So there are some differences here to curation reports and recent upvotes and downvotes I wanted to be talking about today.

This is going to be a slight rant for those of you checking in so if you don't like reading those anymore after all this time then please look away cause I personally wouldn't want to be reading them either but some things need to be said.

First off, as I have first hand experience, even though I am not part of the active curation team of OCD as to what goes in to being a curator. I understand this word has been misused, abused and has lost most of its original meaning by now but let me give you a quick look at what our curators do on a daily basis when finding posts that deserve the upvotes.

1. Find a post that is underrated and quality, preferably from a new user or a user that hasn't had any major curations from us or others in the recent past. (already pretty difficult to do considering not many active authors around lately, especially with the increase in curation since HF21/22)

2. Check the author for a history of abuse/plagiarism (big props to @curie's tool here for helping with this), then check that the post itself isn't plagiarised.

3. Nominate said post in our inner curation inside discord where we have certain tools that anonymize who the nominator was as to not give the post an advantage or a quick judgement without reading/curating it from others.

4. Read through the other noms and find the best of the best and have an inner voting on Discord where only a few of them make it to the compilation post.

5. Write a short description of the post so our readers of the @ocd compilation posts can quickly decide if it's something that may interest them or not.

6. After voting is done a curator takes care of posting all the finalists onto our compilation posts, setting beneficiaries and editing out numbers, etc.

So as you can see this is something that takes a lot of time. Curation here isn't just about looking through your feed, checking which author it is and judging it by it's content and history of the author, etc before casting a vote which I admit is something I have been doing with my own account lately as I am super busy with a lot of other things on and outside of Steem but I still don't want to give up "manual" curation after 3.5 years and follow a more thorough curator as I'm hoping to find the time very soon to do better curation with this account as well. 

Okay so about the action recently, a former bid bot who I for a fact know has a grudge against me or ocdb due to it's part of breaking off the bid bot selling and discouraging authors from buying profitable votes to force them to curate, effectively decrease their ROI and getting more curation going onto the platform which is something we desperately needed after two years of whatever the fuck was going on. He felt that the @ocd compilation post which were netting around $20 in rewards were too high so he downvoted them. Bear in mind this is $20 divided by 6-7 curators/daily authors of the compilation posts that receive the rewards in beneficiaries after the work they do daily mentioned above.

So curiosity hits me and I go look at his other downvoting activity, hmm, strange, no other downvotes cast on any of the other curation projects that do curation reports similarly or - worse, in a more automated way. What's automated you may ask and how does that differ from the way we do it with @ocd. Welp, take a look at its own daily reports and tell me if you find the difference, spoiler down below.

So he basically takes the first couple lines from a post he curates and pastes them under an image of the post in his reports. Wait a minute, isn't this something that one could easily do with a bot? Woah hodl on there. Isn't this something that someone could easily program that all you'd have to do is take say 5 daily posts voted with a certain threshold and automatically create a whole report without lifting a finger except having created that bot/script? Damn future you scary! But okay that's all fine right, if they are able to then why not. I have nothing against that but when that same user goes out of his way to downvote the manual work of a team of curators that have been doing the same thing for over 2.5 years while he's at the same time asking his bid bot buddies to upvote his automated reports - yes that is going to grind my fucking gears pretty good.

I have nothing against people downvoting the reports because they believe they are overrewarded. We decided ourselves after the HF to stop self-voting them as they were taking up a lot of space on trending and many were attempting to curation snipe leading to even higher rewards. If it were many different people downvoting them and they actually were earning a lot of daily rewards the same way they were way back I'd also have no problem, but when it's one user who 

A. Holds an obvious grudge cause he is earning way less ROI from his service now that he is forced to curate does it alone.

B. Has numerous times tried to smear my reputation, accused me of only targeting the "freedom" bots with our downvotes, then complained about the lack of interaction some of my fantasy posts get (even though lack of interaction is pretty much platform wide right now) which as of now I make 0 rewards from (before this it was 10-20%) and then also went so far as to accuse me to have cheated the fantasy tournaments by sockpupetting them. 

... yeah I'd say this is pretty much targeted grudge downvoting not far off from whatever haejin is doing on a daily basis.

I understand some people may not understand the work that actually goes on when curating and I especially understand that an ex bid bot owner who all he did to earn the stake he may have today was copy a bot, ask for delegation and sit on his ass at the beach for two years doesn't understand what curation is, but hardworking curators who are completely not part of any of this drama or decisions of @ocdb and the way it has decided to break off voting rings and bid bot sales get in the crosshairs of some mean old fart who seems to get angrier and more ridiculous with each accusation he attempts to throw at me cause he probably can't get it through his thick skull that some people here may actually not be here to just abuse and maximized their stake no matter the cost, then yeah it really does grind my gears and I take the opportunity to call that shit out publicly. 

OCDB's votes on OCD have only occurred on posts where A. We are doing tournaments/giveaways of Steem to Gods Unchained players to get them to join Steem and see what they've been missing and B. The inktober contest we've been running for October where 50% went to the judges (who 60% of were not part of the OCD team before it) and 50% are going to a gallery at Steemfest mentioned in @roelandp's recent post. Yet still these posts are also getting downvoted. Dang it, if there's no value to bringing in new users and increasing the activity here on Steem of a very popular phenomenon that's been striking artists all over the internet each October, I don't fucking know what will be.

Another thing I wanted to get out is that on top of me not being 100% with my current curation I have been casting 100% votes on @ocd because I understand the amount of work they do to not miss out on great authors on Steem and I also know the amount of rewards they missed out on when bid bots and other owners decided to band together to take the majority off or even downvote them to 0 because "my precious ROI" so I figured they'd deserve some higher rewards now after.

Anyway, just needed to get these things said. 

The curators of OCD haven't even mentioned the downvotes cause the majority of them are not in it for the rewards but are long term stakeholders who see the same vision many of us may see so I am not making this post because of them but when I see unfairness go on then I like calling that shit out, much like when boinknutz and slowtalker and retardim were going after fucking minnows that dared show their support of curation projects to follow both their upvote and downvote trail and these dipshits were hitting their 10x better posts that were not votetraded with 100x higher downvotes than they ever did "just to prove a message". The message was pretty clear, you guys are absolute garbage.

The only incoming and outgoing steemreport charts that should be allowed to almost be a copy of each other are when abusive downvotes and upvotes are being countered. That's all I have to say about that, really.

Welcome to newsteem.