Source: Canva Pro Subscription.
Recently announced was a new proposal to tackle malicious down votes which can be read here. As many of you know I previously held the view that Hive should remove down votes however, since investigating the topic further I have since changed my stance on down votes.
I understand that this proposal has come about to prevent a repeat of a previous incident that occured over a month ago. Since then there have been no other forms of issues arising from down voting content.
It is important to also note that the proposal does now include a definition of a malicious down vote which is good. It also attempts to put in place a mitigation process to ensure the issue can be resolved. However, as someone who has commenced down voting crap and plagiarised and bad content. The process also requests people to first engage with the offender. In my opinion this is standard practice on the block chain.
The incident that arose went on for a number of months with many raising concerns to no avail. Then the down votes commenced. The process described above did occur however, no action arose.
My concerns is that this process will limit and not prevent bad behavior and while negotiations occur people can continue to behave poorly. It also doesn't safeguard people if the person being complained about is within the leading faction.
Down votes are a vital part of the block chain that not only disincentivises poor behavior but also safe guards your earnings. When a down vote occurs it increases everyone elses payouts as it removes the offending posts rewards. This iteself acts as a deterrent to people.
I fear these changes will open PoB up to abuse and cause people to leave the community or not engage.
As someone who quite often spends a few hours on my posts I am disappointed to see others who scramble a few words together receive hundreds of PoB payouts.
Im urging people to vote NO on the proposal and help end crap content and reward authentic authors who work hard for their blogs.
I would like to thank @trostparadox for the proposal and helping address issues within PoB. We need more governance proposals to ensure change. Thank you
We need downvotes to fight plagiarism or we will be like steem with only self-votes
Plagiarism is just ONE of the many problems. Not the only one.
Seems to many people have a distorted, skewed understanding what the DV really is.
The day when you finally will understand, that DV is not an act against the author, but an act against the irresponsible voters, against incentivized, corrupted and abusive (by its origin) upvotes/upvoters - these things start to look in a completely different light.
You CAN NOT take away something from the author, which still does NOT belong to that author.
DV is just one of the components of a balance, of healthy consensus.
I let myself again to quote the words of one curator, who laid out the main principles of DPOS and upvoting/downvoting. Because I can not say this any better:
I disagree, but I appreciate the opinion. It speaks to someone's outlook on the platform. We can look at rewards like we look at a salary or another promise of payment. Rewards, for a job, belongs to the employer until payday. You're promised a salary for the performance of work. If that payout could be jeopardized over any infraction you'd look elsewhere.
I still say the lack of information or communication contributes to the stigma. Maybe I could do something about that now that I have to keep track of POB discussions. Each tribe has their own responsibility I imagine to keep people informed.
Have you seen the new POB ecency? I wonder if we can put a repository of info there. I like the points you posted, but there needs to be a better way to present and communicate it. If people new to HIVE were to read it during on boarding, they probably wouldn't bother.
You laid out many vital points and it's true no doubt. I think you should give a try to your version of a better proposal to make POB better community. You have 5 years of experience on social blockchain, we all lookup to you as mentor and guide. You can bring the difference. Share your wisdom sir. 🙏
It's not easy, not simple.
If I had a finished recipe, it would have been already published.
This makes me smile. Yes, if to consider specifically "blockchain" stuff - that is right, 5 years.
But sometimes I say to my audience - my experience in "social networks" is 50+ years.
Yes, FIFTY, this is not typo.
I have been extremely active in a hobby called "amateur radio". Which can be considered as some sort of social network. Global. World wide.
In which I started back in 1971, when I first learned the MORSE CODE.
Funny, ekh ?
A social network in which I got involved LONG BEFORE INTERNET.
Yes, so much different from today's networks. Yet still - a network.
And even social (in some degree)
One day I may stick together a separate post on all this stuff.
Or, see here, if you don't want to wait.
73
Checked out your post sir👍. It's simply great. Now I know the secret behind your nick name, it's special. Your experience in social networking is amazing and yeah sure longest here. Your radio contest winnings and records are noteworthy. It sure been amusing and quite fascinating at that time. I am glad to know this. You truly are 'Alpha'. 😊
Wow, that's very interesting. It's good to see your this side. Most of us considered you a serious, mature and disciplined guy. You are really a true gentleman. Keep sharing your life experiences with us. I bet everyone here would love to know more about you. Have a Great day sir😊
Many of the above points have truth, but it's not that clear. Yeah, I would definitely recommend for more people to make proposal recommendations.
I got it, It is not act of deprivation because the author did not get anything yet.
yeah
yeah 7-day reward pool is for that the community to see it is worth
This is a very complicated question of which I still do not have a clear opinion
I agree to this
think you are right because there is no point in down voting, because anything that attracts the public there are people who just dont think the way others think they take things as joke so they decide to go the wrong way on purpose
The proposal never intended to prevent anything. No proposal, no matter how intelligent, will prevent bad behavior. The proposal's intent was to limit malicious downvoting by adding consensus to the action. The proposal failed mostly because of participation. Weeks before, @trostparadox requested input from the community and received little.
Another reason for the failure though was because it didn't already line up the most common bad behaviors. Malicious UV'ing, for example, wasn't addressed. If you wanted to reduce payout as a result of MUV, you'd have to wait on a consensus to debate and authorize.
DVs are also used as an attack or a threat. In the threat category, "With me or against me" is one such post I read. Also, statements on witholding upvotes for voting against someone is another issue. A classic example of malicious DV'ing on HIVE AND POB is @lucylin. It's just one example.
Your statement is consistent with mine and everyone else's and that's great. It's also the problem and speaks to the need for definition and consensus in the community. What you think is crap is not the same as what someone else believes. Over rewards can become abusive, but not necessarily because someone wants to be malicious. At this point on HIVE and POB, I've seen many people get over rewarded. Even people who DV to reduce over rewarding have kept interestingly quiet when their posts get over rewarded.
The concept of over rewarding and quality is too subjective. Everyone has their opinion, but large stakeholders hold the power. Trost's proposal was meant to address this fact. Another proposal will fail without a clear attempt at defining over rewarding and quality. The community will also need to participate in its development before voting.
Some wonderful insights and nice perspective friend. But as we know previous proposal is already rejected and new one also is near rejection. I like the idea of need of 50% voting. It gives more strength to the community. There is need of little peace to this matter for now. So many cross fingers on this proposal already. Let's hope for more and better future proposals. 😊👍
Thank you, the link should work now.
If we are saying no for a reason, wouldn't it be better to provide a solution to the problems you see with the proposal. Unmonitored downvoting has to be curbed for sure. This platform is not for the people to create rivalries or express their harsh opinions be making the other person incur any kind of loss.
That would be awesome. I feel like we were fortunate to get a few different solutions to problems people had.
I think it should be required to at the minimum, pick a label for why you’re downvoting, so at least the person can have a chance to correct their behaviour, and more people see it as a reward adjustment than an attack on them personally.
It will also help many of the new members understand why there are downvotes, and what’s acceptable behaviour on a pos system.
It’s a lack of understanding that has lead to so many leaving.
Can we have a responsible team who does this downvotes. Coz downvotes came because people have a grudge against you not your content...whales have downvoted posts for no substantial reason and people have left HIVE and Steem for that purpose.
I think responsible downvoting is the way to go. A downvote should not pass through without perusal, if content is bad, plagmarised, that reason can be stated and a downvote can be given.
But there should be a strings attacked...the downvote should not be processed if the post is fine...the person who opted for downvote should have some cut in his/her earnings for doing a malicious downvote.
This can be done I guess... Downvote should be a transaction for which fees should be charged, it would be refunded if the downvote is done for genuien purpose and all.
I work very hard to make content, and many of them don't get much upvotes...it does not suck anymore...its just how it is...anyway.
Anyone who puts in so much energy into creating a content, would certainly frown at low quality posts that bags whole lot of tokens. In such situation, a downvote is needful. Shouldnt there be a system in place to check mate people downvoting for the joy of it?
What if a quality post get a downvote or tonnes of downvote? Shouldnt such situation be considered?
They are not proposing you stop down voting plagiarism. They simply say include a link to proof of the plagiarism with your down vote.
Nope. In fact I'd say it is nice when they actually do that.
I disagree, there have been recent down votes given to people who are out right peddling lies and trying to rort the block chain. Engagement in trying to get them to "see their ways' just resulted in absolute denial and a flag war.
Also in the world today people are quick to call any narrative they don't like lies.
If a person believes something to be true they are not lying. They may be incorrect yet that is still not a lie. To lie you need to be stating something that you know to be wrong and saying it anyway. Unless you are a mind reader that usually requires proof.
If they believe it, then it should not be censored. Challenge them with words.
It is very difficult to consider a thing a lie when people feel they must hide it, or conceal it rather than challenging it and exposing it.
EDIT: TO be clear you may be correct. You didn't provide an example so some of them could have been lies. Is hypocrisy a lie? I see a lot of that too... downvote someone they don't like for some reason, and upvote someone they like for the same reason.
Ignorance is not a defence amongst the law.
What law? Are you one of those Code as Law types?
I can code. Does that make me God?
Laws can change. So can code.
The Algorithm Did It... The Code is Law.
Ignorance of knowing much about how to code is no defense for buying into the "Code is law" nonsense. We fork, patch, hard fork, and otherwise fix code all the time.
Flag wars are not a valid reason. Unless you like steemit.
Thanks. Could you please link an example. I feel it would help.
Not every potential DV situation lends itself for dialog with an offender. Recently there has been a spate of scam comments or posts essentially bribing us with HIVE for a witness vote. When it's so clear that it's a scam, engaging is a waste of time and Resource Credits. In a case like that, an immediate DV (perhaps with a reason justifying the DV) makes more sense.
I don't bother engaging once down voting, in the events I have it just turns into aggressive behaviour. So pointless.
I prefered to not vote at all. You can check my reasons here : Proof of Brain proposal with Proof of Stake vote !.
Take a look at @lucylin look at his posts (none plagiarized, none spam).
The answer to this propaganda is not far fetch. Instead of down voting someone, why not drop a correctional comment for such fellow. It is possible that the person hasn't fully understood the rules. This will call the attention of such person to order.
Then after this warning or attention via comment, if the fellow continue to deviate from the rule, then down vote may be applied.
I was victim of down voting in my first post. Some person gave me a directory comment and I was happy that someone could correct me with love,. Where I got a down vote with bad comment by some other person. I was sad. But I was actually comforted by former comment.
I think the senior persons on this platform should look at this well.
Thank you
I don't fully understand what happened. But if an offender was given ample notice that the content is not welcome, I see no problem at all in making sure they stop. Some people might ignore it but not when it hits home - in the wallet!