Downvoting and upvoting are really both about disagreement with rewards. If you believe a post is worth more, you upvote it. If you think it is worth less you downvote it. Ideally, in such a system the best posts would tend to get the most rewards. Large stakeholders should act in this manner because in theory that is what is in the best interest of hive and what is in the best interest of hive is also in the best interest of stakeholders. Of course, all this depends on people acting rationally...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You do realize this is the narrative they push and that you have become used to correct?
It is not CLEAR at all to new people who use the platform. It is alien to the way the rest of the world works.
So while you see it that way, and a lot of the people that have been around see it that way, that is not the initial impression and without understanding that it can lead to a very bad impression of this platform.
Perhaps, but it isn't just a narrative, it is how this system is designed to work. It has been explained ad nauseum from the beginning of steem. Curation is a combination of upvoting AND downvoting and curation is about distributing rewards. The concept is really pretty straightforward and simple. I'm not sure how else it could work and I'm not sure what else can be done to educate new users. Sure, you can tweak the details but at the end of the day, if those with more HIVE don't have more influence with their votes then how would HIVE have any value? Those with large hive stakes act badly at the peril of that stake becoming worthless. Who wants to drive their own value to nothing? But like I said, not everyone acts rationally and even when they do, not everyone will agree on what is best for hive.
I'm not saying it is perfect but it will never be that. The question is, is it good enough or can it be made to be? I think it is... certainly similar systems that have removed downvotes haven't turned out better so far. The beauty of the platform is that numerous communities with other tokens can be (and have been) built on top of hive with their own tokens and they don't have to work the same way.
Downvoting is a powerplay justified by this its the system bullshit..
This is true. @logiczombie gave a good idea I think as a reply here. I think it may be one of the better ideas I've read. He talks about a method algorand is using to handle things like this.
The quote from logiczombie was somewhere else so I edited my post here and added it to the end.
IN THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO TIP A STREET PERFORMER IF YOU LIKE THEIR MUSIC (EVEN IF IT'S NOT "ORIGINAL").
HOWEVER, SCOOPING MONEY OUT OF SOMEONE'S TIP JAR AND REDISTRIBUTING THE TIPS (OFTEN WITH A HEALTHY PORTION TO YOURSELF) IS ANOTHER MATTER.
LZ, yes. Love it. And I want to add that downvoting is dangerous if there are not enough checks and balances. I've written to add to your ideas here that there should be Flag Jurors to vote yes or no on what is flagged. And I write a lot. And let me also say perhaps a Flag should not have influence over the post itself but instead on Resource Credits or a secondary Reputation Points system (REP) that can give people another way of determining REP but from a different system. There needs to be many different checks and balances similar to the three or four branches of government in the United States of America or what was the USA if globalists continue to destroy the world and everything.
100% THIS
Hah... back in the steemit days I wrote a post about a busker and this is exactly what I described happening.
I can't believe more people can't make this simple connection.
Imagine what it would be like IRL, being able to "downvote" (take money away from) businesses or political campaigns or schools or even specific people you thought were "unoriginal" or "low effort" ?
I thought it made sense when I wrote it.
I also wrote posts about super markets where you would go in to spend your money on a product only to have that product down voted so you were essentially told you could not pay for that.
Eventually the product was no longer on the shelf.
EDIT: someone didn't like anchovies so they made it so no one could buy anchovies.
Great example.
Just use the "MUTE ANCHOVIES" OPTION.
Part of the problem is that a shared rewards pool is kind of like communism and not to say it is but I am trying to say it is a tricky thing with people fighting over perceived "LIMITED" resources in the rewards pools which leads people down the path of upvoting and downvoting in an attempt to Robin-Hood everything to redistribute value and money and wealth and everything like Obama would have us do and that is like I said the tricky thing about all of this. The argument for the need for downvoting is understandable, like I understand their side, and I also am against it at the same time. So, my compromise approach is to add trials and jurors and voters to piggybag your ideas.
THE "REWARD POOL" IS REVERSE COMMUNISM.
THE "REWARD POOL" STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH.
EVERY STAKE-HOLDER IS ENTITLED TO SELF-VOTE.
THERE IS NO MORAL THEORY WHERE SELF-VOTING IS A "CRIME".
The problem is stake holders. Anywhere else a stake holder invests in a company. A company has employees. Employees are paid. They can be fired. Yet they cannot be forced to work for free.
The companies also have people that purchase the services. Without them the stake holders get nothing and neither do the employees.
In this case it is unique because the consumers are the stake holders and the employees.
Yet some people can decide they should eliminate the interest of other people...
With such attitude I suspect I'll be leaving soon. It made steemit undesireable. The same will happen here. I really don't want to be pissed off. It is not happening to me YET.
However, I don't like seeing it done to other people.
It ends up just making me angry and after a bit I'll simply become tired of being angry.
Now I don't expect them to be worried about that. It'll likely be more of the "Don't let the door hit you on the ass" type of sentiment.
That is too bad. At least I started to see the trend before I spent close to 3 years creating content and spending a lot of time like I did on steemit before I left.
Seems like BLURT is your next stop. Have you started to learn Korean/Chinese alphabets?
Heh... nope. I doubt it will be my next stop. Like I said I don't need this platform. I was pleased to see it. I saw it and asked how things were. I was told it was better than steemit. Which it is. Yet then I started seeing some of the same behaviors that hurt steemit here. @lucylin's account is the most blatant I have seen yet.
Everytime I wrote positive about how the down voting was not as bad as steemit someone would reply with an example. It wasn't until I watched that particular account that I was completely reminded of steemit.
I have one way to address it without spending a lot of money and in the process of spending that money making the people choosing this course of action much wealthier.
Words.
I know some will not like hearing them. What other choice do I have? Stick my proverbial tail between my legs and bow to those in power?
Not happening.
Though I will not go out of my way to attack specific people and treat them as though they might not be convinced that there are other ways to do things than by showing how big they are.
It could be like blowing into the wind and achieve nothing. What other recourse is there that is realistic?
What are your thoughts on Uptrennd or Flote.app?
I don't actually know anything about them. Thus, at the moment I have no thoughts other than "Interesting names". :P
https://flote.app
https://odysee.com/@LOGICZOMBIE:0
Nah. I doubt we'll go in the way of Blurt. People just want some definition to get behind. The difficulty will be getting a good voting system and community support.
I post to Blurt but that is about it. I find it interesting but I still prefer Hive.
TRY THIS - https://www.proofofbrain.io/@joeyarnoldvn
lol is that happening on blurt also?
I think a better example would be a company where the boss has hired his mistress for the reception while paying her twice as much as his right hand. Here we can all see how much everyone is getting paid, though, and while her job isn't worth 0 it's definitely not worth 400k a year so I'm sure people in that example would speak up or use literal downvotes on her paycheck if they could, here we can.
Yep and I am fine with that until it reaches $0.
I certainly won't be telling anyone else that I know that left steemit to come to hive. I was considering doing that. To me now it seems like it is taking the same path for the same reasons. I hope to be proven wrong. I may wait and see how this POB experiment works out if they get the votes they need. If it works great. If it doesn't we can always vote to switch back.
Agree with most of what you said aside from "best posts", it's not always about the quality and during times like these there's often many examples of curation, myself included, where similar effort and quality would receive less depending on the author. Now not just talking favoritism or ulterior motives but if author A is active in bringing traffic to hive/his posts, engages with his readers/other authors, does other things that bring Hive value compared to author B who just writes great posts but couldn't give less of a shit about he rest I'd much rather vote the one bringing more than just content that's there for possible new readers on trending.