You cannot take away from the author that which does not belong to the author.

in Proof of Brain14 days ago (edited)

I've been in the down vote debate for a very long time. I started out in the eliminate the down vote camp way back in the early days of steemit/steem. I witnessed the rise of the bots that would spider through Google grab random articles and images and repost them as their own. We had to deal with the arrival of mass amounts of spam. This is a decentralized system. We would like to keep it that way. Down votes were the way.

image.png

Then we also had the people posting articles and art as their own and reaping great rewards. They were actually pretty popular voting targets with some of the whales so when I say they were making big rewards they were VERY large at the time. Sometimes more than $500 for a post.

Then people began to find out the art was not theirs, and the articles were not theirs. Organizations like steemcleaners formed to combat plagiarism. They were pretty good about giving reasons for their down votes and you could talk to them if the targeted you in error and they would attempt to fix the issue. It was still people with power down voting. Many of us would delegate power to them for the purpose of keeping things clean as long as they were honest and honorable.

Then the great discussion about the reward pool arose...

It isn't yours. It is potential rewards.

This would be used to justify down votes. The claim was they didn't take anything from you. It was just the potential.

It didn't matter that you could see it. It didn't matter than one minute it might say $5 and five minutes later it could say $0.

That was just potential rewards. You didn't earn that.

What would be really interesting is that you would see maybe 50, 100, 200 people might have up voted something. There might be 1 down vote and the post was now $0.

You see there is something that is acceptable in Delegated Proof of Stake as long as you have a lot of stake. It is suddenly okay that one person has the power to cancel out the interest of 200, 500, 1000 other people.

If 100 people like something... so what. The powerful person might not like it, or might just dislike the author.

image.png
(Image Source: warriorprincess.fandom.com)

They also might be doing it to protect the rewards. You see the argument is if a post has the potential of say earning $100 of the daily reward pool that is shared by everyone if they vote it down to say $20 then that will put $80 back in the reward pool to spread around to other people.

In theory this can seem okay and I've even been okay with that because I've witnessed what happens when most of the same people keep getting the bulk of the rewards.

Hive is a careful balance. It is an investment of what is essentially stake holders / share holders. They are rewarded by up voting. The more power they have the more they are rewarded. Yet witnesses are currently giving a 3+% APR on Hive Power so they are also collecting interest. If they put HBD into savings that is earning 7+% APR.

For people that spent money for their power it is an investment. They expect a return. They actually are getting it.

However, this platform requires content. If you want people to stick around it needs to have variety and be good content. It needs to appeal to many different people. If all you post is a bunch of recipes that is going to be a niche crowd and many people will leave. If you only post travel stories and photos same thing. If you only post gaming same thing. If you only post scary stories, politics, history, philosophy, art, photography, creative writing, music, etc. the same thing. The truth is we want all of these things. Ideally we don't want people copying other people just because the person they are copying seems to get the most rewards from the powerful people. That creates a lack of variety.

If we do these things then hive becomes a very compelling place for people not yet using it to visit. If the people creating the content are rewarded and not silenced (financially) then they will keep creating. If the rewards are good then they will likely keep trying to improve the quality. If the rewards decrease they likely will reduce the amount of time they spend.

You see this is an ecosystem that is both the monetary investors, and the content creators. They work together.

If the interest being paid on power and HBD was not there then there would be more reason for investors to be trying to get the most of the rewards pie. They would do that by curating with their vote. As their votes are very powerful they would get a bulk of the curation rewards for the platform. Without the interest bearing feature that is the only way they can earn. With the interest bearing feature they also earn that way. WE ALL DO.

There is an incentive for people to power up to increase their ability to reward people and things they are interested in.

Where does that incentive go if someone else can decide that my vote has no meaning? If I want to up vote the "Pear tree sling shot guy with a really foul mouth" and their video or story posts and I am the only one why should my vote count for nothing? Why should my investment suddenly be worth nothing?

Why is it okay for the powerful to decide "That was not yours" on a whim...

This is a flaw in the system. When some of us challenge them and say... If you want to down vote spam, plagiarism, or abusive behavior (doxing, trolling, etc). then you likely won't hear much complaint.

If you want to down vote someone because YOU don't like the topic, or because YOU are pissed off at the author then that is an abuse of power. In any democracy we'd go out and deal with you as equals.

You are protected by the "Code is law" nonsense here so it is possible for you to become SUPERIOR to everyone else.

This is not a democracy. Though sometimes when convenient it is spun as such.

My vote and the vote of thousands of others all voting to YES to the same thing can be turned to a NO if the person that voted no has sufficient power.

I don't know of a solution to the problem that wouldn't create centralization of power. Yet I also know the system creates tyrants.

They can be friendly and they have the power to reward people greatly. Yet they can also be vindictive and decide people shouldn't be allowed to earn at all.

They will come up with excuses. Then all you need do is stumble upon one of their victims who it doesn't matter what they post they will drop their rewards to $0.

Their work is now worth nothing financially. It doesn't matter if 100+ other people liked the post and up voted it. Those 100 people. Their vote is meaningless now too.

In Proof-of-Brain community there is a proposal to change this for the secondary layer token proof of brain such that down votes must give a reason. If the reason is not for a valid reason the person will be warned, and then potentially muted as far as the proof of brain secondary layer is concerned. It wouldn't stop the oppression that can still occur on the main layer with hive, but it might spare people from being financially silenced as far as the proof of brain token is concerned.

Spam, and plagiarism are valid reasons to down vote.

They just require you provide a link as proof to back up the down vote.

I've seen this before. I was never a target. I saw this attitude and behavior destroy steemit. The system is the same here. Many of the whales here are the same ones that were whales there. Probably most of them. This behavior made that place toxic and eventually many people left.

I came back here thinking hive is better. It is. Yet that same sickness about "protecting the rewards pool" yet being very selective about when it is applied is here. I'd be fine with them saying they were going to downvote any post that made over $50 (or some other threshold) to bring it below that if it was done ALL THE TIME. I am not fine with them selectively deciding "That wasn't worth that much" and being very selective about it.

That makes them into the tyrannical gate keepers that decide what the rest of us are allowed to like and attempt to reward.

I almost think having the reward pool divided based purely upon number of votes rather than power of votes would be better. Yet it could be gamed by bots. If we could prevent the multiple accounts from compromising it I think that would more accurately reflect the interest of the community than having giants that can crush the interest of other people on a whim, or because they are angry.

The question is... why would you increase your power if you did not benefit.

You'd still be receiving interest. Perhaps we could make the curation reward % portion be based upon the power of the up voter. Yet that would mean the most powerful would get the most rewards for curating. I personally am okay with that. Some people may not be.

I simply don't want them being able to silence people, and cancel out earnings for anyone.

When it comes to the reward pool there would be nothing more accurately reflecting it than people being on equal grounds when it comes to voting for things they like.

I know this is likely very unfavorable to some. Especially those with power. I know powerful people have become very wealthy thanks to steem and hive. They likely won't want that to change.

I can tell you now that the rot which made steemit undesireable is growing here.

image.png

If you need an example check out @lucylin account over the past two weeks or so. Some posts have been dragged out of the $0 earning but you will see a massive amount of $0. This was not due to spam. This was not due to plagiarism. This was due to him speaking up about things powerful people didn't like. They decided he should not be allowed to earn a dime regardless what he did.

I can tell you when I wrote my posts the other day about "Code is Law" and Algorithms, as well as my post about Whether you should do a thing just because you can it was in response to looking at that account. On that day you couldn't find any posts that are currently there that were above $0. Not one. Since then there are a few.

image.png

image.png

Yet on Proof-of-Brain he has not been financially silenced

image.png

I despise hypocrisy.

I despise fair weather friends.

If you want to attack me. Feel free. I left steemit. I can leave hive. I have plenty to keep me busy.

If we can however, work as a community and remember that this isn't just the realm of stake holders. It is also the realm of content creators. The two must coexist. If we can do that I will happily stick around.

I think if that happens hive will be a good place for a long time.

For a moment one of those most actively attacking @lucylin began amassing a lot of POB tokens. Yet it wasn't enough yet. He may be easing off of the gas on the attacks. I hope so. It is for the good of hive and just the right thing to do.

However, since it is decentralized someone can buy in and purchase a lot of hive power and we may have to have this same discussion with new whales in the future.

Unless the code is changed... after all the powerful are fond of saying "Code is Law". Laws can be changed. So can code. Just because you can crush someone doesn't mean you should. Just because their post remains you can claim that you are not censoring them but this platform is based around potential for financial reward for content as well and you are censoring them financially.

Hopefully I am done with this down vote nonsense again... I was hoping it didn't travel here from steem.


EDIT: For the moment this is the last post I plan to write about down voting. Events could change that but I feel like I have stated all I had to say on this.


EDIT 2:

@logiczombie gave me what I consider an excellent and promising idea as a reply to another post. I edited this post to include it. I think it is one of the best ideas I've heard of yet since it would still deal with spam, plagiarism, etc.

The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.

ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).

My addition. For a jury to work all jury votes would need to be 1:1 for consensus. Stake Based power for a jury members vote would make the jury purely for show.


EDIT 3:

Here when you down vote based upon opinion you are effectively deciding what other people are allowed to like due to your stake. It is not like other platforms where you simply show you don't like something. The financial component changes that. It is more akin to you deciding you don't like anchovies so down voting the potential earnings of anchovies to $0 so people that want anchovies can't pay for them because you effectively remove their ability to pay and the people making anchovies eventually stop putting them on the shelf.

When you down vote here based upon opinion that is EXACTLY what you are doing. If you decide the reward is worth $0 and you force that to occur you are removing the ability of other people to pay for products they want. Simply because your vote is 1000 times more powerful than other people (or more) if 1000 people want that product... too bad you the 1 person has decided they can't have it. You will justify this by saying it is still there. Yet how long will it remain if the person producing it cannot afford to put the time in to keep it there. It can be quite the tyrannical move to down vote in this fashion.

I've seen people complain about weak down votes of this type such as the sunsetjesus one that latches onto many of my posts and other posts. It ends up being such a small down vote most of us ignore it. I've seen other people react to it.

That one is not so powerful that it removes the ability for a product to remain on the shelf so to speak.


EDIT 4: This might be a record for me. I don't know if I've ever written an article that had over 400 comments before.

Sort:  

What "work" is lucylin doing? Just writing posts and managing to garner attention to them through drama and a few buddies doesn't give Hive any value. Most of the posts on Hive give Hive no value and most of them don't get read but most importantly they don't get read by people outside. So saying shit like:

I can tell you now that the rot which made steemit undesirable* is growing here.

and having Lucy as an example of that who is quite literally a nobody not only on Hive but outside as well is laughable. I'd rather throw allocation of Hive rewards at literally anyone new than have it continue being fed to an attention whore who turns 180 as soon as someone waves some upvotes in his face while shitting at the hand that fed him before.

How hilarious it would have been if someone had decided to downvote him on PoB you would've seen him post 5 times per day about everything wrong with PoB.

Can you guys come up with any content that isn't crying over someone removing free rewards you shitheads would never get on any other platforms?

You have a point. Or two.

Lately I've been on a quest to find better content.
Specifically, I want more poetry, short stories, and essays about basically anything other than Hive or politics.

Drama about Hive, stats about Hive, basically anything that references Hive, is like going to a library to read books about the library. Written by gossipy librarians. =p

Yup, and I mean hey when there's something new about Hive or some new ideas or happenings it's all good. Also when new people come here and explain their experience and what they think about it it can be interesting after having been here for so long you kind of just forget what it's like to see shit with new eyes. Making all of your posts about downvotes? Raising hell and pointing at flaws and why Hive will go to 0, etc, because you pissed off some stakeholders and no one gives a shit to counter their downvotes is really not content nor should it get rewarded.

We mainly focus on niche communities with our curation on @ocd, maybe you can find some of the posts we highlight daily there. For poetry/short stories I believe the inkwell is a good community to check out: https://peakd.com/c/hive-170798/created

Also when new people come here and explain their experience and what they think about it it can be interesting after having been here for so long you kind of just forget what it's like to see shit with new eyes.

@acidyo, I am relatively new to Hive (came on-board in February thanks to @theycallmedan). I initially found Hive to be a 'breath of fresh air' and I gave extra-credit to encourage my students give it a try. Beginning in February, I transitioned away from all other forms of social media (and haven't missed that a bit). And, up until recently, I have been planning to make value-creation via Hive a mandatory term-project for my students this fall (I teach a university honors seminar on Entrepreneurial Value Creation in Society).

However, what I have witnessed the past 6 weeks or so with respect to downvotes by whales for 'over-rewarded' posts quite honestly disgusts me. @dwinblood has done an excellent job explaining why opinion-based downvotes are problematic. He has also done an excellent job summarizing why removing downvotes altogether (and other efforts to 'fix' the various abuse problems associated with  Steem  / Hive) have also proven problematic.

His perspective is the best I have heard. He spent lots of energy arguing against downvotes in the early days of  Steem , then, through that dialogue, began to see the 'other' perspective (or at least began to appreciate the nuanced nature of it all).

Although I believe serious reform is needed with respect to the way the downvote protocol functions on Hive, I am focusing at the moment on experimenting with creative ways to deal with this issue at the tribe level, namely the Proof of Brain tribe.

When I first began dialoguing with @theycallmedan in January, and had him discuss Hive with my students in February, I was extremely bullish about Hive and its untapped potential. However, I have to say that this whole notion of 'we must be able to downvote over-rewarded posts' (and how persistent that ethos pervades this ecosystem, at least among those who hold the 'power') leaves me relatively lukewarm about Hive and its future potential.

As an outsider, I can tell you that this concept of downvoting 'over-rewarded' posts is repulsive to me (because of the message it sends to all those upvoters who are having their votes and curation rewards nullified by someone else's 'opinion'). And, it is making me seriously second-guess whether or not to incorporate some form of mandatory Hive participation into my course curriculum this fall.

In particular, your downvote of this post, which has generated an extreme amount of interesting engagement and dialogue, represents an exemplary display of bad form, imho -- and merely serves to conform the OP's argument. You disagree with some of the views expressed by the author and, as is your right, you have expressed your disagreement in the comments. However, you also felt it necessary to nullify 201 upvotes in the process. You can say that you were merely countering the upvotes of haejin/ranchorelaxo, but the reality is that you directly punished 200+ freedom-loving, critical-thinking Hivians who valued the content and the engagement and debate sparked by this post.

At this point, the one thing that gives me hope is the fact that there are many within the Proof of Brain tribe who are willing to put some creative energy into curbing the potential for downvote abuse by whales (and upvote abuse, also), while also combatting plagiarism and spam -- and letting the community-at-large decide what constitutes 'over-rewarded' content, via establishment of some objective standards.

I don't expect to change your mind with my words here. But hopefully I can provide some of the "when new people come here and explain their experience" perspective that you seem to be open to.

To summarize, imho, finding a suitable alternative for stemming abuse is paramount, if Hive is to ever be poised for exponential growth. We need an alternative that can effectively punish bad actors without simultaneously punishing good or neutral actors -- an alternative that can also keep abuse-watchers from being abusers themselves.

An 'ideal' solution is probably not feasible. However, I have no doubt that numerous 'better ways' exist. At this point, experimentation and iteration at the tribe level seems the best way to discover and flesh out some of those 'better ways'. Hopefully you are supportive of tribes seeking to do just that.

Most of the debate and comments occurred after the downvotes, whereby I even considered removing a couple after the amount of engagement it received. The downvotes occurred due to him using an example of someone who in my opinion fairly deserved the downvotes he got, had he used any other examples I may have not downvoted him with both of the accounts I downvoted with.

Your opinion in general is pretty void about downvotes. We've tried for many years not using downvotes for overrewarded content or people straight up abusing the rewardspool with mumbo jumbo such as technical analysis or now anti-vax conspiracies, downvote mana would cost upvote mana and barely anyone would use it back in the day. In the long run all it did was make everyone farm more, vote on friends, vote where they'd maximize the reward allocation to a select few, create backroom deals where they'd get higher curation off-chain kickbacks. It sucked for decentralization of stake and its wide distribution. I realize it may be hard to see where it would lead being new to Hive and not having been around the days when no one used downvotes and what occurred but that's the truth.

Now with linear curve it is even more important that downvotes affect the way we curate and allocate the rewardspool. It's now again easier to give bigger votes to friends, only a select few or willy nilly like some do such as traf and rancho. I've been someone who's been trying for five years now to distribute stake as wide as possible and as fairly as possible and at the same time can attest that most of the content on Hive compared to most other places is overrewarded, complaining about a few downvotes on the top of the top of overrewarded posts is very narrowminded.

I remember your interview with Dan and when you joined and invited a few students over which I personally curated but your concerns over not inviting your students based on downvotes for overrewarded posts makes close to 0 sense to me. I highly doubt they'd be a target of downvotes as I personally focus on those who receive those rancho votes all too often or on content that's not worth it.

I'm not against coming up with better solutions and downvotes certainly aren't the most optimal solution, using tribes to come up with better ways is great but I'm not seeing much of that. The PoB people seem to instead want to use some centralized ways of muting accounts (from their earnings even which is so baffling to me it makes me not want to look into what else they're doing at all, nor have I once posted in there because of that). Come up with better decentralized ways to handle a balanced pool allocation and you'll have my respect and I'm sure that of most Hive stakeholders as well, so much so that Hive would definitely consider implementing the better solution in another hardfork. Until then this is the best way we have and complaining endlessly about it or each scenario in and of itself isn't going to fix anything nor is any of it reward worthy in my opinion.

your concerns over not inviting your students based on downvotes for overrewarded posts makes close to 0 sense to me

I think this is the crux of the 'problem' (or, disagreement, if you will).

Those with heavy  Steem  / Hive experience seem to view downvotes as a sacred cow without which the platform would have crashed and burned long ago (and this may quite well be true).

As an outsider, I see the potential for downvote abuse and downvote wars as so anathema that I am now reticent to actively bring others on board until a viable alternative is in place.

In my numerous dialogues with @themarkymark about this issue (which we clearly disagree on, but about which we have been able to continue constructively dialoguing), he has stated numerous times that he basically views my concerns as a 'non-issue' (i.e. seeking a solution to a non-existent problem), that downvote abuse is rare, and that the benefits of free downvotes far outweigh the downsides.

I am looking at this from a newcomer's perspective; and I can tell you that what little bit of downvote abuse I have seen has been enough to convince me that my initial bullish view of Hive is perhaps unwarranted. The 'free downvote' represents such a stark potential for abuse of power and for ideological downvote wars and other toxic behavior, that it has seriously caused me to take a step back.

I am actively working with a handful of folks within the PoB tribe because they seem to share a similar ethos and a willingness and desire to experiment and try new ways to solve old problems. If we are successful, then perhaps Hive can adopt some of what we come up with. If not, then I will likely shift my focus away from the social-media aspect of Hive (and probably spend more time delving into SPK and other Layer 2 initiatives).

In my numerous dialogues with @themarkymark about this issue (which we clearly disagree on, but about which we have been able to continue constructively dialoguing), he has stated numerous times that he basically views my concerns as a 'non-issue' (i.e. seeking a solution to a non-existent problem), that downvote abuse is rare, and that the benefits of free downvotes far outweigh the downsides.

Not as much of a non-issue just a extremely small and very rare issue. There is 10,000x more upvote abuse happening on a daily basis. Yet almost no one does anything about it.

"Downvote abuse" which happens very infrequently already has a very simple solution. Upvotes! Problem solved. Post rewards are a community effort and no one person has complete say on them. If you disagree with the rewards for a post (too much or too little) you can do something about it. The real problem is rarely does anyone.

Either way, I hear about one or two people being “maliciously downvoted” every 3 months or so. I’m downvoting garbage upvotes on a daily basis for the last 4 years.

Yep it's so small of an issue but people make it a big one because money. People could instead discuss how to counter malicious downvotes and explain why they feel they are malicious instead of giving up on everything Hive is because of a few people in their eyes being unfairly downvoted.

What a waste.

It's not a waste. I still read what you wrote. =p

Thanks, I'll check those both out!

And yeah, I do enjoy feeling part of Hive.
But in another sense, I await the day that Hive is just ~so incredibly functional~ that we can just focus on using it as a social platform or writing portfolio. And make tons of money too, of course. =p

Just writing posts and managing to garner attention

THE INTERNET IS AN ATTENTION WAR

YOUR FOCUS IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET

USER ENGAGEMENT AND NUMBER OF REAL PAGE VIEWS IS WHAT GIVES HIVE AND ALL WEBSITES THEIR "VALUE"

Hello selective reader, no if all you do is cry about downvotes for a few months and how everything is broken and then use that attention as a way to justify rewards it doesn't make you worth any rewards from that attention.

I like how you left out literally the next in my quote that change the meaning of it

managing to garner attention to them through drama

DRAMA = ATTENTION = GOOD FOR HIVE

Are you seriously suggesting that you downvote people for "drama"???????

I'm not someone who actively looks for drama, but if it's general drama then go ahead, but drama over Hive or Hive's reward system is getting quite old. I'd tell them to go somewhere else but we both know there is no where else like Hive.

but drama over Hive or Hive's reward system is getting quite old.

In other words, you personally find it tiresome and annoying.

Are you perhaps familiar with the "MUTE" function?

A lot of people ignored haejin and even muted him while he roamed free taking a lot from the reward pool while providing close to 0 value in return quite similar to this case. You can't just ignore what's going on if you care about the rewardpool and it seems you guys do care quite a lot that this user continues to take from it or maybe you just miss his writing. Vote him with other coins or tip him, the latter can't be countered. Or, you know, buy more stake to counter the people downvoting him.

Just writing posts and managing to garner attention

THE INTERNET IS AN ATTENTION WAR

YOUR FOCUS IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET

USER ENGAGEMENT AND NUMBER OF REAL PAGE VIEWS IS WHAT GIVES HIVE AND ALL WEBSITES THEIR "VALUE"

And before you need to say it. As far as you are concerned I am a nobody too. There are likely a lot of nobodies. I am a nobody shithead.

So be it. Unlike @Lucylin I have no intentions of putting massive effort into attacking this platform or in any type of retaliation for treatment here.

It is not that important. Easy to live without.

I will speak my piece when I feel the need to do so and that is it.


That doesn't mean a nobody you don't know might be dangerous to treat as a nobody. What if they are on meds and psychotic? What if they are a trained sniper? What if they are a terrorist? What if they are a serial killer?
What if they can find you? What if they are imbalanced enough that they decide you are a target?

Yet they could still be nobody as far as you are concerned.

Now on the other hand that is a risk called life. Any of us could set off a nobody for any number of reasons and not realize it. If we lived in constant fear of that we'd be agoraphobic, xenophobic, and pretty much paralyzed in life. We might still be pretty "powerful" in an online community though. Feeling unsafe in the physical world, and like God in a digital world.

EDIT: --- funny title for a movie an serendipitous.

Yes cool words have consequences basically. What lucy said got him downvoted for months by another nobody who just happened to have a lot more stake and nobody else wanted to counter it.

That is indeed what it looked like.

I am someone who has supported some of your efforts in the past. Especially when it comes to music and such. I would/will continue to do so. I will not stop applauding the good things you do because I disagree with you in other areas. I am no whore. Yet that doesn't mean I cannot see the value of some things.

Other areas that are not valuable to me. That is personal preference.

I despise televised sports. I always have. My father loved them and it always bummed him out that his son didn't want to watch football with him. I did a few times and was bored out of my mind.

Yet a lot of people love it. So did my father.

If I had power should I be down voting all the sports posts because to me they are invaluable and to me they are a waste of time? NO.

I know you are the creator of OCD but that didn't exist during the time I am thinking of.

Think you may have me mistaken as the music thing doesn't make any sense.

I don't go around downvoting anything I think doesn't have value either, lucy just happened to be someone who ranted about shit that has close to no value while at the same time being a cunt about it. It's a social media platform, if we can't have feelings and reactions to things as humans then we may just as well go full bots.

I am fine with reactions. I just wish they were done either by ignoring, muting, or responding with words. Throwing powerful weight around doesn't make the platform look good except to those that have power which is a minority.

I'm 99.999% sure that aside from you and some other folks who read his content and/or followed him to pob his posts getting downvoted have had close to 0 effect to Hive or people without accounts yet reading him before/after.

It could be. Yet he is not the only example. He is just the most blatant example I could find. I posted quite a few times in the past two months or more I've been back about how it is better here than steemit (which is still true). Each time someone would send me a link to refute that. They were mostly one offs. While I didn't like seeing it... it wasn't yet a "where there is smoke there is fire" type of thing. The @lucylin case was blatant and obvious. It was exactly the negative crap that drove myself and others from steemit. I was never a target. I just got tired of seeing it. I started viewing steemit as a cesspool and I no longer wanted to support it.

Hive is not there. Let's learn from steemit and not repeat the mistakes made there. Some of those mistakes have already been avoided.

Just cause some do it doesn't make them look bad or the platform. I know for a fact many other smaller stakeholders agreed with those downvotes and would've cast them themselves if their weight made a dent.

You are likely correct. Yet neither you and I can truly know those perceptions (as a whole). We can guess.

Are you not involved in supporting the music community some here? If not then yes I have you confused with someone else.

I've seen some pretty low value content get up voted pretty large amounts in the past. In my opinion. I don't disagree with you completely.

Yet that was my opinion. Clearly people found value in it. I can pretty much guarantee in some of those cases you were an up voter.

You wanted the product.


Here is a question for you. If someone made a community called "Drama and Whining" would you down vote and flag the posts in there as well even though that is what it was intended for?

I've seen some pretty low value content get up voted pretty large amounts in the past.

And even "in the present".

They love to complain about "hive specific content" and yet the "trending page" still gets loaded up with "hive specific content" anyway.

I guess that's what people want to read.

Yeah, I usually don't up vote that content just because there is SO much of it, it becomes really difficult to distinguish from the crowd.

Yet. I don't down vote it either. ;)

Yet. I don't down vote it either. ;)

GREAT POINT.

PS my spelling is off atm and probably some common sense too as I just woke up, brb coffee.

You are doing fine. I am no spelling Nazi. If I understood what you are trying to say I'll never call you out on it.

Communication is the goal. If I can understand you, and you can understand me then we are good.

Clearly people found value in it.

That's not the conclusion you want to make, there's plenty of stuff that gets random upvotes some times and sets off a chain reaction of getting to trending without anyone really have read it. I mean come on look at traf's and haejin's+rancho's votes the past year, they had a literally post using that exhaust dapp saying how much they ran that day in one sentence sit at $130 on trending.

Just cause some people manage to get on those autovotes and trails (similar to lucy I imagine), then farm them out posting some garbage daily and someone comes in disagreeing with some of those rewards or someone does that + gets personal cause of something OP may have said that doesn't mean that Hive is flawed just cause that author can't get his free rewards from auto votes without much thought.

Do you ever wonder how most of the authors that cry about "reward censorship" never received any rewards in the form of tips/subscriptions? There's recurring payments now but it is quite literally not used at all. You'd think if some whales that vote them up would be that interested to read their content they'd pay them to create it if the post rewards get downvoted, let alone maybe drop them a comment now and then.

there's plenty of stuff that gets random upvotes some times and sets off a chain reaction of getting to trending without anyone really have read it.

Why not make the "trending page" based on unique page views then?

Don't people like haejin+rancho have the right (based on their stake) to upvote whatever trash they wish?

What exactly is the "moral theory" against "self-voting"?

Why not make the "trending page" based on unique page views then?

You don't think those could be faked too?

Sure they can similar to how people can downvote whatever trash they wish.

Depends who you ask I bet, if your self-vote is big but also just a small percentage of all the upvotes your posts usually get then it's kind of frowned upon in my eyes. Along with if you have a big self-vote and at the same time the content you produce is low effort.

Why not make the "trending page" based on unique page views then?

You don't think those could be faked too?

Can't you filter by something like "only count unique page views by logged in HIVE accounts with more than 100 HIVE-POWER" or something like that?

This doesn't sound like an "unsolvable problem".

it's kind of frowned upon in my eyes.

I just don't understand what the "moral theory" is supposed to be here.

Why would you "frown upon" a large self-vote?

It could be used better than already voting on your posts that may get $50-100 per post? Look at @theycallmedan, if he'd self-vote it would feel a bit strange cause he doesn't need it, at the same time if he posted a meme or a photo with a couple words and self-voted it where his 20-40$ vote was 90% of the rewards it would be a disservice to everyone else to not downvote it a bit, no?

it would be a disservice to everyone else to not downvote it a bit, no?

Disagreeing on how much reward any specific post "deserves" seems strange.

For example, if a street-musician gets a $100 tip, and they seem to be making less effort than the other street-musicians,

Does that alone give me the right to scoop that tip out of their hat and redistribute that money to the other street-musicians?

NO.

That money is not mine, and I have no right to say that street-musician doesn't "deserve" that large tip.

Also, if the street-musician put their own $100 bill into their own hat, that still wouldn't give me the right to take it out of their hat and redistribute it to the other street-musicians.

I know people like to say "it dilutes the reward pool".

But the same exact argument applies to real-life-CASH-MONEY-DOLLARS as well.

Whenever someone spends a large amount of money, they are reducing the value of your money.

If everyone stops spending, your savings actually increase in "purchasing power".

Also for the record. I didn't follow anyone to POB. I remember it being talked about possibly being created way back in the early days of #informationwar discord. Then I left.

I came back and kept seeing posts I liked from there. I tried posting there and people liked it and gave me some good discussion. That is why I am there.

@lucylin is someone I've crossed proverbial mental swords with going back to the steemit days. We often disagree on some point or another. We use very different approaches in how we communicate. Yet we also kind of know how each other do things and I'd like to think we formed a mutual respect.

One thing we both are is heavily against censorship.

Do I think his posts are sometimes abrasive and completely not how I'd do it?

Yes.

Other times I find myself chuckling or laughing my ass off.

So while I don't always like what he says. I'll fight for his right to say it.

If I really feel strongly against something he says he knows I'll speak up. We'll likely start swinging swords again and eventually will nod, shake hands, and return to our corners. :)

At least that is my mental imagery there.

With that said. There are also many areas he and I agree.

I don't think many have wanted to downvote his rewards based on just criticism about Hive or the way thinks work here. I.e. I don't think it was meant as censorship of visibility. I haven't engaged with him much but seeing how he instantly goes for the offensive and waving some kind of "I'm more intellectual than most of you" wand around I can see why people would want to downvote him for the fun of it too. I have read posts from him in the past so he already was in my "ah it's that fucking guy" memory folder and that was mostly from random people linking me to his stuff with a message of "check this idiot out".

Anyway, I'm glad he found a place where people reward him for the way he is, I guess. Though I do think PoB is just trying to pick some people bigger Hive stakeholders don't like just for marketing effect, can't wait to see Kingscrown trending there next I guess.

Loading...
Loading...

Also for the record. I think this is the first post of this kind I have made on hive. I also indicated in the post I have no intention of making another at the moment.

So I don't keep making these kinds of posts. Nor do I intend to. I was inspired by the quote that became the title of this post when I wrote this post.

Loading...
Loading...

It's crazy, I've been lurking on the POB issues and discussions.

It's occurred to me there are very few times that peer to equal peer down votes cause extended drama, usually just a quick flair up.

When a Whale with a wild hair, a power trip and stake goes off on someone the other whales should, but do not fix it.

Lucy goes too far for too long sometimes and I personally get annoyed with it. He didn't discover a problem with DPOS and isn't exposing it, he's experiencing what many before him have experienced. Case in point.. A post from July, 5 years ago.. via the old site. https://steemit.com/steemit/@incomemonthly/some-whales-are-abusing-their-power-with-downvotes-ie-liondani

No matter though, it's easy for me to enjoy his content when he's having fun and ignore it when he's involved in one of these situations, he is certainly a good user, who makes unique content and is not a scammer or a spammer.

The best I can think of is a brave group with big stake could unite to counter vote, but.. that's what the Korean's tried.

Invest accordingly, because while it isn't a deal breaker for many, it seems most don't appreciate it, and it has cost us many good users.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

That link made a few thoughts come to mind.

Based on the comments under that post you linked, I'm a bit confused as to what the point is in your case in point. On the surface, it appears they were taking care of a situation involving what they considered to be an exploit at the time, then took some flak for it.

I'm sure I could dig and find posts where someone wrote a beautiful, well-written piece of literature (not being sarcastic, but funny I have to put a disclaimer here ammirite), calling out people for downvoting, disagreeing with it in ways that really paint the picture of being attacked by a heartless beast. It's quite convincing, but you dig a little deeper and find out they were up to no good, like art fraud or something. I actually know this well because I've busted a few myself. They act like shoplifters in denial of being a thief as they watch themselves stealing on video (busted some of those as well, years ago).

Would you agree a lot of sensationalism, misrepresentation of character, misinformation, disinformation, libel, and even harassment comes up far too often in these cases where someone got downvoted and disagreed? I would say that's a problem. I've even seen some cases over the past five years where I disagree with the downvote, but then the one being downvoted begins doing all or some of those things I listed, so then any downvote after, seems legit.

For instance. Harassment. When we had "flags", that was on the list as a valid reason to use the "flag" or, downvote. Big or small (I hate how people have that mentality here but I'll play along), no matter who they are, I don't like seeing folks being harassed.

When it gets dirty like that, I take a neutral position. I feel if the words got them in the mess, the words can get them out. Dishonesty can be converted into honesty.

What are your thoughts on that? This part never seems to come up when we're having an honest discussion about downvotes.

My point in bringing in the old post was just this situation isn't new and has always happened.

image.png

I completely agree that both the downvoter and the downvoted often name-call, smear, and escalate the conflict, and say unnecessary things without merit about the other. Many people it seems could benefit from taking a conflict resolution course.

At the end of the day all systems and platforms have pros and cons and DPOS means stake is the tie-breaker in any conflict regardless of who is right and wrong, who uses nice words, etc.

In many cases diplomacy would go a long way, but this is a weakness of DPOS in general. Having the most stake is a fine tie-breaker, but stake doesn't take skill sets into account. In another setting an organization might put their most diplomatic people on the front line of moderation, their best business minds at the top of the project, etc.

I understand DPOS, I think it is imperfect, but all systems have strengths and weaknesses. There is kind of a perfect balance in knowing what the tie breaker is.

The POB group is looking to experiment with other methods of moderation and I find it interesting, but I also don't feel attracted to having a complicated set of rules. It is what it is, and after 1000 debates, it still will be tomorrow.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

I understand DPOS, I think it is imperfect, but all systems have strengths and weaknesses. There is kind of a perfect balance in knowing what the tie breaker is.

The POB group is looking to experiment with other methods of moderation and I find it interesting, but I also don't feel attracted to having a complicated set of rules.

The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.

ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).

Many people it seems could benefit from taking a conflict resolution course.

LOL. Yes. Maybe they should write a Hive tutorial about that too? And of course it takes two to tango. I do not discount that fact.

I'll leave the platform politics part up to you folks. That's for you folks to sit and talk about. Maybe someday it'll actually lead to something productive. I'm sure that's the goal.

And yes I can see this is a bit of a POB advertisement. I've seen this approach a couple times already. I hope it gets clicks.

Also, pardon me. I'm just being facetious for shits and giggles.

Would you agree a lot of sensationalism, misrepresentation of character, misinformation, disinformation, libel, and even harassment comes up far too often in these cases where someone got downvoted and disagreed? I would say that's a problem.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the "MUTE" function?

Perhaps people can make observations, explain what they see, view it as problematic, and have no desire or need to run away and hide? Nothing there offends me or offers me a reason to lose sleep.

You seem to be promoting the "mute" function quite often here. Makes me wonder if you're currently tucked deep inside of an echo chamber, oblivious to your surroundings.

If I was in an "echo-chamber" I wouldn't be here, thanking you for your scathing critique.

It seems like you're the one who wants to make the entire HIVE blockchain into your own "echo-chamber" by chasing off everyone who you happen to find unpleasant.

How are you so good at twisting things out of shape? Who do I find to be unpleasant? People fascinate me. Where did I chase someone off?

Are you in favor of downvoting @lucylin ?

Isn't that what this entire post is about ?

How are you so good at twisting things out of shape?

My response to whatsup isn't about the post, it's in relation to her comment. That's how conversations occur. My response to you in relation to the 1000 jury concept had nothing to do with this post. So we had a conversation about that. My response to dwinblood started a conversation, and that had nothing to with the post.

Is this post about downvoting lucylin? I thought it was about a lot of things. But I took more of an interest in the comments.

I've had conversations with lucylin. Do you not see how the downvote led to gathering more attention? Do you think that happened by chance? He knows exactly what he's doing. The publicity stunt unravels more and more by the day. If you take the downvote away from him, he's going to be out of a job. Do you think that's fair to lucylin?

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...

Downvoting and upvoting are really both about disagreement with rewards.

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..


Posted via proofofbrain.io

But like I said, not everyone acts rationally and even when they do, not everyone will agree on what is best for hive.

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.

There needs to be many different checks and balances

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.

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".

Loading...

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.

... 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?


Posted via proofofbrain.io

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

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.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

I post to Blurt but that is about it. I find it interesting but I still prefer Hive.

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.

It is more akin to you deciding you don't like anchovies so down voting the potential earnings of anchovies to $0 so people that want anchovies can't pay for them because you effectively remove their ability to pay and the people making anchovies eventually stop putting them on the shelf.

If you decide the reward is worth $0 and you force that to occur you are removing the ability of other people to pay for products they want.

This is the best summary I've heard regarding why the current DV system is so problematic. Very well stated!

I've been cautious to upvote at times fearing the post may get downvoted to zero in the end and that is always in the back of my head meaning I kind of want to avoid upvoting any post which might get flagged and that includes posts which should not be flagged and I only upvote posts which I think should not be downvoted but some are downvoted and that is the crazy thing that I have to add to all of this mayhem.

I wrote a few posts that were more detailed that basically described this back in the steemit days. It didn't seem to matter.

Now a combination of what you have suggested and the jury thing related to Algorand that @logiczombie pointed out might be a path towards actually solving this problem but maintaining the ability to DV spam, plagiarism, and abuse.

Yes, it is sort of like going to the supermarket with a certain amount of store credits, you load up your shopping cart with all your favorites and go through the checkout line. Then, on your way to your car, the downvote zombies come and empty half your cart. You're like "Hey, I paid for those with valid store credits", to which they reply, the store policy (code, law, whatever), posted for all to see, is that the stuff isn't yours until it actually makes it to your car. Oh, and sorry about the fact that you can't get your credits back -- sucks for you, but that's the 'law of the land'.

Next time you go to the grocery store, you leave the anchovies on the shelf (even though you really love them) and all your other favorites, because the downvote zombies have made it clear that anchovies and all those other goodies you crave are not worth purchasing (and will be confiscated and put back on the shelf), even though you think otherwise.

It is exceedingly draconian.

Several of us within the Proof of Brain tribe are actively working on various solutions that we will try to get implemented as temporal experiments in the near future.

I think it is worse than that. They don't empty your cart. They just decide they don't have to pay the vendor. Then that vendor reduces quality, and/or stops providing products.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

Perhaps we could add a Flag-The-Flag button to go after Flag Abusers or put the Flag Abusers in Flagger Trial to piggyback Logic Zombies' Post-Flag Trial Idea and extent to the Flaggers as well as opposed to just to the Flagged.

Yeah we recommended this back in the Steemit days. It could be potentially abused using multiple accounts. The multiple accounts issue is usually what defeats most ideas.

That random jury selection thing is the first one I've read that might work even if people have multiple accounts.

Only let verified accounts vote, perhaps that can counter the Multiple Accounts Argument. But of course the counter to that would be who verifies the accounts and what are the requirements for having an account verified. Well, my response would be to have a combination of requirements be it to have enough witnesses confirm an account is of a real person via links, phone numbers, etc, and say a certain number of Hive Power and a certain number of posts and a certain number of Reputation points. Also, make sure the account is at least 6 months old or come up with another magic number. And perhaps a certain number of required followers because that means the account must be representative of a real person. But then again, I am not sure how I feel about all of this as I have several accounts on Hive. but I guess you may only want one vote per person kind of thing or goes the argument.

Only let verified accounts vote, perhaps that can counter the Multiple Accounts Argument.

Yep. That is one way. Yet a lot of people prefer to be anonymous.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

Would that include me with almost almost 1,000 HP?

I think anyone with more than 200 HIVE-POWER who actively posts would qualify.

ALSO, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO "PRESERVE" "DOWNVOTING" FOR "SPAM" "PLAGIARISM" AND "ABUSE"

THAT'S WHAT THE GODDAMNED JURY IS FOR.

THE MUTE BUTTON IS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE

ALSO, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO "PRESERVE" "DOWNVOTING" FOR "SPAM" "PLAGIARISM" AND "ABUSE"

THAT'S WHAT THE GODDAMNED JURY IS FOR.

THE MUTE BUTTON IS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE

Ponder this idea:

Just as how we are able to set a percentage when upvoting, perhaps there should be an automatic percentage on downvoting, with the "code" preventing the downvote from ever taking more than 20% of the final payout.

Then it would take at least 5 powerful downvotes to take you to zero, instead of just one.
Yes, of course multiple accounts get in the way again!

Tsk. Well, we'll have to keep thinking until we come up with something that has no weaknesses, and only benefits.

That...is an excellent idea. It solves a lot of my problems in a way. So, if I spot fraud I'll do the due diligence and put the evidence in a comment. I just need to make a shout out to have others review and then DV. I meet consensus requirements, justification, and notification. @calcumam what do you think?


Posted via proofofbrain.io

We have Witnesses and perhaps we need to add a new job called Flag Jurors who are given some kind of incentive to vote yes or no for flagged posts and accounts can be punished if found guilty and flaggers can be punished as well if they are found guilty of flagging posts which should not be flagged; and then someday we may have to put the Flag Jurors in trial as well if they were found to be abusing the flaggers who might be abusing the downvote/flag button.

That taking a lesser amount would be good except for when dealing with spam, plagiarism, or obvious abuse (doxing, etc.)

A better idea would be that the same account's downvotes on a certain account lose value for a certain amount of time and/or enter diminishing returns after the first downvote. Easy example, account A's first downvote on account B has 100% weight, but downvote #2 in the same week only 50%, #3 only 25% and #4 only 12.5% while downvote #5 goes to 0 and you have to wait a week to be able to affect said author again. We had diminishing returns on upvotes back in the day and tried them for a while but people just switched to sockpuppets, but wondering how it could work against malicious downvotes in comparison.

That sounds like an option that might be viable and worth trying. It would deter malicious voting unless they use multiple accounts. Part of why I rarely recommend a solution is because any solution I think of is easily circumvented just by using multiple accounts.

90% of the time people always forget sybil attacks.

Yeah it is one of the first questions I started asking. Can I bypass this with multiple accounts. It is the main reason I don't usually offer solutions because all of them I can think of can be bypassed this way.

Doesn't it work like that already? I was chasing a couple of accounts not too long ago that would delete old posts and then republish in the POB frontend under new names. It took me a long time to recover my DV power that week.

Your query on malicious DV'ing would work well, I think. If someone posts daily and gets rewards zeroed daily (assuming it isn't justified) it would prevent some continuous DVs from occurring. Though I don't know it would be effective against DV trails.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

With spam, plag, abuse, etc you'd have a much easier time getting many different accounts to help you quickly target them.

Yes in my observations I agree with you.

Here's an idea, when a post gets flagged, then it can be sent to a Flag Feed, a Flag Tag, a Flag Community, or whatever we want to call the place, then people can view it and vote yes or no to agree or disagree with the flag. So, if a post is flagged, then freeze potential rewards for that post for a month while it is pending in trial, people can vote and if the people vote not to have the post flagged, then have a way to punish the flagger. But if people agree that the post should be flagged, then find an appropriate punishment for the publisher of the flagged post.

So a flag becomes an invisible comment that takes the form of a countdown to ACTUALLY downvote? And if the comment is downvoted itself, in a special flagging hell, then it doesn't take effect? And if rejected, it even harms the original flagger's reputation?

What a lot of steps, but it sure as heck sounds pretty nice.
I'd love to hear a developer's opinion though.

image.png

Yeah I saw that... he did that immediately. I don't really care. I wasn't voted down to $0.

If they wanted it fixed when it came to down vote for reward disagreement, the simple one stop solution is to remove all the curation rewards, no curators get a reward, the Author portion of the reward pool system would still go to the Author. in other words if a post has a pending payout of 10 dollars, and someone felt it was over rewarded, or they just did not like the Author, the Author still gets 5 dollars worth of Hive and the curators all those people that voted for the post get zero, nothing nada for their effort of liking a post, it was all removed by one down voter.

Of course there will, as is typical, be a million and one reasons why that would not work.

You are correct though. That at least wouldn't turn WORK the author did and they thought they were getting paid for suddenly into work they did for "FREE".

Removing my downvotes for the amount of time you spent on the comments and discussing them and other things. Doesn't mean I disagree with them having been used in the first place as I really disagree with the example of Lucylin being used against downvotes and some other things you seem to think of about Hive from some of your comments to others in this thread. Your previous posts not being overrewarded also played a factor in me wanting to reward you more along with all the comments you wrote.

What would be cool is if we had something people in a position to do so could be alerted if someone is being down voted to $0. Look at it and see if it was spam, or plagiarism. If it wasn't then counter the action enough to give them at least a small amount per up vote they received that you trust.

That'd be pretty nifty positive response. I don't know how practical or possible that would be. Just brainstorming.

Mentions still work for me, that may change during the next Hive bull run, though.

I'll try to remember that if I see anyone Zeroed.

I replied before seeing this elsewhere. I don't mind your down votes. It bothers me most when people are downvoted to $0 or near $0. That is financial censorship in my mind.

It is saying it didn't matter that other people valued it. It should be $0.

If other people like something then I personally don't think I should ever have the right to dictate it's value at $0.

I didn't actually complain about your down votes or anyone elses on my post I don't think.

I mean it is still sitting at over $40 potential earning... what do I have to complain about? That's pretty damn good.

When some of us challenge them and say... If you want to down vote spam, plagiarism, or abusive behavior (doxing, trolling, etc). then you likely won't hear much complaint.

It does seem rather strange to me that the oligarch vigilantes DON'T DOWNVOTE ALL gifs and memes, which are, by any measure, both "spam" and "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement".

Some of them even use copyrighted images as avatars and homepage backgrounds.

Yep. I cite every image that is not my creation except those that have the citation already written into the image themselves.

Some of the images I use to make the images I create myself I fail to cite. If someone wanted to go after me that'd be the legit path to do it. That would force me to cite all of the random images I grab and use and I would do so if it was deemed necessary by people.

if it was deemed necessary by people.

ONLY IF THE "ENFORCERS" ALSO DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

Some things are covered under Fair Use and other things too. Also, does Copyright apply to the Internet is my question. My rebuttal is that it depends on many different things as enforcing Copyright on the Internet is a Pandora Box in that there is an invisible line between what is perceived as infringing copyright and the technical violation of copyright through the very nature of how computers automatically copy data to a sea of computers, different servers, the data is like water and it floods into the RAM, the cache, the CPU, the GPU, information and data is literally and technically being copied and pasted in zeroes and ones as in binary code like water in the ocean as it flows through the Internet, as text, audio, video, files, photos, move around the Internet, it is technically being copied without the approval of the owners of the copyright, the patent, the trademark, etc, whatever the case might be, the data is literally being copied trillions of times or countless times through so many different hard drives and is being mirrored and copied without permission by agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI6, other organizations, governments, groups, Facebook, Google, God knows who else, meaning it is crazy hypocrisy to punish some people for alleged copyright infringement while simultaneously ignore agencies who are copying the data and storing the data and selling the data and some of that may be violating the 4th amendment and other things. I can talk all day about copyright and I see it as a crazy thing by the very nature of how the Internet works in that data works differently than a tangible and physical painting for example. And would it be copyright to take a photo of a painting? My argument would be no. See, with tangible items, you want to buy the painting. And a photo of a painting is not the painting. So, if I sell the photo, people should not buy it but they can if they want. But the photo is not the painting. But if I sold my photo and said it was a painting, then that might be considered to be a lie, a scam. Then bring forth the copyright violation as I was pretending to sell something which was not what it really was. Well, I guess it all depends. I could say more but I will stop for now.

meaning it is crazy hypocrisy to punish some people for alleged copyright infringement while simultaneously ignore agencies who are copying the data and storing the data and selling the data

GIPHY DOES NOT OWN ANY OF THE COPYRIGHTS TO ANY OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IMAGES THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL.

skip to 2086 seconds,