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.