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.
In my opinion, most of the upvotes are far more malicious than the miniscule downvotes.
'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.
It's not actually that simple if the information isn't readily available.
The point is, it's there.
And that is a fantastic point. It's there, only know to a few and, as a result, almost pointless to have there in the first place. It almost forces a re-invention of the wheel. Fortunately, comments like yours forces a re-evaluation and seeking out of information not normally available. It a good thing, I think, in the end to have.
You guys could ask the Engine team to get some insights about those modifications.
It's not actually that simple if the information isn't readily available.
That's exactly the point. Tribe moderation can be done effectively without needing to rely on downvotes at all.
Several of us see within-tribe downvotes as toxic and a weapon that can be easily abused by large stakeholders. We are trying to proactively deal with that issue up-front, openly, and transparently.
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.