willing to give downvotes unless I officially want an office and would be compensated accordingly. Please read my comment here in the thread: https://hive.blog/hive-104500/@erh.germany/sdo8b1
There it becomes understandable how I view the political side on the issue of protecting the source of income.
Since I'm just a stakeholder who doesn't hold any official technical, policing, mediation/dispute resolution position, nor run a community, my hive activity is limited to exactly what I decide do with my valuable time and resources: engaging with a few of my readers and consuming a few other blogs.
If that's what you want too, not having an official position, why don't you limit yourself to your own valuable time. Only then your compensation as witness would be hard to justify, which would be logical to give up if you don't want to have any of the mentioned tasks.
I am not seeing you bending over backwards. And I really don't expect you doing such a thing. But through your words speaks a certain fatigue and annoyance. If compensation becomes such that it does not outweigh being tired of talking to people, stop talking to them, and stop being a witness, as a consequence of that.
Every stake holder is responsible for downvoting and protecting their investment. Rewards are a community consensus, not a witness decision. If you read the original white paper, it specifically mentions a crab bucket where community members are responsible for bad actors from getting out of hand. I recommend reading it.
I'm not going to go in circles about this though. You are free to think what you want.
Read that linked comment from my former response, in order to understand me - maybe afterwards you know what I am talking about and we can continue to debate. I long have understood you, and I don't agree so far.
No, "community members" aren't "responsible for bad actors" - what a bullshit piece of text; no offense against you. I've read it, be sure.
I think, however, that you lack somewhat of an understanding of politics.
I am very free in my thinking and do that anyway. LoL
If you don't want to go in circles, then don't. I freshly entered this conversation and would like it to be that way.
LOL Half a million of them are socks, and the rest have been flagged off the platform. All that's left are us, ~3k actual users as far as I can tell. Maybe 10k max if we count folks that stop by once a year. I was told years ago by a guy that he had 10k accounts all by himself. He's still here, so I bet he's got more like 100k today.
I confess I considered your bottery anathema and for that reason utterly ignored you for years. Only after we interacted when I vehemently advocated you stop flagging @joepublic and I was astonished not only to not be flagged for doing it, but you actually did stop, did my misconceptions about you slowly begin to eat away at my hubris. Then, despite my stubborn pigheadedness, against my will, suspicion that I did not know everything about you I needed to know and had misjudged you began to grow until I eventually had to concede I was the asshole. Quietly, to myself.
Being sharply corrected by your failure to be the asshole I thought you to be, I have very gradually realized you are ordinary people, and actually have principles. For so crushing my conceit I owe you a debt of gratitude.
Don't tell anyone, but I vote your witness now, and have for some time.
You take on a lot of that burden because of your principles, however, and I have seen you relent on opinion flagging in the above mentioned matter, as well as being flagged yourself. The old aphorism that free speech is fine until you shout fire in a theater has this caveat: it's a crime not to warn people when the theater is afire. Free speech is literally a matter of life and death.
Hive has lost ~1M users since we started here (I also got here in 2017). Not only does that deprecate your stake, but also might threaten your life and freedom. This world needs free speech so we can shout fire when the theater is burning, and tens of millions of people have already died because of censorship of factual medical information that convinced them to submit to experimental medical tests of devices that occasionally have lethal side effects. I am certain sure that censorship's going to get worse, as will the harms from it, unless we do something about it.
Hive can do something about censorship, but we have to support folks that are speaking out, people that dissent, even if they're wrong, because without criticism and argument we can't learn we are wrong - as I learned I was about you. I donate 1/4 of my author rewards to @por500bolos and several other creators because censorship must be opposed and dissent supported or worse things than have already happened will happen. We need all the content creators we can get, and he's being deliberately driven from the platform maliciously.
I don't want any Hive Police, and I want HW ended. I want Hive to police Hive, for better or worse. You are more aware than most the community came together to flag bidbots into the grave, so you know the community can do the flagging that needs doing, with proper incentives and code that enables it. You also have been flagged harder than anyone I know, so you know what it takes to persevere against injustice, as does @por500bolos. You have substantial stake to upvote unjustly flagged creators with, to counter flags and make them whole. You are highly respected on Hive, #8 of the witnesses.
You have stuck with Hive despite being flagged for a year, so you have grit and believe in the platform. You have reach here I can never dream of, and can get more folks to back us up. I believe you can help make opinion flagging end - if you actually agree that it is wrong. My understanding of your statements here is that you do. I know there's a lot of people here on Hive that will back you up if you make a move to champion free speech.
I act to defend creators against censorship, but I can't do it alone (LOL I can hardly do anything at all). I don't want you to do that against your better judgement, or unwillingly. I want you to do it to defend your property, your rights, and your life, because censorship is a threat to all of them, and everyone else, too. We all need free speech. I urge you to revive @freezepeach, with a delegation, or talking to @r0nd0n to see what it would take, to help Hive become what it should be: freedom from fear of censorship for good people that speak the truth as best they know it. You can stand behind that cause and never regret it.