If I see no need to leave comments for upvotes, then why leave them for downvotes?
It just seems like another thing that makes it less likely that I'll actually go through with the vote, unless it's automatic I guess. Even still having to click an option for which generated message is friction.
I want downvoting to be just as smooth a user experience as upvoting.
Do you see an up vote as a negative action? Do people stand up and tell everyone in church I donated ten dollars in the collection plate? Do people point fingers and demand explanation of people who take money out of the collection plate?
I want to be able to determine if a down vote was justified. I like looking at and reading post. I see post that are down voted. I have had to hunt for the reason why was this down voted.
A lot of people were leaving steem because of the meaningless 15 SP down vote bot army. I do not want to see that happen here. last time I down voted something it was a two step operation, click the down vote button get the pop-up, click the yes down vote button. So one more simple check box, one more click, three clicks instead of two.
But I understand people are resistant to accepting responsibility for their actions, that people do not want others to have the ability to challenge the down vote, or to let the community decide that their down vote was not justified. people would rather have the negative actions be normalized so they do not need to face the consequences of their actions.
I am pretty sure that no change will be coming to the down vote system, people like to hate from behind closed doors. People do not want to face the possibility that others will see their actions as anti-social. It is all about saving face, never having to admit your actions have consequences.
I don't see an upvote as intrinsically good or bad, or a downvote for that matter. Upvotes can be used for abuse, and each downvote adds to everyone else's rewards.
I mean no disrespect, but this isn't a church. Though I've seen my fair share of churchgoers self adulate for their generosity. I've even known some to take covertly from offering plates.
There's nothing more valid than one's opinion to justify anything, an I'm not counting on that. I'd rather just leave the whole squabble of justification by the wayside and get on with life.
I do think we need to avoid demoralizing our users, and especially the new ones. I think bots generally diminish the relative impact of manual human users, which can be psychologically degrading (especially when they're designed for degrading people), but I don't think we should prohibit them or anything.
From my perspective it seems a matter of cultural direction.
Anyone with voting power can challenge any vote, up or down. There's not really any mechanical way of stopping the community from deciding to nullify any vote. If the opposition votes are strong enough it will be rendered ineffectual.
It's all under the inequality breeding backdrop of delegated proof of stake though, where you can buy influence. At least this sort of system means many get the chance to earn stake organically from miscellaneous contribution.
The natural consequences of any action will be there despite what anyone does. There are social repercussions for any action in a social setting. It doesn't matter whether you admit it or not.
Sure people like to hate from behind closed doors. People like to do lots of things behind closed doors. I like to pet my dog behind a locked one.
Applied cryptography is akin to a bunch of closed and locked doors, and I like the direction it's taking things in the world. This way we can have privacy and freedom, so long as we're willing to seize them.
Thanks for the discussion.
I appreciate it, and wish you well.
Same here, it is perspectives, differing views that make and build societies. Have a good week.