They be cramping your style.

I usd to delegate to ocdb back in the day when they only upvoted paying, whitelisted authors.

I cancelled my delegation in part because I ain't enabling them to downvote accounts without knowing the details.

Massively vote-trading is the same as delegating to bid bots or self-voting 10x per day. This undermines proof of brain and the changes the EIP is bringing to the table. With smaller accounts doing this the curve taxes them and makes it more profitable to curate, with bigger accounts doing this it does not affect them and even rewards them more. When you vote-trade you are making way more rewards than honest curation and posters.

This is the reason you were downvoted, it has nothing to do with your content or what kind of stakeholder you are, it's about your (auto)vote-trading activity.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmNprvGzrsKmfmg45ELx1KSX3V5YjvWfZBszVFRQAzLPuK/image.png)

These are your top supporters:

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmUeoz4AxjnNJcYFACdKrp8WkPDPe9eRwgBGZZXrgSetp3/image.png)

Please give honest curation a chance.

We appreciate all the other things you do for the Steem network.

Hey Bronc, you're more than welcome to hit me up on discord to talk about that 20% downvote.

@anomadsoul#8455

If you don't feel like coming to discord, drop by @exyle's posts and check out his new attitude towards #newsteem or if you prefer, have a chat with him. I'm pretty sure he'll be able to explain to you what's going on and why the downvotes. You seem like you're very close to him and he'll be able to explain what's up.

I consider their act inadequate. I have been following your activities for a long time, approximately since the launch of drugwars. Which by the way were an outright scam project. I hope you will remain what you are, despite the machinations of an ocdb.
P.S
Hmm, they just put a flag on my post. Of course, I bought votes from bots, but not for my own benefit, but for advertising purposes. Honestly, because of these characters, I really want to choose a different blockchain for projects. But thanks to people like you, I stay here.

Maybe he is a steelers fan?

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/balticbadger)

Greetings @broncnutz,

So sorry this happened.....I read and reread your post.....to try to see what they might have seen as an excuse to downvote your post.....nothing justified their action in the least.

One request to make of our fellow Steemians is that if one does delegate to these big conglomerates......please monitor their actions and then decide if that is how one would desire their power be utilised.

All the best to you!

Cheers!

They didn't tell you why they downvoted you in the post? That's pretty low. You've been sucker punched!

I downvote people who abuse my fav tags but always tell them at least once or twice to try and get them to stop.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/crypticat)

I get where he was coming from, but, you are not 100% Circle jerking. I have earned most of my steem the hard way, but, when I hit 5,000 the other week, I finally invested some money in it. 

I should have done it sooner. I loved what we had here and there are people like you and a handful of others that I like to read every day, so I put a few auto votes out there and the rest are hand-curated. 

Why not? 

I'm going to read them anyway. The way the fixed the reward pool and the five-minute rule, do you really think I have time to read them in five minutes and vote? Seriously? I actually have no problem with how you vote. You have invested a lot of time and money in this place and not only that, you are one of the most giving people out there. You reward your readers with upvotes just or showing up and reading you. You spread more around than most people and I know from experience how much time and effort goes into making those video. 

Sweet Jesus! I am not sure you could pay me enough to one of those all the time. I think I would rather see a little bit of giving a taking on the big accounts than to watch them go away or be chased away. If I look at the pie chart, it doesn't alarm me at all. Rather wonder what the fuss is all about. 

You give back to this community in so many ways. 

!tip.20

I see this conflict as a very great opportunity for the two of you (and me and many others here) to come to consensus. Despite the arguments exchanged so far, it seems to me that there is a willingness to talk. 
I would like to see that the respective actors remain in conversation here and do not become enemies. 

The overriding issue is - from my point of view - that the community groups that form themselves centrally here on Steemit cannot be certain of the voices of those who do not define themselves explicitly as part of the respective interest group (community). The Steemit umbrella is undefined, while the respective communities define their intentions and rules - the more transparent, the better.

The difficulty I see is that the already formed communities like OCD/B and others want to set up rules for the best of the whole platform, but lack the mandate of those who don't see themselves as belonging to this specific community.  

So it's as if the communities that form themselves centrally in a decentralized social media environment would like to become the elected representatives of the entire Steemit platform, which de facto they are not (yet officially). This is the phenomenon that takes place in societies where no mandate for leadership has been officially given. All social media channels are kind of similar and express this phenomenon. 

The logical conclusion is that if all the individual Steemit accounts that have been founded or are newly established can be invited to give a mandate to the communities that exist here and those that will or want to be newly founded. 

As far as I give my mandate officially and with my username, I agree with the rules, so that, for example, my content can be voted down. That would be me agreeing voluntarily, which is a huge difference in acting within a realm where neither getting nor giving a committed mandate takes place. 

Conversely, it would be binding for the OCDB leadership to only be allowed to down-vote on contents/accounts that have cast their votes which expresses "I am a member of this community and therefor are am fine with the rules". 

I can already see the next "issue" popping up: what, if I do neither belong to this or any other community? Who then makes sure that abuse doesn't take place? I think the solution to that is to talk to single account-holders and invest the effort and time to get into a consensus based dialogue with each other. But: on what ground? The rules therefor have to be put to discussion and election – so all users who want to give power to their voices can take part. From what I think, the communities and their rules already have some support from many people. It though requires an active and manual effort once in a while.

A formed community, in order to secure the social rules, should actually position itself for election. Otherwise the genuine democratic souls in each and every one of us will not fully give trust in the parties (which here are perceived as “communities” - I spare the names for the sake of text longevity).  

Single-ship is in my opinion okay for people who don't want to act politically/economically and every one who produces his art or content in a lonely place, untouched and unimpressed by the many, should be allowed in doing so. But once you committed yourself to a certain interest-group you accept both: receive the benefits and carry the consequences.  There should though be no force to collect every singles persons cast. There should be no attempt to “make” the user “behave” without having him approached in each and every single case. Some people need more attention in this than others (I am not talking about bots/artificial accounts without revealing the users name who can be approached in person).

Where/What are we? Steemit has to offer a variety of communities to choose from, which, if not every community wants to cook its own soup, would have to move to the higher level of community (group) communication. Groups would have to find a consensus that satisfies (or comes close to) everyone involved on the whole Steemit platform. To give credit to the founders: Abandoning the field is one of the best moves Dan and Ned could have done (deliberative or accidentally, doesn't matter). For it shows if the people on this platform are able to govern themselves without calling for a strong regulating hand from above.  

In principle, each individual participant could make a choice between the existing communities that already live on Steemit. This would require a community-list that communicates the rules and regulations of the respective community in a transparent and understandable way. It would probably be a mix between the best proposals which circulate here for sure anyways.

In order NOT to act according to the "divide and conquer" principle, there is a wonderful and brand new opportunity here to ignore the tiresome voting for majorities and to apply the scaling method of [systemic consensus](https://steemit.com/steemstem/@erh.germany/groupthink-a-systemic-view-on-group-decisions-and-consensus). 

The management level of the respective communities could show over the duration of a certain period which positive leadership style they exercise, for example by a continuous report on their main blogs (what is already taking place). Whenever the leadership team believes that the intelligence of the entire community (those who have cast their votes) is needed - and that will be more often the case then one thinks - use the intelligence of the people and trust them to make sensible decisions. 

I am certain, if the two of you think in this way about the happenings here, you will come to the same conclusion. While the Steemit platform is secured by the witnesses activities technically, the social part is still in progress and learns while it acts. This system could become the leading example in us citizens being capable of building democracy from scratch on an international level. I hope you people are aware of the significant part this could play in the outside of Steemit world.

My question to you @broncnutz, would be: is a community out there which represents what you have named here as your choices? It's a genuine question, I really have no idea if there exists one. Than you could position yourself there if it is more of what you would like this place to be. Than it would be or become – maybe – the oppositional community to OCDB? Apart from that: Would you welcome a different deciding method to consider what you might want to change on your side?

@acidyo: Are you open for the possibility that leading a community involves giving first an official mandate to the single users in order to elect for the rules before they are being applied/implemented into a system? To reach people so far undecided? To reach minorities? I think you'd benefit more than you'd lose. 

Please read the details of systemic consensus on my newest blog post. It's essential to understand the idea.

I leave with wanting to appreciate this conflict and to give credit to the efforts made by you. 

If you have further questions, suggestions, please contact me.

Welcome to the new steem, my friend.