I do NOT support all this.
As this goes against the basics, against the principals of dPOS, of Hive. Many of them has been listed in one comment, seen not long ago:
P.S.
This comment I self-upvoted for the better visibility. UV will be removed on the 6-th day
@onealfa.pob, I'm cool with you not supporting this; however, was there anything in @trostparadox's proposal that you do agree with or that you think could be morphed into something useful? I see no reason why just because it once was, it must always remain the same. The whole point to proposals is to hopefully continue bettering the system.
I would have found value in your comment if you had expounded on why you feel nothing should change or how all his points were bad, if you feel/felt that way. Instead, you simply posted old guidelines with a major upvote as a bully pulpit? Don't get me wrong...I don't care if you upvote yourself. It's also in the code that you can. I don't care if you take it down on the 6th day...Essentially what I've read from the context in your comment is "I have a bullhorn and a recorder. I've turned it on to say I don't like this, and I'll turn it off before the week is over." Then you put it on loop so all can see/hear your opinion. I find it funny...
ps.
This expresses what I thought, too and I think also how others view it.
This "rules" were copied from another user.
It is an attempt to take out emotions, which of course does not succeed. To use a language and to mark the definitional sovereignty over terms as "set" is, in my opinion, very daring.
Of course, you can go to the Hive FAQs and refer to the set of rules published there. Then you claim that these rules are carved in stone there and that you are "only following them". But you can try to ignore the fact that these rules are not fixed, cannot be fixed at all, but always have room for interpretation, but you will fail, as the debate around this topic nicely shows.
I was most amused when I read that these are only mathematical prefixes. HaHa! Yes, if it were really the case that we just exchange maths exercises and on the other hand behave like Zen masters, then, I'm exaggerating on purpose now, everyone here would just set up an account, switch on some random text generator that produces automatic content, throw the whole thing on their own blog and make a nice life for ourselves, wouldn't they? Then it wouldn't matter what the content was, would it? The Zen master would get a kick out of it, or call him the court jester ;-)
But that's exactly what it seems to be about, showing the cheeky, "only cheap text modules producing bloggers" what a rake is, isn't it? They fight for the rights of the weaker ("true") authors and put on their Robin Hood hats. For the good of the community.
If I get carried away sharing angst about the sacred reward pool being emptied before any of the fish have made it to true subjectively aspired greatness, I am lost, I think. I get lost in the game of those who claim word-definition and presence-supremacy and play it with all the arts of learned propaganda - turning learned terms and intuitive self-evident matters on their heads.
@onealfa, these are great points made to explain the need/use for downvotes, but the fact still remains that even with all the good intentions one might have for downvoting, nothing beats having actual Community rules to guide our downvoting.
The reason why nothing beats it is that apart from plagiarism and what the Community has agreed to call bad behavior all other reasons for downvotes are very subjective, being subjective means it can lead to a lot of disagreement and these disagreements are harmful to the community at large.
So as good as the intentions to downvote can be it is safest to have guidelines to guide it in order to avoid all the quarrels that comes from the subjective nature of other reasons to downvote.
Would you now agree that this is a safer means more protective of the community to go about this?
Am I reading your statement, "I do NOT support all this." correctly? Do you mean you don't support the whole proposal, or that you support only some parts of it?
If you could elaborate on your own viewpoints that would be helpful for the community.
A key aspect of decentralization is the fact that individuals are free to self-assemble and, in so doing, create their own rules for their own communities. I choose to interact in and with a community that reserves downvotes for plagiarism and a few other bad behaviors.
If this community votes to approve a proposal like this, then I will consider it a welcoming place (for me), and if not, vice versa; perhaps you won't consider it a welcoming place for you unless the community rejects such a proposal. That is your right and, either way, you and I will each be free to choose afterwards with respect to our continued involvement.
There is nothing sacred about DPoS. Many members of this community believe DPoS is deeply flawed. Some are concerned that DPoS may ultimately destroy this community. Time will tell.