If it's voluntary why is it costing $350 a day??? Where is the money going.
I have no problem with countering abuse but i've seen HW drive away regular users by targeting them with downvotes for stupid reasons.
No explanation, no warning and no talking to them.
A proper set up would have an account with delegated HP for downvotes.
A specific reporting structure with a list of offences. Standardized so it's clear when and why a person is infringing on the community.
Report an infringement to the team.
First a friendly warning and show them where the problem lies.
If still breaking guidelines a small downvote maybe 10% of the reward.
If persistent offending then increase the downvote but a clear and specific structure on how it would work with open channels of communication.
I have no problem with a person being paid to run a service like this but it needs to be ran as a proper full time service and professionally done not just throwing downvotes around the place and refusing to interact with people in a proper way.
I've been here 7 years myself and have seen a lot over that time. I was targeted by whales back in the early days and almost driven off the platform with downvotes. They should be used sparingly and only for real abuse. Downvotes are harmful and have driven away a lot of users over the past 7 years.
It is voluntary, cuz we (and you if you voluntarily join countering abuse) dont earn anything.
We also get none of the 350$ a day for Hivewatchers ("we" is just decentralized voluntary community members) but if you want to stop Hivewatchers, we need more voluntary help
Not all transactions are onchain. There is too much obfuscation of how HW applies it's funding. There are too many good posters that are oppressed without cessation, literally 1M users driven from the platform since I've been here!
The influence of affluence has derailed HW's mission. Sketchy flags are flown against creators that post things objectionable to oligarchs on Hive, despite those posts not being spam, scams, or plagiarism. Bizarrely, when discussing posters chased off, claims are made that users don't promote Hive on other platforms, but people that post here what they also post elsewhere HW calls that plagiarism. That is exactly bass ackwards, as censorial platforms like Fakebook and Twatter send people looking for alternatives and posting their content to lots of platforms, Hive censors them instead of avails them a safe and rewarding place to post it.
I am confident that backdoor payments off chain are rewarding the more blatant opinion flagging HW continues - for years - on users that may have reposted their OWN CONTENT, or for some other excuse, despite those posters posting original content here. I donate a percentage of my author rewards to several of them, but I have to keep moving to new ones as they give up and quit posting here.
HW is flagging content creators off the platform, and nothing is worse for Hive as a community of content creators. Funding for flagging should be eliminated, and funding - as I am doing by donating 1/4 of my author rewards to flagged authors - should be promoting free speech improperly flagged instead. Hive needs to build it's community, not flag it until the creators find Twatter and Fakebook preferable. The bizarre humiliation ritual people are forced to undergo to get HW off their back is utterly unacceptable. It is blatantly malevolent. There are innumerable similar features of HW practices, and the certainty of off chain encomiums paying for opinion flags has tainted Hive with a stench that will take years to wash off when we do start defending free speech instead of flagging objectionable speech into the dust.
Spam, scams, and plagiarism should be met with appropriate response FROM THE COMMUNITY which has been empowered to defend itself. The funding availed HW should be DEFENDING free speech instead of crushing it.
I fight against abuse when and where i see it.
Not silly stuff or newbies making mistakes.
I will flag if i see plagiarized posts or straight up circle voting.
I'm happy to help hive in anyway possible to weed out users abusing the system or hurting our community but not flagging for the sake of it.
If nobody is getting the $290 per day then where is this funding going to??
Going to the wallets of the 2 supposed "Hivewatchers".
Chances are, it's just one person with a fake partner.
I'm just a guy like you..
I'd also prefer abolishing HW - it's not a new discussion
but I am against those newly wanting to abolish it since only a few days, cuz their farming sheme got busted by HW
Hi @niallon11
It would be probably better to check up on the actual proposal and discover a bit about the HW's actual activity. It is 290/day not 350/day.
For the marketing campaign, there is already a proposal running called "Value Plan".
https://hivel.ink/valueplan/@valueplan/q3-value-plan-proposal
If you have marketing ideas, you are welcome to forward them to @guityparties.
Regarding, themarkymark.
He has considered himself a Hive Blockchain martyr who has always done all the abuse fighting himself (that is limited to triggering his downvote bot on some accounts to auto-clear rewards on day 6) while no one else did any abuse fighting. At the same time, he has never done a single investigation on a single post to look for plagiarism, identity theft, etc.
He has been running the same tape "Steemcleaners/Hivewatchers do not deserve anything and I do all abuse fighting" since 2016. Our project/proposal is not the only one. He attacks all proposals. Maybe it's because he tried a proposal once and it never got a pass.
Since 2016, we have already explained in detail to him multiple times what tasks abuse fighting constitutes. The last time was in January.
Hi hivewatchers.
Regardless of $290 or $350 where is that funding going to and why would you need $105K per year to downvote a few posts???
I've reread your proposal and it's vague. Without clear guidelines, instructions or help for people wanting to deal with your team. The website has not been developed and overall it's a small group of people exerting control over the community as it sees fit often to the detriment of that same community.
Where is the breakdown of these costs.
Why is there no clear list of infringements and related penalties.
Why is there no proper structure for reporting, disputing and process.
Where is the breakdown of value saved for the community as you claim.
Where is the cost of all the decent users that have been driven away by your downvotes.
Just zeroing rewards from users is not helping the platform or it's community.
We only have about 5000 active bloggers so these costs are absurd and this set up is not working for the majority of the community. The only reason that it has funding is due to @smooth and @blocktrades voting it.
I don't care about themarkymark. I'm not a huge fan of his. He has done both good and bad for hive but i agree with him on this current topic and have never been afraid to speak my mind. It's not my first year on hive and i've seen the damage that flagging has done over those years setting us back years in terms of user growth and retention.
This is false. There are many other voters. If I unvoted it, for example, it would still be funded (which would not be the case if @blocktrades were the only remaining vote).
Furthermore, if either or both of us changed our vote, there is no way to know how other stakeholders might respond by also changing their votes, potentially changing the outcome yet again.
Your conception of how DHF voting works is a bit off.
You are falsely denying you and blocktrades have controlling stake, just as BlackRock does of corporations, without have the majority of stake.
Suckups pander to you whales. Quit being disingenuous.
I own about 1.5% of Hive.
And BlackRock at al gain controlling interest in stock corporations with as little as 5-10%. Investors largely follow leaders that demonstrate facility attaining ROI, which is why it's calleda controlling interest, rather than a majority interest.
By Blackrock et al, you mean Blackrock + Vanguard + State Street + Fidelity + Other similar.
Even excluding the others, they usually own about 20%+
Firstly, good to see you still around. Been a long time since i saw your name pop up in a comment section.
Fair enough. Your 6m (inc proxy) wouldn't drop it below the return proposal.
I do know how it works and i did say due to you both supporting it.
But blocktrades 23M and your 6M is roughly 80% of the support for the proposal from just two accounts. Not very reflective of community or decentralized.
Now i can't predict the outcomes but if you both stopped supporting it then it's hard to see the proposal getting over the return limit.
What you're ignoring is that there may well be other large stakeholders would vote for it if one or both of us didn't.
I can tell you for sure that I don't bother to vote for some proposals even if I support them for the simple reason that I see they're already approved and they don't need my vote. If they started to drop down too much on the list, I'd vote for them.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that voting is dynamic and you can't look at static votes as telling the conclusive "reason" why it is or isn't approved.
Wow "only" 290$.
For what?
Please answer it in my Post from yesterday, hope you read it and Answer the other Questions, too.
Here's a marketing idea: quit flagging our marketing team. Everyone that posts content here AND elsewhere draws eyeballs here. That's marketing.
Quit killing the golden goose.
You originally asked and got paid $350/day (blindly and immediately, even before you had a single comment on your proposal) until enough people made a stink about it and you reduced it to keep the gravy train going.