It's crazy, I've been lurking on the POB issues and discussions.
It's occurred to me there are very few times that peer to equal peer down votes cause extended drama, usually just a quick flair up.
When a Whale with a wild hair, a power trip and stake goes off on someone the other whales should, but do not fix it.
Lucy goes too far for too long sometimes and I personally get annoyed with it. He didn't discover a problem with DPOS and isn't exposing it, he's experiencing what many before him have experienced. Case in point.. A post from July, 5 years ago.. via the old site. https://steemit.com/steemit/@incomemonthly/some-whales-are-abusing-their-power-with-downvotes-ie-liondani
No matter though, it's easy for me to enjoy his content when he's having fun and ignore it when he's involved in one of these situations, he is certainly a good user, who makes unique content and is not a scammer or a spammer.
The best I can think of is a brave group with big stake could unite to counter vote, but.. that's what the Korean's tried.
Invest accordingly, because while it isn't a deal breaker for many, it seems most don't appreciate it, and it has cost us many good users.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That link made a few thoughts come to mind.
Based on the comments under that post you linked, I'm a bit confused as to what the point is in your case in point. On the surface, it appears they were taking care of a situation involving what they considered to be an exploit at the time, then took some flak for it.
I'm sure I could dig and find posts where someone wrote a beautiful, well-written piece of literature (not being sarcastic, but funny I have to put a disclaimer here ammirite), calling out people for downvoting, disagreeing with it in ways that really paint the picture of being attacked by a heartless beast. It's quite convincing, but you dig a little deeper and find out they were up to no good, like art fraud or something. I actually know this well because I've busted a few myself. They act like shoplifters in denial of being a thief as they watch themselves stealing on video (busted some of those as well, years ago).
Would you agree a lot of sensationalism, misrepresentation of character, misinformation, disinformation, libel, and even harassment comes up far too often in these cases where someone got downvoted and disagreed? I would say that's a problem. I've even seen some cases over the past five years where I disagree with the downvote, but then the one being downvoted begins doing all or some of those things I listed, so then any downvote after, seems legit.
For instance. Harassment. When we had "flags", that was on the list as a valid reason to use the "flag" or, downvote. Big or small (I hate how people have that mentality here but I'll play along), no matter who they are, I don't like seeing folks being harassed.
When it gets dirty like that, I take a neutral position. I feel if the words got them in the mess, the words can get them out. Dishonesty can be converted into honesty.
What are your thoughts on that? This part never seems to come up when we're having an honest discussion about downvotes.
My point in bringing in the old post was just this situation isn't new and has always happened.
I completely agree that both the downvoter and the downvoted often name-call, smear, and escalate the conflict, and say unnecessary things without merit about the other. Many people it seems could benefit from taking a conflict resolution course.
At the end of the day all systems and platforms have pros and cons and DPOS means stake is the tie-breaker in any conflict regardless of who is right and wrong, who uses nice words, etc.
In many cases diplomacy would go a long way, but this is a weakness of DPOS in general. Having the most stake is a fine tie-breaker, but stake doesn't take skill sets into account. In another setting an organization might put their most diplomatic people on the front line of moderation, their best business minds at the top of the project, etc.
I understand DPOS, I think it is imperfect, but all systems have strengths and weaknesses. There is kind of a perfect balance in knowing what the tie breaker is.
The POB group is looking to experiment with other methods of moderation and I find it interesting, but I also don't feel attracted to having a complicated set of rules. It is what it is, and after 1000 debates, it still will be tomorrow.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.
ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
LOL. Yes. Maybe they should write a Hive tutorial about that too? And of course it takes two to tango. I do not discount that fact.
I'll leave the platform politics part up to you folks. That's for you folks to sit and talk about. Maybe someday it'll actually lead to something productive. I'm sure that's the goal.
And yes I can see this is a bit of a POB advertisement. I've seen this approach a couple times already. I hope it gets clicks.
Also, pardon me. I'm just being facetious for shits and giggles.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the "MUTE" function?
Perhaps people can make observations, explain what they see, view it as problematic, and have no desire or need to run away and hide? Nothing there offends me or offers me a reason to lose sleep.
You seem to be promoting the "mute" function quite often here. Makes me wonder if you're currently tucked deep inside of an echo chamber, oblivious to your surroundings.
If I was in an "echo-chamber" I wouldn't be here, thanking you for your scathing critique.
It seems like you're the one who wants to make the entire HIVE blockchain into your own "echo-chamber" by chasing off everyone who you happen to find unpleasant.
How are you so good at twisting things out of shape? Who do I find to be unpleasant? People fascinate me. Where did I chase someone off?
Are you in favor of downvoting @lucylin ?
Isn't that what this entire post is about ?
How are you so good at twisting things out of shape?
My response to whatsup isn't about the post, it's in relation to her comment. That's how conversations occur. My response to you in relation to the 1000 jury concept had nothing to do with this post. So we had a conversation about that. My response to dwinblood started a conversation, and that had nothing to with the post.
Is this post about downvoting lucylin? I thought it was about a lot of things. But I took more of an interest in the comments.
I've had conversations with lucylin. Do you not see how the downvote led to gathering more attention? Do you think that happened by chance? He knows exactly what he's doing. The publicity stunt unravels more and more by the day. If you take the downvote away from him, he's going to be out of a job. Do you think that's fair to lucylin?