Proposal has been rejected!
Percentage of eligible voters who actually voted = 42.0%
This means that if EVERYONE who voted had ALL voted “YES”, the proposal would still have been rejected.
Percentage “YES” votes (of total eligible votes) = 25.8%
This number is less than 50%; as such, the proposal was NOT ratified. The current governance protocol requires this number to be greater than 50% for a proposal to be ratified.
Percentage “YES” votes (of those who actually voted) = 61.5%
This number is interesting, but irrelevant based on the current governance protocol.
NOTE: As required by @proofofbraionio’s call for proposals (available here), this post has 100% beneficiary set to @pob-fund, is tagged with #pob-proposal, and has two comments to which you are to cast your stake-weighted vote (any upvote amount votes your entire POB stake).
I announced in a post a couple weeks ago my intention to file a formal proposal regarding rules to govern downvoting within the ‘Proof of Brain’ tribe. I have gone through all the comments and have done my best to incorporate constructive feedback. The biggest changes have been restructuring, with additional and expanded definitions, for ease of interpretation. Also, ‘Fair Use Violation’ has been added to the definition of ‘Plagiarism’ and HBD has been included in the definition of ‘de minimus Downvote’. The proposal has three sections:
- DEFINITIONS -- defining the key terms
- RULES -- detailing the actual ‘rules’ to be enforced
- GLOSSARY -- defining ancillary terms
DEFINITIONS
“Proof of Brain” post -- any post placed using the proofofbrain.io front-end or using any of the current “Proof of Brain” tags (e.g. ‘pob’ and ‘proofofbrain’).
“Proof of Brain” comment -- any ‘reply’ made to a “Proof of Brain” post or comment.
Valid Downvote -- downvote of a “Proof of Brain” post or comment for any of the following reasons: [1] plagiarism (requires documentation), [2] de minimus downvote (defined below), [3] failure to properly tag NSFW (not safe for work) content, or [4] any action defined as ‘bad behavior’ via a tribe-approved ‘community consensus’ protocol.
Malicious Downvote -- any downvote that does not meet the definition of a ‘Valid Downvote’.
Plagiarism -- presenting content created by someone else as if it were your own. For purposes of this directive, plagiarism is further categorized as Copy/Paste Plagiarism, Spinning, Fair-Use Violation, and Partial Plagiarism.
Copy/Paste Plagiarism -- copying someone else’s content word-for-word without doing both the following: [1] placing the copied text within quotation marks (or as a block quote) and [2] correctly identifying the source from which the quotation was drawn.
Spinning -- copying someone else’s content by putting it into your own words without attribution (i.e. without identifying the original author and source material).
- If you are publishing as a “Proof of Brain” post any of your own original content that was previously published elsewhere, you must identify the content as having been published elsewhere, with citation and/or links to the original source material.
Fair Use Violation -- using too much of someone else’s content (even with attribution) or using someone else’s content without providing your own substantial original content.
- This includes merely presenting a ‘translation’ of someone else’s content, with little or no original content of your own.
Partial Plagiarism -- incorporating any aspect of either copy/paste plagiarism or spinning into a document, or deceptively misrepresenting or mis-identifying the original author or source material.
de minimus Downvote -- a downvote that only minimally impacts the author and curator rewards associated with a specific post or comment. ‘Minimal impact’ is herein defined as any downvote that results in a cumulative reduction in author and curator rewards that is less than 2 POB and less than 2 HBD (exceeding either threshold will constitute malicious downvoting).
For example, if someone else has previously applied a de minimus downvote reducing the estimated payout by 1.5 POB, then applying a new downvote that further reduces the payout by less than 0.5 POB would also be considered de minimus. In this specific example, applying a new downvote greater than 0.5 POB would be considered ‘malicious’ (because it resulted in a cumulative reduction greater than 2 POB). However, the original 1.5-POB downvote would still be considered de minimus.
de minimus downvoting can be used for whatever reason, such as a ‘flag’ to alert others to investigate the post, a form of playful banter, a statement of dislike for the post, disagreement with the content, etc. The key is making sure that your downvote does not result in a cumulative reward reduction greater than 2 POB and/or 2 HBD. Also, whereas upvote and downvote values are merely estimates, if you place a de minimus downvote that brings the cumulative reduction near the 2 POB or 2 HBD threshold, it is strongly suggested that you take a screenshot of the cumulative downvote values after you place your downvote, so that you can prove your downvote was de minimus (in the event the originally-estimated values end up being inaccurate).
RULES -- (Proposed Rules to Govern Downvoting within the “Proof of Brain” Tribe)
- Malicious Downvoting of any “Proof of Brain” post or comment is hereby prohibited.
- First offense will result in a warning (which will be issued as a comment to the downvoted post or comment -- the offending account will be directly tagged in the comment).
- First subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being muted for a period of 10 days.
- Second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being permanently muted. However, if the second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) occurs before the 10-day mute period begins, the 10-day period will be skipped and the downvoting account will be permanently muted.
- Suspected alt accounts will be muted as well (e.g. accounts with significant delegations or transfers from the muted account); independent account holders receiving legitimate delegations or transfers from the muted account can appeal by providing evidence of independence relative to the muted account.
GLOSSARY -- (general definitions that might help non-native English speakers and others better understand the above proposal)
Muting -- the ‘owner’ of the tribe (in this case, @proofofbrainio) can ‘mute’ and ‘unmute’ any Hive account at any time. When an account is muted by a tribe, two things happen: [1] anything that account publishes on the Hive blockchain (i.e. a post or comment) will be hidden from view on the tribe’s front-end (proofofbrain.io) (but will still be viewable from other front-ends, such as peakd.com, , and ecency.com), and [2] that account will no longer receive author or curation rewards with respect to the tribe’s token (in this case, POB).
Alt Account -- any account that is under the control of the same person. For example, the “Proof of Brain” tribe has two accounts (@proofofbrainio and @pob-fund). Both accounts are under the control of the same person and thus are ‘alt accounts’ with each other. In many circumstances, it is difficult to know whether an account is truly an ‘alt account’ with another. For purposes of this proposed directive, any account that has received significant token delegations or transfers (and vice versa) will generally be considered an ‘alt account’ until evidence or adequate explanation is provided to the contrary.
Community-Consensus Protocol -- At present, the only ‘community-consensus protocol’ within the “Proof of Brain” tribe is the protocol being used to vote on this proposal. It was outlined by @proofofbrainio, the tribe founder, in this post under the heading Moving Forward (reprinted directly below for ease of access):
Anyone can make a proposal for a decision that is to be made and put a “yes” comment and a “no” comment.
Proposal posts must be tagged with #pob-proposal and have a 100% beneficiary to @pob-fund to avoid spamming. A vote on one of the comments at any percentage, counts as a full stake weighted vote. More than 50% of stake must vote on “yes” or “no” to make the decision.
To vote ‘Yes’ you simply upvote (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter) the comment below that has the heading “Upvote this comment to vote YES for the proposal”.
To vote ’No’ you simply upvote (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter) the comment below that has the heading “Upvote this comment to vote NO for the proposal”.
You may abstain from voting. Abstaining from voting is essentially the same as voting ’No’, because greater than 50% of the staked POB must vote ‘Yes’ for the proposal to be ratified.
I will update the vote tally below, hopefully on a daily basis. You can change your vote at any time (by removing your original upvote and then upvoting the other comment); however, once the required threshold has been met (with greater than 50% voting ‘Yes’ or greater than 50% voting ‘No’) then this proposal will have been either ratified or rejected. After that point, votes cannot be switched; a new proposal would need to be created to subsequently change the outcome of this particular vote.
If, after the payout window for this post closes, this proposal has not received greater than 50% in either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes, then it will expire (which will effectively be the same as if it had received greater than 50% ‘No’ votes).
NOTE: For purposes of the stake-weighted voting, votes will be counted based on the stake of POB ‘owned and staked’ (not delegated) . I will be retrieving those values from the Hive-Engine POB richlist.
I will be using the richlist values from “July 6, 2021 16:00 UTC” until the vote tally approaches 50% ‘Yes’ or 50% ‘No’, at which time I will update the stake-weighted values for the accounts with the largest stakes. Once the total ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ minimum threshold has been reached, I will update all vote values based on the then-current richlist.
FINAL Vote Tally (as of July 14, 2021 16:55 UTC, with total staked POB = 821,327.02):
Proposal has been rejected!
Percentage of eligible voters who actually voted = 41.8%
Percentage affirmative votes cast (of total eligible votes) = 25.8% (which is less than 50%; as such, the proposal was NOT ratified)
Percentage affirmative votes cast (of those who actually voted) = 61.8% (This number is interesting, but irrelevant based on the current governance protocol)
- YES votes (total = 212,105.052 POB = 25.82%) (Must be greater than 50% for proposal to be ratified)
- @calumam (10,038.332 POB = 1.22%)
- @celi130 (913.501 POB = 0.11%)
- @memeisfun (800.638 POB = 0.10%)
- @leprechaun (49,453.000 POB = 6.02%)
- @diebitch (300.058 POB = 0.04%)
- @sugandhaseth (357.459 POB = 0.04%)
- @apshamilton (198.334 POB = 0.02%)
- @coininstant (3,019.388 POB = 0.37%)
- @honusurf (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @kdtkaren (27.170 POB = 0.00%)
- @firealien (6.852 POB = 0.00%)
- @firealiean (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @oldmans.pob (2.008 POB = 0.00%)
- @shubhwaj (265.260 POB = 0.03%)
- @bitcoinflood (3,954.476 POB = 0.48%)
- @scholaris.pob (17,306.471 POB = 2.11%)
- @nevies (810.000 POB = 0.10%)
- @lucylin (7,199.990 POB = 0.88%)
- @jaxsonmurph (851.100 POB = 0.10%)
- @samsmith1971 (188.611 POB = 0.02%)
- @failingforwards (3,374.182 POB = 0.41%)
- @aiuna (851.890 POB = 0.10%)
- @vikbuddy (478.709 POB = 0.06%)
- @frot (12,000.000 POB = 1.46%)
- @dibblers.dabs (699.488 POB = 0.09%)
- @pialejoana (400.804 POB = 0.05%)
- @trostparadox.pob (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @fireguardian (2,444.675 POB = 0.30%)
- @katerinhernandez (15.441 POB = 0.00%)
- @lols (1,200.000 POB = 0.15%)
- @sift666 (200.000 POB = 0.02%)
- @shralve (5,037.500 POB = 0.61%)
- @niff (20.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @suss (1,000.000 POB = 0.12%)
- @snot (30.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @ripe (1.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @pube (10.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @mg-nz (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @gimp (30.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @mineopoly (3,110.110 POB = 0.38%)
- @horlaryhiworlar (0.905 POB = 0.00%)
- @stimialiti (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @shepz1 (1,696.963 POB = 0.21%)
- @wiseagent (6,516.000 POB = 0.79%)
- @thomashnblum (1,318.037 POB = 0.16%)
- @offgridlife (5,431.762 POB = 0.66%)
- @active-truth (314.000 POB = 0.04%)
- @urun (313.033 POB = 0.04%)
- @done (2,099.856 POB = 0.26%)
- @morenow (198.815 POB = 0.02%)
- @xyba.pob (6,698.539 POB = 0.82%)
- @trostparadox (49,548.243 POB = 6.03%)
- @thelogicaldude (554.434 POB = 0.07%)
- @akumagai (321.977 POB = 0.04%)
- @faireye (8,901.284 POB = 1.08%)
- @cjt (696.752 POB = 0.08%)
- @penderis (897.005 POB = 0.11%)
- @fatman (1.000 POB = 0.00%)
- NO votes (total = 131,249.699 POB = 15.98%)
- @themarkymark (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @buildawhale (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @poshbot (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @onealfa.pob (79,444.444 POB = 9.67%)
- @feyifavor (191.791 POB = 0.02%)
- @hranhuk (810.468 POB = 0.10%)
- @botvotes (10,562.623 POB = 1.29%)
- @mmmmkkkk311 (413.590 POB = 0.05%)
- @ctime (6,532.615 POB = 0.80%)
- @gimmetricks1 (1,300.100 POB = 0.16%)
- @espandorr (2,100.333 POB = 0.26%)
- @espandor (1,717.543 POB = 0.21%)
- @stevescoins (99.513 POB = 0.01%)
- @edystringz (1,026.859 POB = 0.13%)
- @revise.pob (929.969 POB = 0.11%)
- @revisesociology (94.851 POB = 0.01%)
- @marvinix (1,900.063 POB = 0.23%)
- @bluerobo (135.051 POB = 0.02%)
- @stratton.npc (117.211 POB = 0.01%)
- @teknon (316.096 POB = 0.04%)
- @vempromundo.pob (9,490.973 POB = 1.16%)
- @vempromundo (5,194.433 POB = 0.63%)
- @enforcer48 (221.766 POB = 0.03%)
- @jlordc (620.000 POB = 0.08%)
- @phusionphil (5,038.475 POB = 0.61%)
- @jfang003 (1,599.909 POB = 0.19%)
- @felipejoys (1,391.023 POB = 0.17%)
Upvote this comment to vote YES for the proposal.
To vote ‘Yes’ for this proposal, simply upvote this comment (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter).
NOTE: Only POB that is owned and staked by the voting account counts toward the vote tally. Delegated POB cannot be voted by the delegated account. Delegated POB follows the owner account.
I voted no by mistake, please remove my no vote as it is in both yes and no votes sections. Thank you kindly.
I was pissed at the time :-) It happens.
Sorry about that. I have corrected the totals to remove your double-vote.
Thanks bud, much appreciated, I can see you put a lot of effort into that as it was.
VOTE YES!
If you would like to stop the down-voting by whales that is constantly controlling the content that is allowed to be posted and rewarded on Hive, vote for the YES comment.
If on the other hand you would like Proof Of Brain to end up just as corrupt, controlled, and censored as Hive, then vote no...
You wouldn't vote for a two faced lying scam artist to be in charge would you? Would you?...
Suck my balls, I was pissed at the time. Fancy a joint bro? :-)
I'll be doing that later - but right now I'm still having my breakfast!
Vote YES, if you want another BLURT !
And if dictatorship with absolute power of MUTE is your ideal.
Vote YES, if you believe POB on that route can be as successful as BLURT is.
Vote YES, if you would like to see people who buy stake in order to control content, and boost their own egos, get the rug pulled out from under them.
Does it mean - you NEVER buy stake, tokens?
If YES - WHY you don't?
If NO - WHY do you buy?
I buy. Every day. Because I can.
And I will buy more.
And you seriously wonder why other people are not buying more?
Vote YES, if you want forever stay on my IGNORE list.
And probably more, than just this one list.
Choose wisely.
Oh, now you got me convinced...
Don't try to threaten people with "And probably more, than just this one list.
Choose wisely."
If i am on your ignore list please keep me there. If you could stop negating my upvotes that would be nice too.
Did I get out of the dumpster yet?
100% yes. It is an excellent proposal. I am proud to be part of POB.
Upvote this comment to vote NO for the proposal.
To vote ‘No’ for this proposal, simply upvote this comment (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter).
NOTE: Only POB that is owned and staked by the voting account counts toward the vote tally. Delegated POB cannot be voted by the delegated account. Delegated POB follows the owner account.
I voted NO for one reason, the inclusion of the de minimus Downvote
otherwise,this is a well thought out and written proposal.
While I agree with @markymark in principle on the idea that a HP holder can use his stake in any fashion he so chooses, in working reality the flag causes more problems tan it's worth, especially to the smaller Hivers that get crushed as collateral damage in flag wars.
Please remove the de minimus Downvote as a legitimate option, and I will happily vote YES
Obviously I cannot change the proposal at this point. I posted a draft a couple weeks ago and invited comments. The draft actually had the de minimus amount at 5 POB with no HBD limit (which would mean infinite HBD).
No one actually commented about the de minimus levels. However, upon further reflection, I decided to reduce those numbers to 2 POB and 2 HBD to help limit the potential for just what you are describing -- the little guy getting his/her posts consistently destroyed by whales. Maybe I should've chosen much lower thresholds? If your comment had been available to me before finalizing this proposal, I would have reduced the amount further.
The reality is, though, without this 'rule' in place, the threshold is infinite for both POB and HBD.
If this proposal is ratified and you find yourself being harassed by someone via de minimus downvotes, tag me or reach out to me via Discord and I will do what I can to rectify the situation (e.g. upvote to more than offset the losses due to de minimus downvotes).
To be clear, I should have added, "if the proposal fails" ;>
a POB specific community initiative such as @freezepeach or @flagabuse might be a good idea, but I'm not volunteering either of us. Having run a community before, I know what a PITA it can be
@trostparadox aside from DV's from plagiarism, do we have statistics on how many de minimus votes have occurred on POB? @AMR is this something you can provide to us?
Also, does ratification of a proposal mean it can't be altered in the future? I don't know honestly how it would work here.
I have not pulled that info, but it could be done.
A ratified proposal could be altered at any time, by whatever governance protocol happens to be in place at the time. At present, the stated governance protocol requires greater than 50% of stake-weighted POB voting affirmative.
As @mineopoly pointed out in a separate comment, that means abstentions are effectively "No" votes. Personally, I would rather see a higher threshold (e.g. 67% instead of 50%), but have it be based on whomever votes within the stated timeframe.
I would be happy to eliminate the de minimus option. It complicates the monitoring aspect considerably.
In retrospect, I probably should've left that out. However, I don't recall anyone raising concerns about it when the draft version was posted.
I voted no for this, while voting yes for the new proposal without the "de minimus" part. "De minimus" can easily become an exploit against weaker stake users.
Thanks for letting me know why you voted the way you did. That will be helpful in trying to come up with suitable alternatives to present later on.
I agree, the Downvote value should not be a numerical value, but a % value, this way it would be fair for everyone. From the one who earns a small reward to the one who earns a large reward.
I believe that the proposal should also contain the fact of allowing downvote to reduce overpriced rewards, even though it is something subjective, I believe it is one of the purposes of the tool.
This is something @scholaris and I have discussed on Discord. If the proposal is ratified (or even if it it is not) you (or anyone else, for that matter) are free to propose community standards to achieve that.
Without some objective standards, it simply becomes a free pass to downvote ideas or people I don't like, and I can just claim that those posts were over-rewarded. As I've stated elsewhere, the current DV protocol is too easily weaponized by large stake-holders.
I agree that a percentage rather than numerical value would have advantages. I don't believe anyone brought that as a comment to the draft proposal; otherwise I would've given some serious thought as to how to potentially implement that. It would be difficult, though, because people can change their upvote values after you place a downvote, and that would change the percentage. (That could also be a way to manipulate the system -- place a large upvote via an alt account, then place a '10%' downvote, then remove the original upvote).
One possible alternative would be a numerical value that is a function of the author's median prior rewards. Let's say we make that percentage 5% and my median author rewards on prior posts is 10 POB. Then, for my posts, the de minimus downvote threshold would be 0.5 POB. However, for the guy whose median reward is 100 POB per post, his de minimus threshold would be 5 POB.
To make that alternative feasible, the front-end would need to display each author's median prior reward value.
@leprechaun, how hard would it be to implement that? Also, would it be possible to incorporate a post-specific de minimus downvote threshold value (as a percentage of the author's median prior rewards) into the front-end, so that folks using the front-end would automatically be stopped from issuing an 'excessive' downvote?
I agree, and that's not a nice attitude.
true, there's also this point that I hadn't thought of
great idea, a median is a great way to find a common value
another great idea, I believe it brought great points to the debate, which would make me vote positive to amend the initial proposal
I believe @leprechaun can make these changes
@vempromundo.pob, I have posted a new proposal without the de minimus downvote option.
(It also requires explicit citation of the reason for every downvote and clarifies the procedure for evaluating suspected alt accounts.)
Both proposals will remain active until they expire (i.e. when their respective payout windows close).
You are free to vote on one or both or neither. Whichever one receives greater than 50% upvotes first will be ratified, and the other will become moot.
@stevescoins, I have posted a new proposal without the de minimus downvote option.
(It also requires explicit citation of the reason for every downvote and clarifies the procedure for evaluating suspected alt accounts.)
Both proposals will remain active until they expire (i.e. when their respective payout windows close).
You are free to vote on one or both or neither. Whichever one receives greater than 50% upvotes first will be ratified, and the other will become moot.
thank you foe this effort
pls forgive typing - in pain
Having this no vote comment at the top is really confusing, the main upvote on it has pushed this comment to the top, and some of the other upvotes were intended to be yes...
so basically, the proposal is great, but the voting is as meaningless as an American election and a better way to vote on this needs to be set up
I would recommend that for future proposals we utilize headings and other formatting to make very clear what is YES and what is NO.
No doubt that is the reason onealfa put his full weight into the "No" vote. I guess I will go ahead and put my full weight into the "Yes" comment to counter that somewhat.
At least it's easy to see which side is which here!
At the end of the day - how much does it matter how we vote, what we think, and which side we choose?
As soon as #1 stakeholder places his clear vote - it is GAME OVER.
You may call me bad prophet, I don't care. All we have to do is wait another 6 days.
And before the GAME is OVER, I want to state clearly my position once again.
Those are not my words, but it expresses my position at the very best:
That 7 day thing was always a problem to me. Same as 13 weeks to withdraw.
How do you speculate on the market within 13 weeks? How do you know some retard in his mothers basement is not going to take away the rewards others voted you for after 7 days.
I have been in the solutions industry all my working life.
These need to be readdressed! IMO.
#3 and 4 always annoyed me.
#3 just re-write it to say the most common usages are for plagiarism and disagreement on rewards.
#4 No difference between upvotes and downvotes. Really?
#5? Downvotes are not attacks, except when they're used as attacks.
But in most American elections "none of the above" is an option. Abstain isn't a vote option I see. It's like a political election where only two parties...Oh, American election. I get it now!😄
The populous votes for popular without considering what they have actually voted for.
or the voting machine votes for an old pervert because it was programmed to...
Politics suck
wow, how you shared that book ? Is there a special website with links to such books or special format ?
Hi @clixmoney,
This is from internet archive. You can go wayback in the internet and find a lot of resources.
Fuck me at times I am such a retard, yes I voted the wrong way, hey that is what voting is for. Never seen what you lot voted for. it looks like a man in a "dress" :-)
I did the same thing, and i wasn't even pissed!
Although we have reversed our votes, they appear to remain, but at zero value - I hope they are not counted as votes for NO...
Where is a problem??
Go ahead, BUY more POB, power-up, and countervote it ! Bring your favorite on top. 🙂
Did you forget for a minute that we are on Proof Of Brain? You've just pointed out the very flaw that this proposal is trying to combat. Cheers.
I enjoy the chaotic nature of downvotes, I like the burn I feel when @onealfa.pob downvotes all my posts in a week. Reminds me of how much I appreciate the currency Proof of Brain.
Sometimes you don't appreciate something until it is taken away.
The moment you start dictating how people should vote you kind of lose the entire point of proof of brain.
Threatening to mute people (completely nullifying their investments influence) because they don’t vote the way you want is a slippery slope.
I don’t have any pob stake so my vote is pointless but I am not a fan of telling people how to use their stake. Buying stake gives you the right to influence the reward pool as much as your stake allows. You don’t like their vote? The community can counter it. Rewards are a consensus (or at least should be).
I would go so far that most of the upvotes are far more malicious than the downvotes.
I don't see why anyone would get muted? Nobody maliciously downvotes right? Maybe I'm being naive. If I don't like something, I don't upvote, I don't decide that I'll remove someones rewards they've earned from others within this ironclad DPoS system.
It seems like this precautionary proposal is a way to reduce the toxicity that is created when larger stakeholders decide they know what should and shouldn't be rewarded. The downvote system as it is (barring the use of downvotes for combating plagiarism/spam) benefits those who've positioned themselves on the podium within the ecosystem, and there is no alternative but to put up or shut up if you haven't got the wallet to back it up (sounds a lot like the economic system we were all born into).
People downvote all the time for tons of reasons. “Downvoting to oblivion” is extremely rare and only effective if the community keeps their head in the sand.
Extremely rare for you maybe, but not that rare if you have had it done to you a few times!
I’m one of the most downvoted accounts and I still stand behind it is a small minority compared to all other votes
Ever had your rep taken down 41 points for one comment?...no...didnt think so!
Ever had all your payouts wiped for 3 months? No... didnt think so...
Ever had your account rep taken down to below zero because you dared to disagree with a whale?
Ever had to start from scratch on a new account because your old account has been screwed over?
How is life on the inside?
Doesn't matter. Still rare.
You aren't everyone. How's life in the Hive bubble?
It feels enforced...
@themarkymark, I greatly respect your opinion. Clearly we disagree on this issue.
Tribe activity and investment is an individual opt-in / opt-out decision. I, personally, do not care to be heavily invested in a tribe where folks can accumulate massive amounts of the tribe's token and then use that stake to downvote ideas (or people) they don't like into oblivion.
As such, this is a policy that will determine whether or not I remain an active member of this tribe. If it is voted down with no hope of a suitable alternative, then I will focus my efforts elsewhere.
Others may have the opposite perspective (i.e. they perceive this policy as "dictating how people should vote" and thus choose to not be a part of the tribe). As such, they are free to start or join a tribe that espouses their particular views (as am I, if this turns out contrary to my desires).
Has this actually happened though?
I really don’t think someone with 400 PoB is any threat especially when the owner has well over 100K and many others are up there as well.
I really doubt anyone has the power to downvote anyone on PoB to oblivion as many others can easily step up and counter it if they so choose. The problem is most people choose not to.
Anyway, I have no horse in this race so it doesn’t matter what I think.
Yes it is happening right now...
What I love about this debate is that the Hive Tribes system allows a different set of community rules about an issue (ie downvoting) to be adopted to that which applies on the Hive main chain.
I think that both @themarkymark and @trostparadox have valid and well thought out views on this important issue.
By having both options it both gives users choice and lets the market decide which they prefer.
In this case I think that both will be winners as consumer preference is varied on this issue.
Hive is so powerful!
Absolutely!
And different tribes can adopt different approaches.
This is exactly why centralized governance at the tribe level does not bother me. The decentralization happens at the 'consumer' level.
If I don't like the way the 'tribe CEO' is running things, I can invest my time and treasure in a different tribe -- I vote with my sneakers!
And not only that -- if I disagree with the way all the other tribes are being managed and if I'm an adventurous sort, I can go out and create my own tribe.
Personally if it was my own tribe I would do the following and people can like it or not but it's aim is to protect the platform. As much as everyone screams for decentralization it always results into a cesspool of negative and wildly crazy crap that people seriously don't need to be seeing or doing.
One of these two
With
I'm sure that will spark some outrage but honestly for the most part it has to be done as a truly decentralized system just doesn't work because of human nature. I have yet to ever see a real decentralized project take off instead it's taken advantage of by greed, porn, abuse and overall negativity.
A downvote should cost as much as an upvote, IMO, I agree with you, If someone wants to take away, it should also cost them!
I agree. I would like to see Hive return to that model; however, based on feedback I've received from those with large HIVE stakes, the chance of that happening is about zero. It seems to be a sacred cow to them.
The answer, imho, is strong tribes with strong tokenomics (like POB) that can operate 'on their own' and with their own rules.
People who love their DVs can join pro-DV tribes; people who think DVs should be reserved for illegal and objectively wrong behavior can join tribes that espouse those views.
I see, I admit I like the POB tribe very much. Not feeling the hive group much.
They carried their thinking over from steemit. POB is fresh.
I like a fresh mindset.
You have upvoted the wrong comment
I was pissed and stoned bro. What you want me to do? A somersault? I love you my New Zealand buddy, in a non gay way. Not that I think gay is wrong lol, see I can do woke crap :-)
Yes do a somersalt and post a selfie!
I think @shepz1 hates downvotes as much as you and I do, but hates rules even more (at least that was my impression based on a later comment @shepz1 made).
@shepz1, just to clarify, you voted "No". If that is not what you intended, you can unvote the "No" comment and upvote the "Yes" comment.
I was pissed at the time, drunk on football lol, what ever I thought was then. I let it stand. I still hate rules though.
I fully agree with that. ONLY ONE DV per day is the biggest flaw of the current system.
I would be happy to have a possibility to pay from my own pocket, to have more DV's than one.
Either pay in RC's, or even in plain liquid tokens.
In fact - as many as I can afford to pay.
Agreed, then it would make people think before they down vote. As it costs them. I IMO think it would balance the mindset and stop the group think "down vote him or her because"
^^^^This ^^^^
Fully agree
Too much rules, doesn't sound like freedom anymore...
I can't even read, maybe I'm too old.
I am not a fan of rules either. This is one of those cases, though, where the potential for abuse by whales against 'little guys' is too large to ignore, imho.
If you have a better solution to that problem, I am all ears.
Excellent work. This potential step forward is how we can protect freedom of speech and expression within the tribe, I'll be eagerly awaiting the result. This should be good news to all stakeholders, big and small.
None of these things seem necessary when there exist things the tribe owner could do to mitigate these issues through tribe settings.
Wow! I would love to learn about these settings. Could you please point me in a proper direction for that info? I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
It is possible to not have downvotes enabled for tribes. SCT on Steem used to do that.
It is also possible to mute individual posts, instead of entire account. STEMGeeks already does this.
I’m not sure if it’s as simple as a toggle, but these are definitely some things tribes can do to create an environment where downvotes don’t always have to equal to moderation.
That is extremely helpful information. Thank you for providing it.
Wow!! thats an amazing piece of work. 🤩 Though my vote is pointless, its still a yes.
This is the kind of quality and comprehensive work that actually makes things thrive. I heartily respect and appreciate the efforts put into this.
De minimus downvoting is very thoughtful and intelligently implemented. I couldn’t find anything else that I would want to change provided my limited experience with the subject.
Also, I encourage everyone not to take a decision based on preconceived notions or their basic opinion about downvoting. If someone makes a proposal with such profound details, it means he has dealt with the subject for a substantial number of hours and already thought it out very carefully. And we might have a very narrow point of view and limited experience to actually judge it. Without actually sitting and thinking about all the points author has put forward. It’s a disrespect to his efforts to present our contrary views and arrive on a decision so casually.
Thank you! 🙏
Not pointless at all. All those 'little votes' signify a group of people who yearn for something different from the Hive status quo. Your vote speaks to the need for clear guidelines that protect the 'little guys' from malicious downvoting by whales. If we build a tribe / community that is inviting, then it will grow. If we stick to the 'old ways' then it will not, imho. Ultimately, only time will tell.
amazing work, reads like a science paper ( which is a good thing).
I had a question on alt count but you answered it ! Ones question why 2 POB / HBD? why not say 10% of total potential value? Just curious where the value came from
One other concern is "bad behaviour" , I know you left it open because limits can creat loopholes( I assume so anyway) but it felt very open and i was not sure what it could cover.
Had to come up with a value. A percentage would be much harder to monitor. The 2 POB / 2 HBD amount seemed small enough to keep it from being a major issue. I suspect we will see a lot of these de minimus downvotes from folks who are heavy on the pro-downvote side -- probably even significant auto-downvoting. I don't envision that being too problematic, but these guidelines (and the thresholds) can always be amended if they are found unsuitable.
We had to get started somewhere. This is the first step. The next step would be to develop community-based definitions of other 'bad behavior' (beyond the four objective measures included in this proposal).
Thanks for that and thought both those reasons would be the "why" I think the "bad behaviour " peice will be more contentious then the downvote rules to be honest because you could technically write the bad behaviour rules so you can still carry on your sense of justice
I see where you're coming from. Bad behavior will need to be addressed and defined before taking action. It's the reason for trost's need for a consensus: more than one person defines that behavior and then determines that a DV is needed.
If I feel your post is over-rewarded, per his proposal, I just can't DV it alone or suffer the consequences. More people need to get together and decide. Given the feel of the proposal the decision is probably to occur through a vote similar to this post.
Good take. Looking back at his proposal I don't think there is any option for feeling a post is over voted unless that falls under "bad behaviour "
Correct. The proposal is a good first step, but it's certainly not all inclusive. We would have to define these "bad behaviors". I'm putting together a list of bad behaviors I've learned about from HDR and HW to discuss in the future. I'm sure there are people in this very comment section that can provide a list by memory.
The importance of the proposal is that it makes communicating them a priority, first. It gives the community time to understand and voice their opinion.
Agree and look forward to seeing that list
Can you also add spam esp spamming malicious links
There is a comment on this blog that's been reported for phishing links
This proposal is meant to establish a starting point for developing community consensus regarding downvoting.
Anyone can present a proposal to establish specific community guidelines for how to use DVs for other purposes, such as to stop spammers. If that is important to you, I encourage you to start that discussion and work in that direction. Part of the problem, imho, is that 'spam' is subjective and without clear guidelines, DVs for any and all 'perceived spam' is ripe for abuse by large stakeholders.
Personally, I think the 'mute' option is far better than DVs for dealing with spammers.
There is nothing stopping @proofobrainio from unilaterally muting spammers. Whenever you observe it (especially phishing spam), report it in the #spam-abuse channel on Discord.
I don't know why to think about Downvote if we could think about how to vote positively, curing the good POB posts and especially the contests and especially the participants who are creating good posts. Strengthens and encourages.
Unfortunately, addressing the DV issue now opens up other avenues of tribe engagement.
After being on the receiving end of loads of down votes on hive this week. I am not much for down votes.
This proposal is to limit the use of downvotes. Downvotes within the tribe would only be allowed for a few narrowly-defined reasons.
Without these 'rules' (i.e. the status quo), anyone can downvote for any reason and any amount.
These 'rules' would force downvote wars, etc., to occur outside the "Proof of Brain" tribe.
I am not much for rules bud, rules are where this shit show is at in 2021
I am not much for rules either.
I've observed some of the issues you've experienced with downvotes, and your statements about how you are able to be immune to them, which is great. Many people are not so fortunate.
Many people are apt to just walk away if they encounter a constant barrage of downvotes (and I probably would, too). We are trying to establish a tribe / community that is more immune to that sort of behavior.
This tribe was founded as an experiment of sorts. It's been far from perfect, but so far that experiment has been quite successful, imho. Dealing with potential downvote abuse is a crucial next step to pave the way for growth and expansion.
I am in agreement with you in part. I would add though, I would make it, IMO a down vote should require a comment as to why. And cost an up vote. People would then think twice before joining groupthink logic, and hate for no reason.
Together we build a better world. Thank you for trying. Maximum respect to you.
I agree. I have no problem leaving a small note - why I did my DV
I agree. I'll do anything to have MORE than one DV per day.
@shepz1, I have posted a new proposal that requires explicit citation of the reason for every downvote.
(It also eliminates the de minimus downvote option and clarifies the procedure for evaluating suspected alt accounts.)
Both proposals will remain active until they expire (i.e. when their respective payout windows close).
You are free to vote on one or both or neither. Whichever one receives greater than 50% upvotes first will be ratified, and the other will become moot.
poor rules, made by idiots (power hungry), is why we are in this shit show - not the principle of having rules rules - they've been in society for the last 10K years.
It's went just rules get corrupted by the manipulators, the shit show starts...
I let others run my sites. I never even look at them. I let them do what they want. It works well it seems. $3.27 v 50cents lol
I am really concerned about this provision. In my case, I have delegated more than 90% of my #pobpower to @amr008. Going by this provision, I would be an alt account of @amr008. Though I would love to be branded like one but this is not correct. There is a need to identify the alt accounts using a different method.
An account that is clearly an aggregator would not be deemed an alt account with each of its participants. This provision is meant to be a warning that alt accounts will be subject to the same restrictions, and the best way to discover alt accounts is through the money trail.
This provision will be subject to 'common sense' in its application.
However, feel free to propose an alternative method for identifying and handling alt accounts. This proposal is merely a first step in trying to improve upon the status quo.
What a joke.
New ALT accounts can be created 100% anonymously. If needed - even while hiding behind fake IP's on VPN, TOR
ALT accounts can be funded from exchanges, if needed - from anonymous CEX/DEX accounts, or using privacy coins (DASH, Monero)
Good luck in trailing them !
I think you're missing the point. It's the stake that is being followed from the account, which can be done with relative ease.
Well, that's an interesting take on it. I think his statement would need to be reworded. My take on alt accounts was if it was alternate accounts owned by someone. Like my scholaris.pob account is an alt of my scholaris account. @trostparadox could you please provide a clarification?
@onealfa.pob thank you for the elaborating the point.
@calumam I guess you would understand my point better. When you are running the word of the week contest, you would be delegating good amount of pob power to a lot of people. Do you think if one of them goes rogue, and you are supporting him generously with your tips and the delegation, you should be punished for that ?
I've questioned this within myself often (you'll see how often I have changed the reward structure of WOTW and my own voting habits). Recently I changed the rewards to direct powered-up POB which removes the monitoring needed for watching votes while delegating.
We'll have large delegations for the end of season rewards, but I'll likely have some terms in place which provide the ability to remove the delegation if certain actions happen (the benefit is that most of the WOTW winners are top quality community members).
If it's my delegation, I am accountable by proxy. My reputation and integrity should be judged based on that.
@gimmetricks1, I have posted a new proposal that clarifies the procedure for evaluating suspected alt accounts.
(It also requires explicit citation of the reason for every downvote and eliminates the de minimus downvote option.)
Both proposals will remain active until they expire (i.e. when their respective payout windows close).
You are free to vote on one or both or neither. Whichever one receives greater than 50% upvotes first will be ratified, and the other will become moot.
DO NOT FOLLOW any instruction and DO NOT CLICK on any link in the comment!
Establishing norms is fine, norms tell us how we should behave and they mark the lines between the rights of each other. I think the warning system is fine, it is not an authoritarian system, but rather gives opportunities to rectify any misconduct. Perfect friend
There is no part of this that I disagree with. I think it might be difficult to get the needed percentage to vote.
If it is not possible to pass this proposal I think the suggestions @bitcoinflood mentions in the comments should be explored- I would prefer adding downvote costs to the downvoter over removing it completely.
By all means, if this proposal is rejected, suitable alternatives need to be evaluated as well. @bitcoinflood offered up some excellent suggestions.
For that matter, even if this proposal is ratified, subsequent proposals to tweak the settings and/or fill in the gaps will likely be needed.
User X is upvoting user y's low quality posts 10x a day with a large stake. User y is mining a ton of coins with no effort. If we, as a community, decide that this is "bad behaviour" then we can use a downvote? How would this work?
I appreciate the proposal and think that there is a lot of merit to it. I also feel that there is room for exploitation especially if it takes a long time to determine as a community if said event (or any other event that shows up) is, in fact, bad behaviour.
If you are intent on using downvotes to solve that problem (assuming the above proposal is ratified), someone would need to step up and present a subsequent proposal detailing clear guidelines for how downvotes can or should be used to counter that behavior. Certainly there could be some circle-vote metrics created to make that objective rather than subjective. There are a few of us already actively working on developing metrics like that -- to increase transparency across the board.
However, for the time being, you could simply ask the tribe 'owner' to mute the offending accounts. Whether we like it or not, Hive-Engine tokens and tribes are fully centralized and whomever controls the issuing account pretty much rules the
kingdomtribe.So stake holders need to be told and ask permission on how to use their own stake? In my opinion, most of the upvotes are far more malicious than the miniscule downvotes.
This directly goes against liberty and freedom, something you feel strongly about to put in your bio.
As we've discussed, I am not a fan of downvotes. They are ripe for abuse by large stakeholders, especially when they are essentially costless to deploy.
'Malicious upvotes' -- that's an interesting take. How are "most of the upvotes" malicious? How would you define a 'malicious upvote'? Are you mainly referring to circle-voting, or something different? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts here.
Look at trending on Hive and you will see a lot of what I mean.
But in short, circle jerking, roi focused voting (prior to this hard fork you may have noticed the larger stake holders only voting posts with 0-30 votes already or specifically really low rewards to maximize their return with little effort regardless of content), you will also noticed large account holders training users on how to fetch big upvotes.
If you historically look at where our rewards go, it is rarely done based on quality. These happen hundred if not thousand times a day. These malicious downvotes are an exception and rare and are they really malicious or is the community just lazy or don’t want to get involved?
I’ll find you 1,000 shitty upvotes if not 10,000 for every “malicious downvote”.
I speak from 3 years of experience being the biggest abuse fighter here.
Yes, I follow you. I think we are generally in agreement on the desired end. I appreciate your 3 years of experience in fighting abuse. I think we have some significant disagreements on the best means to achieve those ends. Being new to the platform, I am less appreciative of the 'tools' that have been used in the past and more apt to look for new tools.
That's why I view tribes as a valuable asset to the ecosystem, provided they are allowed to operate autonomously without hindrance from the 'old guard'. Let them experiment with new ways of doing things, new methods for fighting abuse, etc.
I see "Proof of Brain" as an interesting and valuable experiment in that regard. That's why I am doing my best to suggest improvements. Even so, it is still an experiment and we are certainly going to make some errors along the way. Hopefully we can learn from and correct our mistakes relatively quickly, and keep iterating and keep improving.
There are already simple ways to "moderate" on tribes, but you prefer to drag this out in an "reinvent the wheel" convention.
Most people don't downvote.
You can moderate without ever have to downvote given the right tribe settings.
You don't even have to have downvotes in the tribe.
But hey, feel free to play "new king's men". Even if you have no way to enforce or incentivize your desired behavior. It's your right.
Better yet, how does the blockchain define malicious? How many times does a @Frot situation occur? That sort of information isn't readily available for all tribe participants to review.
I am just unsure about the best way to keep exploits to a minimum. Downvotes work and keep the sentiment decentralized (even if it is not). I don't really like to "admit" that this is totally centralized. The more we defer to the king, the more centralized it is in practice... not just in theory. I appreciate the thought that you put into the proposal. I will have to put some thought in before I decide.
Think this is a great proposal, I just want a little clarification on this if you would deem it necessary.
Well I just wanted to ask, does this mean you can also use this form of downvote to like report a content that seems malicious but then not sure of? For example I feel a content is plagiarised, I'll use this downvoted to like sort of raise an alert?
That is correct. You could downvote a de minimus amount if you suspect the content is plagiarized, then you can always increase the amount of your downvote later, if your suspicions are confirmed.
You would not need to state a reason for the de minimus downvote (but you are welcome to). A larger downvote would need to state the reason.
Wow, this is good, I do believe it helps to forestall clarification of some sorts, truth is, there should be a procedural process through which a tribe can work by and this is actually very important. Hopefully these proposal can pull through.
I voted YES (the proposal looks good), but I don't think now would be the time to focus on downvotes.
The focus should be on distributing upvotes and recognizing good writers for their quality posts and their constancy in publishing posts in the community.
Already something in the works, your input would be greatly appreciated if you have the energy spare.
POBLeus discord (I'll also be publishing a post on the @pobleus account at some point to keep everything on-chain, but testing phase is underway on the discord).
It is of great importance that these types of proposals are notified in the light of the general public so that we take into account every detail of the proposal, if the proposal is approved, this publication will be of great help to all users. to be able to identify when we receive a DV or when we can give a DV. It is necessary to echo this publication so that users can comment and the decision is by popular vote.
Yes, this proposal is meant to protect the 'little guys'. The current DV system gives far too much power to those with large stakes.
Also, this proposal is meant to clarify this issue up-front, so if people dislike having their ability to DV for any reason taken away from them, they can invest their time and treasure elsewhere (assuming the proposal is ratified).
Similarly, if the proposal is rejected (and no suitable alternative presented), then folks like me, who see the 'free DV' as an avenue for serious potential abuse by large stakeholders, can focus their time and treasure elsewhere.
There are many who like to have a monopoly on reason and if it is accompanied by a DV it makes them feel more haughty and that is why some do not agree with the rules and proposals to regularize the use of the negative vote. You might think that this DV defines the position or state of a user. We can make things go well and the decision is being debated by popular vote, there is no reason to hide behind an abstention.
I think it's a good start to establish basic rules; it has been missing on Hive. But they have to be very clear and not ambiguous (e.g., what is bad behavior?).
Clear and ambiguous is probably the greatest reason it's taken so long to get this out. I feel that there was a LOT of input trost asked for to make sure he covered all the bases. And still, I feel it covers the basics. There will be future proposal topics to discuss as we move along. I feel like we're moving in the right direction.
for a full vote i have to vote just with @vempromundo.pob or with @vempromundo too?
Since both your accounts own POB, to vote your full stake, you will need to vote from each account. However, you do not need to place a full vote. Any size vote on the chosen comment votes the full stake for that account.
The one good thing that I see has come from this healthy discussion is that both sides are listening to each other.
Whether agreeing to disagree or understanding each others point of view, this comment debate was needed.
And whether or not the proposal is ratified we all understand there is a need for us to continue to have these discussions for the good of the community.
I think whatever the majority vote is, I can accept it, whether I agree or disagree that is the great thing about being able to propose changes.
I think this particular proposal has been well thought out and structured in a way that gives both sides a clear picture as to why such a proposal was needed in the first place.
IMHO Sometimes rules are needed at the tribe level to keep things fair for all users and this is the best logical way of ensuring that can be done.
Hmmm
At least I get to understand what upvote and downvote is🙂(as a new member)
But seriously plagiarism is not something that should be condone.
...Where there is no law, there is no wrong(So I vote yes).
Putting all this checks and balances will make everyone post right.
Thank you for the enlightenment.
good proposals , sir...lets see...
This topic of downvoting is kind of complex. I think we need a deep discussion about this to bring up with an outcome that is accepted widely.
Probably most of us won't want to dive into the controversy of downvoting by downvoting others for plagiarism or whatever.
I think we should have a representative who can be tagged in for downvoting a certain post after a thorough elaboration of the situation.
Thanks for reminding us about the rule.
Clearly you know nothing about Hive if you talk about rules.
No idea what I have delved myself into what why the fuck not.
Well above my brain capacity to comprehend what the fuck each and everyone is going to do. But one thing is for certain. Things are bound to change.
If this goes ahead then in the future it could be changed again.
The question is.. Are you going to transition...
You are correct. Under the current Proof of Brain governance protocol, established by the tribe owner, anyone can propose changes at any time.
To be sure I am right, I voted both.
I appreciate the work you've put in here
!BEER
!PIZZA
@trostparadox! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @stevescoins.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (1/10)
View or trade
BEER.Hey @trostparadox, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @stevescoins for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.This all started with that black cunt.
I voted YES
Not sure what happened. Here's the link showing everyone who voted "YES" for this proposal -- your account is not on the list.
Here's the link to the new proposal's "YES" comment, in case you want to vote "YES" on that one (just upvote the comment to register your vote -- you can verify your vote was cast by checking here).
Here's the link to the new proposal's "NO" comment, in case you want to vote "NO" on it.
Yes, any move to stop downvoting by whales gets my full support. I am pulling my investments from hive due to this, and my future support for Pob is dependant on downvoting being stopped.
That's the hope, anyway. It also gives, what I feel is transparency.
So is my future support. Only in a 180 deg opposite dependency.
Good
I down voted this comment as I see it heavily overvalued ( 11.70 pob)
VOTE for Leofinance
We are rewarding everyone who is voting us to be top witness for hive
Voting Event Ending in 3 days so vote now
Rewards Overview
Rewards are based on reputation system and per user basis.
This conversation is none of my business, but... didn't any of you want to downvote this>? If so would it meet the criteria of any of the rules? What if the person posted it after every comment?
Again none of my business, just food for thought.
It's good to see brainstorming and communities are a great test ground.
Hey, thanks friend. If the current proposal was active, I would NOT be able to just DV it without some consensus.
Thanks for bringing that up.
You bring up a potential problem as well, so thanks for that. Between HW and HDR, I've been building a list of activities where DV'ing may not fall within trost's proposal. Plagiarism was the easiest to introduce as it's what I've been working with the last couple of weeks, but there are others.
I'll tell you though, this fraud stuff is a slippery slope even when dealing with plagiarism. It's why I've been adding the source links and text comparisons to the posts I've DV'd.
It's a complicated game. I think it will be interesting to watch.
Definitely interesting. The plagiarism part of the proposal I feel is working well. People report suspicious activities and they either DV themselves or tag me so I can do it. If I need help I go to Pob, HDR, or HW.
I would downvote this but to prove a point dating back to 2016 I don't do downvotes - I insult them instead...
It's a tough issue. I was very pro downvote, until they were free and abused.
It's not that tough...downvoting killed steemit, it will kill hive, and unless pob stops it, it will the whole blockchain...
Steemit wasn't killed the stake was purchased and there is very little downvoting there, but still some. It is still alive, but trying to find a meaningful post or engaged user is tough. Maybe you should visit, to see, the impact.
I saw the conversation and I think it is great. However, personally I am unlikely to read a complicated rule book to enjoy a tribe.
I do agree that the over-zealous downvoters are ruining the spirit of free-market principles and stagnating the growth, many of them are unskilled in terms of meaningful contribution and it gives them a pretend thing to do. For others it is just power.
I admire the brainstorming, and I get what you are trying for.
Here is another Point. Peers downvoting peers is very rarely a big problem. An angry exchange and it's over. It's when 1 or 2 big accounts attack that really causes problems.
Just my point of view.
the way downvoting killed steemit was that it drove all the people who refused to stick to the agenda off the platform - and that was over 90% of my friends - you are one of the less than 10% that remain, and you know yourself that you play by the rules!
they weren't all downvoted off the platform, but more than 20 of them were (plus 4 of my own accounts that were rendered unusable) and the others were so pissed off watching the shitshow that they just quit
if i decided to put my liquid hive, as i power down my accounts, into pob i could easily become a major stakeholder, but after 5 years of watching total corruption on the blockchain I wouldn't put that much money into it again. how much i invest in pob is dependent on how this downvote power struggle plays out.
Ive been on my best behavior on hive, but even so have copped some big downvotes on my alt accounts, and while living vicariously through lucylin's posts has been good, if we lose this battle i'll probably give up being a hive investor and go midwit hunting too :)
Odd how none of the accounts so keen on downvoting to stop abuse ...lol...did anything about this one...
elias15g is a hacked account ❗❗ [1], [2], [3]
@trostparadox please do not click on any links it may post. More info: 1 | 2. Sincerely, @keys-defender.@elias15g recover your account using your recovery account: https://hiveblocks.com/@elias15g > "Recovery account"
Comment 10% downvoted to make it less visible. This message is self-voted to be more visible among others.
Put your butt plug back in now scrotum face
@trostparadox, now this is the kind of links that @diebitch is talking about