Steemit's Got Issues!
Self and Circular Voting
Take 1

For those of you that have not followed since the opening post This Post
will give you insight as to what these discussions are and how they are intended to work.

I encourage you to read these posts thoroughly before responding. Please do not skim, you may miss something of value.

Links to Topics Discussed Thus Far:

1. User Friendliness and Site Functionality
   • Take 1 (More to come)
     

Today's Topic: Self and Circular Voting

Before we get started I want to let everyone know that I am fully aware of how controversial this particular topic is. It is that very controversy that makes this topic so important for discussion. I will do my best to show this issue as objectively and as without bias as I can.

Self Voting

So, it may seem easy to just say that self voting itself is wrong somehow but there is actually much more to this issue than what lies on the surface.

First, let's look at some of the facts.

1. There has never been a rule made on steemit that ever referred to self voting (even in its worst of forms) as not being allowed.
   • There is a site etiquette that clearly states that it is not itself a set of rules and even this does not mention it.
2. During creation of any post or comment there is a check box asking if you want to upvote the post or comment you are creating.
3. Some people and groups have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own set of rules regarding this issue.
   • This has been done both individually and with the use of bots.
     
     
     

Now there are of course, many reasons why a person may upvote their own posts or comments.

These are simply reasons. I am not labeling any of them as right or wrong.

1. Paid advertising.
   • Let's face it, it is hard to get noticed here, upvoting yourself can help, especially if you have enough sp to make a difference.
   • This is true for comments also. You may think your comment needs to be at the top of a post for whatever reason.
2. As a means of gaining profit from the site.
3. To ensure that you can payoff a delegation that you have paid in advance for.
4. Because you are selfish and simply do not want to use your voting power for anyone else.
5. As an investment into yourself.
   • A good friend, @enginewitty says it like this: "Self-voting is basically investing in yourself. When you go to work at a new job, you buy clothes to fit the position. Until you realize you don't want to work for someone else. Then you may want to go to school and you often have to purchase books and if you didn't recieve a scholarship, pay for your classes. Then you may even come to a point where you want to start your own business. You make it look how you want, buy the decorations, the advertising - all money, time and effort that you put in. When the money starts coming in, do you reinvest some of it? Do you buy more advertising? Better furniture? Faster tech? I look at self-voting as reinvesting in yourself to improve - say - your online store and make it more appealing. You are the boss after all, and are fully allowed to PAY YOURSELF."
6. As a "pat on the back" to yourself.
   • Maybe you just want to give yourself a reward for all the work you may (or may not) have done.

I'm sure there are more reasons, this is what I could come up with during the writing of this post.

The thing is that since there is no rule about it on steemit, there is not a single reason in that list, or any other that would actually be wrong. Now, many will say that this or that reason are wrong and from their perception they may be right. Yet, as far as steemit.com is concerned self voting is ok no matter your reason.

A couple fun facts about steemit:

1. We are a group of individuals.
   • We are all very different and do not all have the same goals or agenda.
   • Nor do we all have the same beliefs or outlook on life.
2. Being individuals, we are all here for different reasons.
   • There are so many reasons to be here that we cannot expect everyone to have the same ones (There is one common thread but I will get to that later.).
3. We all have different ideas of what "right" and "wrong" are.
4. We are all given voting power that regenerates at the same rate (by percentage) and that did not come with instruction or restriction.
5. This platform was handed, to all of us without any rules.
   
   
   

Small interjection.

Though we are all here for different reasons there is a common thread.

Money.

This is a cryptocurrency site. Even if you think you are here for a multitude of other reasons, money (no matter how far down the list) is one of them. If it were not you could easily be on a social site that does not payout and does not have such a difficult learning curve. Going through all the learning and research required to simply use/understand this site is hardly worth it without some thought of monetary return. To top it off, the entire site is based on cryptocurrency... ie: money.

Circular Voting

Circular voting is when a group of people upvote each other.

I'm really not going to spend much time on this one becaues to me it is quite silly.

When you see posts getting lots of rewards and realize the same people are always voting for the same people it seems really unfair at first.

When you dig into it you realize that on some level, nearly every single person on this site is guilty of it. Think about it, you start posting then all the sudden someone starts upvoting you. Most of us begin to return that and it goes from there.

Also, can anyone really tell me that you can't vote your friends all the time using steemvoter or something? No, you can't because that is ludicrous.

The only time this seems like a problem to people is on accounts that are making a lot from it.

I can assure you that all the way to the biggest whales, and even many that would enforce rules against circular voting, they are in fact doing it themselves.

All of this being said... Is self or circular voting wrong?

Well, the simple answer is no. No... self or circular voting... in any form (even pure profiteering)... is not wrong.

I promised at the beginning to be objective and non bias, so what do I mean by that?

Well, look at the simple facts above.

There are no rules here. Steemit developers did not set a rule for self or voting. In fact, adding a check box on both comments and posts encourages it. They are basically telling us to do it. They also have not created a rule about circular voting.

They also never made any rules as to how to properly use your voting power each day. You can do with it as you will.

Ok, then is it fair?

When you stand in a platform without any rules what even is fair? I can tell you that their are forms of self and circular voting that do not seem fair.

However, is it fair for people to take it upon themselves to self appoint and enforce their own set of rules regarding it? Again, we come back to the same place... This is not wrong because there was never a rule. Some think it fair and many do not.

Then what is the point in all of this?

My point is simple, to get people to see this issue objectively.

The reason that this issue is so controversial is that there was never a rule.

Without a rule about this issue it is simply allowable on all counts.... Simple as that.

If it is allowed because there is no rule then it is not fair for people to downvote those taking advantage. However, without a rule, those downvoting are not in the wrong either are they?

This is a mining rig!

When you really get down to it, each and every one of us is a component in a grand mining rig. The type, not unlike proof of work or proof of space or any other mining type, is Proof of Brain.

With proof of work, would it be wrong for someone to reinvest into more rigs?
No.

With proof of space, would it be wrong for someone to reinvest into more hard drives?
No.

With proof of stake, would it be wrong for someone to make a second, third or many more purchases for initial coins to add to their staking wallet?
No.

So in a proof of brain system, with no rules, how could it possibly be considered wrong for someone to self upvote?

It shouldn't...

At least without a rule saying that it is.

Why do people feel like it is wrong then?

It has been deemed wrong by several whales that want to control the reward pool then advertised as against proper etiquette for the site. Again, site etiquette does not include it, nor is site etiquette a ruling of any kind.

Why do these whales say that it is wrong?

They claim it to be a form of Reward Pool Raping.

The idea is that if people do things, like self voting and circular voting, it will diminish the reward pool at a faster rate than anticipated.

That all sounds good until you consider one thing...

If reward pool rape is the idea of taking tons of coin from the pool without adding valued content (again, never a rule of any kind about this), then wouldn't the original miners of steem have been the biggest reward pool rapers of all time? I mean there were over 100 million steem coins mined before it ever became proof of brain concept (I'm estimating here. I don't have an accurate number, I just know it was a literal shit ton.). For those of you that do not know, this is exactly how many of our whales became whales to begin with, not by producing or curating content.

Hilariously enough, the power to enforce self created rulings on self and circular voting (among other things) comes from that mining that never provided any content of any kind. In fact, many of the whales today that make these types of decisions will never have to create or curate (effectively never supporting the proof of brain concept) to continue to stack coin... ever.

The truth is that since this coin was mined before it was converted into proof of brain concept, it has vastly tipped the scale and made this site (and really any other on steem blockchain) very imbalanced in terms of community equality.

Had the coin been proof of brain since the beginning we would actually have a pretty fair situation. By the time a single account could have amassed 5-6 million coin we as a community would have had time to discuss issues like this one and form rulings to govern them.

It wasn't, so now the majority of us are simply at the mercy of anywhales that want to throw weight around.

Wait, are you saying that whales suck and that we should put a stop to the ones downvoting self and circular voting?

No.

Whales are just people with more coin. Many of them understand this issue and have seen it from infancy in fact. As far as the ones that mined coin in the beginning I say good for you! Any of you must be stoked! I know I would be.

Here is what I am saying:

If there were a rule in place about self or circular voting, claiming it to not be allowed, most people would not do it. Those that would, would also understand whatever consequence they had to endure if they were caught.

The sheer fact is that there is no rule!

Without a ruling on this issue, those that are enforcing it, regardless of the moral reasoning behind their actions, are in fact just being bullies. Using their power to push people around, taking rewards from fellow community members for their own personal agendas. Self upvoting hurts no one, taking someones rewards does. The reward pool will dry up eventually with or without self voting. Claiming it to be reward pool rape without considering the original mining to be one and the same is outrageous.

I'm not saying that they are wrong. The fact is that there is no rule disallowing them from being bullies. They actually have full right to take rewards from anyone they so choose because that is how steemit is set up. Although, it does not change the fact that they are being bullies and enforcing personal agendas. A situation we have seen all to often in history and personally I'm not in support of.

It's not a matter of whether any of us like it or dislike it, it is a matter of ruling. Without it, anything goes.

If you want my opinion, these bullies should not be downvoting people for self or circular voting. At least not until it is actually an accepted rule. Once it is they would not be bullies anymore but more of a policing force, accepted by the community as a whole. Even the people that disagree would at minimum understand if there were a rule.

But, this is a decentralized community... We don't want to start making rules.

Let's get real, this is a website, it has rules...

You have to have a username and password, you have to join through a couple specific portals. You only get so much voting power and it regenerates at a specific rate. You CAN upvote any post or comment that you wish. There are rules governing this site all around us.

By not making real rulings on issues that involve the community (such as this one), we are in fact just enabling our own oppression. Without rulings, whales will simply rule. Meaning that whatever they want will simply be unspoken rule that is either followed or you will suffer consequence from a bully with nothing better to do than pick on weak (poor) community members.

Every website on the planet has rules of all kinds. This is in no way a new concept.

Conclusion

Without creating a ruling on issues like this a scammer can scam and a bully can pick on the weak.

Having a ruling draws a clear line in the sand and says "This is as far as you can go.".

A ruling gives someone a legitimate right to enforce while at the same time lets the individual know what he/she should or should not do.

In all areas of life you need to know the rules.

How fun would football be without any sidelines, goal posts, yard lines or referees?

How fun would basketball be without a net, a ruling on fouls or travelling, or out of bounds lines?

How much work would you get done on anything if you did not learn first what parameters you were meant to work within?

Since the site creators have not made rulings for issues like this it now falls to us to decide, as a community, how to handle these types of situations. We need to decide them and then get the site creators to add them, as rules, in whatever means is reasonably effective.

Thank you all once again for joining this discussion and adding your input to it. As a community we will grow and with one voice we will speak and create necessary change.
@michaeldavid
Master of @sneaky-ninja
and
proud member of: