We’ve been excited about Steemit and the profound implications of this platform since it came to our attention, and we’ve been engaged and responsible users ever since.

Steemit truly is revolutionary, but we’ve got an issue that deserves to be addressed. And it seems we’re not alone in our criticisms: as @stellabelle posted yesterday, “If Steemit doesn’t pivot soon, it will most likely see a further degradation in quality, user engagement and adoption, all of which will result in an unstoppable downward trend.” (click here for her article) 

We don’t want to see that happen to Steemit, so we’re airing our grievances in hopes of encouraging that pivot. We don't believe we're always right or that others are always wrong, and we realize disagreements will happen. 

We’re not complaining here, but rather using an opportunity for growth and understanding through a situation we find dishonorable. We live by standards of honor, so acknowledging this is necessary for our own ideals and for our continued participation in a successful community.

On Saturday, we met the first real resistance on Steemit to the standards and truths we uphold. This is both disappointing (as we had thus far been embraced by the Steemians because we provide valuable content) and exciting because it is a chance for us to hold community standards and accountability on this revolutionary platform--and we are well established in what it takes to run a successful community. (For those that do not know, the Garden of Eden is a sustainable community in Texas. You can read more about us in this Steemit article here, or visit our website.)

Without further ado, here’s the situation: 

We posted an article about COLLOIDAL GOLD on Saturday, which is the most holistic remedy we have found not only for depression, but a host of other ailments as well. We have extensive testimonies and evidence for the effectiveness of colloidal gold with no side effects, and we are committed to sharing healthier options with people who seek genuine healing. We have found better ways than the single standard choice of Big Pharma’s monopoly, and we present them so that they may help others.  

This was not well received. That’s totally cool, as we’re used to opposition--the DFW metroplex is not the most receptive and supportive area for our extremely alternative lifestyle. In fact, the government sent a $350,000 Black Ops SWAT raid to attack our property and our people when our founder began speaking out against the establishment. So realistically, a little disagreement on Steemit is really not that big of a deal, especially for us.  

But at the same time, it is a big deal for anyone who cares about standards, honor, and accountability--oh, the glorious paradox!

We’re BIG on standards, values, and accountability, so we’ll go further into this big deal that’s not a big deal. 

One user, @logic, threatened to report us for abuse because he does not believe studies that are not government-endorsed (please don't accidentally wander over to the anarchy category, because your head might explode). Another user @sabot downvoted us with no explanation. We reached out for clarification and received no reply. 

Later, it was downvoted by @reneenouvea who at least left a comment indicating her downvote was based on the fact that she was emotionally moved by the extreme challenge to her paradigm. Another user @roy.batty downvoted us, and again we reached out for clarification and received no reply. 

We suggest that if you don’t like it, you have the option to  

#1 stop reading our posts 

#2 make some sort of respectable inquiry 

#3 make some kind of legitimate suggestion 

rather than downvote or ridicule, which is essentially the worst offense you can perpetrate against another Steemit user.

Downvotes cause injury to the other party, in terms of reduced reputation and limited scope of reach. It is a most intentionally transgression committed against the other party. It is essentially saying, "I want you silenced!" and dedicating your power to do so. Although @logic disagreed strongly based on their government bias, at least he had the dignity not to downvote and injure us. @reneenouvea at least left a comment, although she judged so harshly that she found us deserving of injury. The downvotes without explanation are a transgression to our honor, and we were harmed by them as it limits the reach of our post and affects our reputation. Others are harmed by the censorship as well, because this OPTION for health and wellness is not getting to the people it can benefit. 

So we brought the issue to the Steemitabuse-classic chatroom channel, where we were advised by users taking their valuable time to address these matters. (Thank you to @patrice, @tuck-fheman, @bacchist, @neoxian, @pfunk and @royaltiffany for your consideration regarding this issue/non-issue.)  We did the responsible thing by bringing this to the attention of an impartial third party for guidance. Instead of just flagging the countering users back or activating our extensive network for retaliation, we turned to the Steemit community for advice. To overlook the guidance of unbiased moderators is again really poor community etiquette. A logical, fair, objective analysis is vital to finding resolution.

We were told that essentially there is little to nothing that can be done. Contact the other user, see if it can be resolved and have the downvote removed, or start a flag war. Plus, flags by users with lower reputations don’t really matter, they say. 

So again, it's not really a big deal.

But once more, it is a big deal because it is the intention, the purpose, and the intention behind it! This is an issue of honorable and accountable standards.

We contacted the users @sabot and @roy.batty for clarification,  and we received no response. We have no interest in starting a flag war, because where would that leave us? 

We find ourselves with no solution, save to make a post. 

We’re grateful for the opportunity to start a bigger discussion with the extended community regarding VALUES, and we’re still excited that Steemit provides this platform. We want no part of censorship, or users that intend harm to the community without at least addressing the reasoning behind such a move.

Obviously not everyone agrees on everything, and that’s fine--we can agree to disagree. If we don’t agree with someone, then we don’t even have to waste our time by reading their articles! Or we could read them and put in our opinion/constructive criticism if we think it is of value, rather than getting upset and moving in judgment. Just move on and upvote the post that you like, and don’t read the post that you do not like. 

But the fact that you’re following and reading posts that you don’t like?! It means that you’re searching them out. You’re going out of your way to find content that upsets you so that you may judge and wield what power you may have over another user via the downvote and censor their content.

Basically flagging is the worst thing you can do in Steemit, and it is an intentional inflection of injures to the other party. That means that @sabot & @roy.batty did the worst thing that they could possibly do to us without a single communication/question asked/ suggestion made. This is unacceptable in a successful community.  

We realize that plenty of users have more flags/downvotes than us, so it's not a big deal...We’ve seen users with established reputations write controversial and challenging articles, and even though we’ve seen some flagging we’ve seen lots of healthy discussion and debate. So on the other hand, it is a big deal because the conversation was withheld. 

We love Steemit because it allows people to logically, reasonably, and responsibly address disagreements rather than attack and defend. We’re making this post not to attack the community, but to make it clear what our standards are and to get some feedback.  


Say for example @ned and @dantheman started flagging every single post about cures for cancer or about the global military-industrial complex--the community has to call that out! To wield one's unlimited power like a dictatorship cannot be tolerated. Censorship cannot be tolerated, especially when the platform is represented as one of freedom. This applies to the minnows and dolphins as well.

So hopefully the Steemit community would say we don’t want to be in a group or world where someone has the power to nullify someone else’s post just because you disagree with someone, especially without any kind of inquiry, or suggestion. That's what we want to clarify to see where we stand. 

We believe it’s more beneficial to have an honest and respectable community rather than one made up of users who pander to what may be the popular decision.  Is this a community that’s based on logical, clear, reasonable communication, or is it one that’s based on emotional, biased, judgmental reactions? Ultimately, that’s up to the community as a whole, which needs some cohesive values.

 We want to know if you disagree with us: if you want to tell us we’re crazy freaks we’ll be on our way….
...We’re not gonna pretend or compromise what’s truly important to us, and we’re not gonna participate in a community that’s too contrary to what our priorities are either.  

We’ll do our best to communicate our successes in the best way we know how, but if the community thinks we’re wrong or not valuable...realistically, we’re not gonna change, because what we have found is so abundant, healthy, and free that we are inspired to share it. We've seen and experienced how others are living, and that's why we choose the alternative. (Seriously, please--if you can show us someone healthier than Quinn, then please let us know! We want to learn from them. Please show us, because we want to live the best life possible!)

If you don’t believe us, that’s ok, but for anyone to attack and ridicule us for our own personal success, and for sharing that success honestly and responsibly is completely and totally dishonorable. 

If others disagree, we’ll continue to live our way and they can continue to live theirs.

If others agree, we would like to see action to that. We would like to see some similar groups to @robinhoodwhale & @steemcleaners--a group of beings or accounts dedicated to reasonable discussion and honorable process not only to share and hold this standard, but also to hold accountability to that. 

Ultimately, for any community to succeed and thrive, there has to be accountability. It doesn’t mean there has to be a totalitarian government, but there has to be some cohesive consensus and order. 

Again, we appreciate the time and information we received from @patrice, @tuck-fheman, @bacchist, @neoxian, @pfunk and @royaltiffany. However, if @steemcleaners or the Steemit abuse chatroom is not the place to work it out, then there needs to be 

#1 a way to work things out in an honorable way and 

#2 public example made of people who are attacking and being illogical. 

It doesn’t mean they have to be banned, but anyone who just flags stuff without suggestion or comment or communication needs to be addressed.

The values are a big deal, even though the situation is not a big deal. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. A better way is possible!  

www.intothegardenofeden.com