No the down vote is not fixed, not even by a long stretch of my imagination. Example:
- @sospicy
- Post Count 1 posts|0 comments|23 replies
- Vote Count 1,580 votes|106 votes received
- Voting CSI [ ? ] ( 0.00 % self, 0 upvotes, 0 accounts, last 7d )
- Rewards tab: All Time 0.000 0.411
- Delegator Amount Vesting Shares Delegation Time
steem25 14.804 SP 0.029 MVests 2019-09-06, 08:28
So NO it is not fixed. If it was fixed then people would be able to let this person know via comments and votes that their behavior is not acceptable by the community standards. Normalizing bad behavior is not fixing anything. This is only one of I don't know how many accounts of this nature you want their actions to be seen as Normal.
SO what is Fixed about the down vote? Being FREE? I really don't need to here about how it is not really a down vote by these type of people because it does no significant value/reputation damage to a person. When people come in and they get a meaningless bullshit down vote from a 12 year old miscreant man or woman child it does not look make Steem look good, especially when they are the enablers of the account.
The person holds stake and has RC credits and voting power. They are allowed to use it to express both upvotes and downvotes.
I call that fixed. They can not express more or less than they own.
There are no damages, just a lack of understanding on how the voting system works.
If you really want to believe that, and that is your opinion, then in your mind it is fixed.
His stake, in vest is :Vesting Shares 0.414 STEEM | 0.001 MVests
The rest is delegated by STEEM.
The lack of understanding is why a company, corporation, or business would continue to allow actions, (that they enabled), that harm them, and do nothing about it. The harm while to the individual is nothing to those looking in all they see are the red flags and that in some cases may be enough to deter them from ever even trying steem block chain.
But I am so glad you don't think it is fixed, but that you KNOW the down vote is FIXED. It is still my opinion that the down vote system is broken, and that the only FIX is in as fixing a boxing match where someone is paid to take a dive.
I can see your point of view as well.
I just know we can't control how people use their stake beyond trying to counter what we see as bad votes.
I hope that people will become less triggered by downvotes, if they don't accept them as part of the decentalized blockchain, I fear we will have to stop paying content creators at all.
There is just too much abuse and very little hope for consensus on a "fair" plan. The easest way to attempt fairness is to align it with stake.
I like that idea. Stop paying people for content. It’s my opinion that the quality of content would immediately improve if people created content because they wanted to share what they create instead of because they were looking to be paid for.
But what do I know. I’m just a dinosaur who never downvotes anything that isn’t malicious or evil. And who upvotes because he is impressed and grateful for what has been shared. Not because he wants to monetarily reward someone.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to pay for what people should want to give freely.
Should people be expect to be paid for sharing good advice with a friend? How about warning someone that they are mistaken about something. Should they expect to be paid?
If I smile and hold the door for someone should I expect a tip?
Told ya. I am a dinosaur.
Think of it like profit sharing.
On other platforms where people share because they want to, the money goes to marketing companies.
The idea here was to return rewards to quality creators, but some how that got twisted to "get paid to post" which is a bad expectation and will only disappoint more and more as time goes on.
Yeah. I get it. I think it’s a pretty cool idea too. When it works.
I guess it’s just that the main motivation for the desired interaction often seems somehow skewed I think.
You kind of said it yourself.
“Platforms where people share because they want to”.
As opposed to what?
A platform where they share because they have to? Because they need money?
I’m not saying that it necessarily spoils it but it certainly changes it.
I have made my living for the last few decades doing something I “initially” loved doing.
Maybe it’s just me but I found that the introduction of the whole business / money part really changed things. I still enjoy the work but I hate trying to put a value on it or haggle about it. But when you are selling your services and products you have to expect every customer to be different and have their own ideas about what you are worth.
In other words, it just takes something away from what used to be purer somehow.
But rigging is just one thing that I love doing. I also have always loved gardening, writing silly poems, taking pictures and sharing experiences that I have had. But the idea that I could make money doing that seems somewhat unrealistic.
If I were a professional writer or photographer I would no doubt feel differently. But I’m not. And I’m still glad that all of you, (actually very few of you), nice people look at my posts.
I understand that there are some wonderfully talented people here on Steemit. I hope that they are supported enough that they will continue to share here. But I would hope that people like me who are perhaps not so gifted would continue to freely share their meager offerings simply because it gives them pleasure to do so.
I’m gonna. Cause it ain’t about the money.
It's about both for me. I don't consider myself a content creator, but I love the idea of social networking where those who add to the community get to earn.
I love voting with my dollars and removing some of my finances from mainstream.
I also love building things that hold value and earn lot's of people money.
So, here we are and there is room for both
The problem is that you can not counter a bad down vote from these down vote only accounts.
As the government also hopes people will become less triggered by their bad actions?
At some point in time people are going to need to learn to just say no to accepting and normalizing bad behavior, whether it is on the part of the individual, group, corporation, or government.
By STEEM allowing their delegations to stand with those accounts they are guilty of enabling the bad behavior. Yes the account belongs to someone and they have stake and RC's and Vest, what they don't need is STEEM support for their actions, and by allowing the delegation to stay with the account they are saying *Hey it's okay, go ahead be an asshole down vote as many accounts as you like, make people look at us and see the truth of STEEM. You don't need to be a community member to come here and throw rocks at a Steemians door, just do it if it make you feel good." Is that the message STEEM wants people to see? Is that the perception that STEEM want people to have?
I hope people never become
less triggeredbydownvotes.When I said counter the vote, I meant to upvote content that is being suppressed by bad downvotes vs. downvoting the downvoter.
As for the rest of it, I'm sorting through idealistic and realistic. I do wish each user would curate responsibily, but I think if we are going to allow freedom and people to be free, that is also going to have to include less than Ideal behavior.
Let's start with a !BEER
It really is a simple fix in my mind, all STEEM and its developers need to do is put a check box.
example:
Problem solved.
I know it will never be fixed in that manner, so we will always have people throwing pebbles and stones at other people. My input anyways to the issue, and why I do not believe in normalizing bad behavior, or believe people need to get use to having bullshit down votes they can do nothing about it when the solution is so simple.
Okay I understand your position. You would like to have a set group of controlled reasons to downvote, which you agree on.
What will you do when someone mischecks the box? lol, you are just pushing the problem one more step down the road.
View or trade
BEERat steem-engine.Hey @whatsup, here is a bit
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!