pull down to refresh

Yes, another post on assmilking. Even though I have not been commenting, or calling out assmilker's, I have been here diligently watching everyones performance.
The first situation that I want to examine are the Stacker News Annual rewards that are being put on by @Coinsreporter. You need to ask yourself if you understand WHY these are being held by him and not the Stacker News staff? Do you really believe that @Coinsreporter cares who should get the rewards? Let me assure you, he does not care. He is only after the attention that it brings him. He has been milking everyone that does not understand this concept. Every time the post is zapped, or commented on, he reaps the benefits. How many posts has he done on this subject? The rewards that he is accruing may not be obvious, but it is from the zaps he receives on his comments, and the rewards he receives from the leaderboard. Do you understand WHY he only makes one Annual Awards post daily? @DarthCoin has posted on each one, showing that this is a sham. OPEN YOUR EYES.
The second situation, which is not as serious, but comical to observe, is how the leaderboard has changed. Yes, it has been tweaked in such a way that an assmilker will have to work harder to earn rewards from the leaderboard. You need to ask yourself this question. Are you contributing to Stacker News's ecosystem, or are you leaching off of it?
Take some time to contemplate this. Each sat has meaning.
Maybe the system is broken.
Perhaps the leaderboard and rewards are the real scam. Why not just have straight up p2p v4v sats only?
How about, less sats flying around for no clear reason, except to pad the pockets of a few, top grade, been around the longest, assmilkers.
What do you want to see stacker news become? #826061
reply
Why not just have straight up p2p v4v sats only?
reply
I have to agree with your reasoning @ek. Charity, in this case, needs some sort of incentive. Of course, then you cannot call it charity, but incentive.
What I think is that if you rely on non-public zaps, which only the sender and receiver can see, how would people know which posts are worthwhile the use of their time and which are not useful. There has to be a measure to tell them apart and as @DarthCoin likes to remind us: ”Make them pay!” That will have the effect of both discouraging spam and rewarding useful and liked posts, but comes with the added cases of assmilking. It is a conundrum.
It looks like SN chose to have useful information passed about the posts, discourage spam and increase the population of the users all at the same time. Congratulations!! However, you still get assmilkers. I think that those parasites will not go away until the general population of users learns to descend who is doing what.
Since I am only a nooby, I will not call out whom I see as assmilkers, I will just not zap them and not answer them if they raise my ire. That is pretty damn simple and everyone can decide for themselves. Is there really a reason for everybody to bellyache and think further about this matter?
reply
No, you already "sold" me. And I am not buying. Maybe you don't even know what you are shilling?
reply
I see you edited your comment so my reply makes less sense now. I also see you don't want to engage with my argument about "charity doesn't scale" in a honest discussion, so I don't see any reason to continue engaging with you or any of your other David accounts.
reply
Makes sense.
I wouldn't either if I were you.
Luckily I am me.
And I see what I see.
And I will keep sharing what I see until you change something.
If you are in the right, you have nothing to be worried about. Must be good to be you. Worry free, right?
reply
That's okay, you don't need to.
reply
Assmilkers will assmilk no matter what happens to the leaderboard. That is what they are here for. I think no matter how you change the system those who want to assmilk will do it. You can see who is contributing to the discussions and who is looking for milk.
reply
Dudez like the ass
reply
Sometimes ass is great. Depends really.
reply
deleted by author
reply