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.