Thanks for taking the time to comment @bashadow. I did not know about his contributions to the stabilizer, what it is, or how exactly it works. If it's doing something good for the platform without hurting people in the process, then damn, that's a very commendable thing!
And you know what, technically speaking, you are correct. Because code is law, anybody can vote however they like, granted, this argument also supports the previous voting activities of rancho and haejin. It's their stake. They can vote however they want, right? And then that can get countered, and we can sit back and observe the shit show that is flag wars.
I'm not telling anyone how to vote in this post. I'm not in charge of anybody. I am, however, suggesting that people do right by their fellow HIVE authors. I am suggesting that they make this place a shining jewel that is the envy of all other platforms which promote censorship and control. When rewards get allocated to an account, they will get fulfilled unless there are downvotes.
When the downvotes happen, they effectively censor potential rewards from a post. You can see that YouTube is presently engaged in similar financial censorship. And this is causing youtube a mass exodus of quality content creators. There are so many good folks mass-migrating over to odysee.com now. Anyhow, again, thanks for your feedback.
I don't know. Maybe smooth is doing "altruistic game theory" for the betterment of the platform. However, he has to know that people came here with their human nature. And I don't know if re-wiring the minds of good content creators to get accustomed to the platform cucking them is such a good thing.
Yeah, it feels pretty cuck-like to put loads of effort into a post and then have the potential rewards obliterated because one guy is trying to null another guy's stake. I don't want to be a hive-cuck. I want this place to win. And the best way I can help make that happen is to convince people that we shouldn't be trolling legit posts that show true PoB.
Oh I don't know how much is altruistic on his part, I have my own difference of opinion with him on some of his voting down voting issues.
What I would like s to see the pop-up down vote box to come back only highly modified. I would do a heck of a lot more down voting if I could direct where my down vote went and for what reason. One more step in a down vote is not going to kill anyone other than down vote bots.
Down vote box pops up, 5 check boxes available. Pick one. Example:
Box one: Plagiarism (Author takes full hit of down vote)
Box two: Spam (Author take full hit of down vote)
Box three: Excessive rewards (Top five up voters take full brunt and receive no curation rewards).
Box 4 and Box 5 can be what others want, the three above are the ones I feel most strongly about.
Box three full explanation:
When people cast down votes the down voter if a whale has to be pretty careful as @smooth has been in trying to avoid reputation ruination. When it comes to reward pool abuse those individuals just as the spammers and plagiarist deserve what they get. So 50% of the down vote value for rewards and reputation should go on the top voter. The remaining 50% of down vote power should be split equally among the other four top voters. This will cause the small account trail followers to re-think who they follow vote trail wise. The author of the post would lose out on the reward amount but their reputation would survive intact and they would know it was not them that was down voted, just the top 5 or less up voters that were trying to play the system.
So far every time I have bought this up it has been shot down as that it would not work, or if we do that for down votes then we should have boxes for up votes, that argument does not fly, a down vote is used to counter a negative action and up votes are positive action. There are very few societies that do not differentiate between a positive action and a negative action, in other words people do not need to account for their positive action only their negative actions such as robbing a bank.
I like that idea. It seems like a winner to me. I don't know about the mechanics or coding that'd be involved, but at least it promotes less destructive behavior.