RE: What's the point to downvote a post until it reach zero rewards & zero payouts?

[erh.germany]

Every action has consequences

True.

I don't think that this place is a community as a whole. But that there are a number of interest groups here who enjoy a certain topic and exchange ideas about it. The garden people, for example, or other subject-specific groups who want to give each other tips for their hobbies or show their latest results. Nothing earth-shattering, but useful, depending on the perspective. Whereas I think that the quality of the contributions overall does not provide enough meat to really be a fund of valuable knowledge transfers. But if you lower your standards, you might find some things, I have received good book tips from some of the users here or sources that I could follow up with interest, but I have to say that the search function on the hive frontend is very poor. What I find most problematic is the seven-day window, as it affects users' habit of not looking at older posts, and monetisation of past publications remains forever impossible, unlike on yt, for example.
I had once suggested re-posting your own posts that you think are of high quality and received too little attention, but there were divided views on this and generally there is too much fear that you would be downvoted because of it.
The whole place suffers from too much superficiality if you ask me. But there's no cure for that anyway, so it's pointless to complain about it.

Anyway, I for one would be bummed if the place would close down. I have published many articles which I consider to be valuable. I often thought of saving them somewhere but never did as they are so many now.
Would you like to see this place shut down?

Comments

[erh.germany]

I almost missed your answer since your response was not shown in my notifications (or I might have overseen it).

There are many contradictions here at work. I responded in another blog post to the problem in my own language and give you the translation:

The problem here on Hive is that the rules are unclear - not that they ever reach a clarity that satisfies everyone. Some of the big players do it through their community operations (where they upvote their own postings, for example - those who don't know this may not be around long enough or prefer to ignore it for some reason) and make clear announcements about onboarding, for example, and emphasise that spam and plagiarism will be punished, so users are under observation. They also define that there must be a certain variation in the use of images and text, and classify this as "quality". The self-voting of the big community operators, however, is perceived as a double standard, how could it be otherwise?

Other big players say there are no rules on Hive and so everyone votes as they feel like it and what deserves down- or upvotes according to their own subjective opinion.
If the Witnesses were in agreement about the rules, something would be gained in this respect, that is the thinking. But since they are not, it remains as it is.

This lack of clarity in the rules requires the individual to accept operating in an uncertain space and to develop a certain intuition as to whether one's actions are overshooting an (admittedly vague) boundary. I would think that people have this intuition. Those who ignore it are caught cold. Nevertheless, I have a great aversion to "lecturing" in the comment section.

The other problem of the "executive" in this respect is that they punish first and do not first express suspicion of abuse, but establish it directly. It gives me the impression that hivewatchers have too little desire and serious energy to devote themselves to each individual case. In my estimation, there is no professional legal understanding here, as the people don't seem to be trained in such things. In my opinion, a warning would be the better way, i.e. entering into a dialogue with a suspected case of abuse. That they don't do it publicly but on Discord, I can understand in a way, because they have to fear that bystanders will get involved and a huge wave will take place. But that happens anyway - LOL

I state that there is no explicit solution and that one has to live with implicit perceptions.

I agree that in the long run, however, this does more harm than good to the platform as a whole if it gives the impression that, despite contradictory messages among themselves, the Witnesses rarely stand up for an individual case where abuse has been perpetrated on a small fish from within their own Witness ranks. Clearly there has been. I suspect that this happens so little (at least not obviously to me) has the background that the Witnesses fear that a new war will then be sparked among themselves, which will then also cause a bad external image.

There is also the assumption circulating that the big accounts do not have an interest that Hive becomes mainstream for they might fear a hostile takeover and so, as a consequence of that anxiety, keep the place small.

card game

you mean Splinterlands? Yeah, I personally find that utterly uninteresting.

I would like to see this place actually go through another whale experiment.

What exactly do you mean by that?

[erh.germany]

Like that one account did with marky? I don't know if he nullified his postings or comments but we saw two wales at war with each other.
What do you mean with "nullify stake" and "burning" it in combination with delegation power?
Can you give me an example which I can understand better?
Like "A" abuses and "B", "C" and "D"-wales come along and nullify "A"s stake, for example.
Would they delegate part of their own stake into a special created account in order to have bigger power to counteract one or more abusive players?

In order to have a case of "abuse", you'd have to have an investigation and the partaking of the parties involved (involvement then is key, for a wale who wants to establish a rule against abuse, must involve himself and have an understanding of legalities). In combination with that, there has to be a certain protocol to which the wales commit themselves.

Like in the customary law of the country, according to which all the considerations and preliminary investigations have to be made before a judgement is reached (the famous trial).

It seems to me that there is not the necessary seriousness on this portal that the actors would really want to put as much work into it as is expected outside the platform, for example.

The witnesses would have to agree on a protocol and procedure and set up the separation of powers similar to the way it is done in democracies. You would need a judge at the end. But he cannot be part of this reward structure and should not have his own account here, in my view. But then the question arises why someone should do that if he is not remunerated for it. He would still have to have a high level of non-participation and not be loyally associated with those who program the code or are big players. I don't see how that could work?

After all, the crucial point is: how exactly and by whom was abuse committed, and what exactly justifies the punishment that goes with it? You need proof, don't you.

[erh.germany]

There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.

No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.

I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.

While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.

I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)

You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.

I do not see this form of consensus coming.

Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.

Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.

Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.

[ganjafarmer]

You deserve the downvotes for your behavior. I hope they decide to mute your content across the Blockchain.

I'm happy to help them downvote you.

Mr -11 rep... Hahahahhahahahaha