It's not mandatory to explain why you gave a negative vote. Otherwise, Marky should propose opening a customer service office.
This is comedy gold š¤£ Only a Hivian would understand but still hilarious š¤£
Anyways, I agree with you on a lot of your current perspective.
Having different people who have different approaches creates a lot of value.
Marky is very technical and operates zero at a high level which works for him. In a lot of ways he is the final line of defense and I think Hive Analytics not getting funded is a mistake because funding Hive Analytics gives Marky an incentive to stay on HIVE and keep building random dope shit like he does.
Hivewatchers includes multiple people and a lot of things they operate support their antiabuse initiatives. (such as spaminator, and their discord resolution process, and other things I am sure I am leaving out).
Azircon has is own way of using downvotes and a lot of what he does dissuades extractors and scams from ramping up.
I am sensitive and do not mind sharing how I feel. I operate downvotes as a human and am not consistent in the same way zero is for example. I take days off and I will step away from time to time to do real life things. I prefer to handle downvotes in a personal way that matches my personality. Unfortunately I do downvote a lot of spam and AI content and there really is nothing to talk about there. I also do look at KE because to me it is an easy way to see how much someone wants to stay invested. People regularly say they need the rewards for food or electricity but that has 2 issues. (1) It is impossible for me to validate that and anyone can say they need upvotes for food. (2) Charity should run through the DHF. The DHF is a fund so we can fund charity if we want. The reward pool is not a "fund," it is a pool of rewards with a purpose. If we fund charity with the reward pool it is chaotic and not elegant in any way. There is no practical way to track how much charity we are supporting through the reward pool right now and we cannot practically validate if it is all real charity. I think the reward pool should be for authors that want to build a stake on HIVE not a pool of funds to just be dumped for fiat. Obv that is my opinion and if a larger stakeholder or a group of large stakeholders tries to run a charity through the reward pool I would be limited in what I could do.
My process works sometimes but not always. Hivewatchers, Marky, Azircon, and many others being there for when my discourse doesn't work makes a lot of sense. I also can downvote someone without them getting on a list which I do get a lot of positive feedback for. I personally refuse to handle downvote disputes in discord and only want to talk on chain for a variety of reasons. Mostly because I think having those discussion on Hive is more valuable than in discord. Also, not handling disputes in discord helps me avoid creating a feeling that people can lobby me in private. If someone has a problem with my downvote I would love to talk about it on chain even if these conversations are very draining.
I am not a huge fan of Hive Watchers using discord but at the end of the day it is not my lane to tell them what to do. I can only share my perspective. I did have a conversation them on chain about it and ended in a positive way. Even if they keep using discord I was very happy with how they handled the feedback and how they reacted.
Very common for people to show disapproval for Hivewatcher's, Marky's, and Azircon's process. But when you look, a lot of these people disapprove of my process. So really some people just don't like downvotes. Unless we get rid of downvotes at the protocol level there is not much to say there. Only a small group of people using downvotes does increase centralization which is not good for the ecosystem.
I can't help but think a lot of the disdain people have for downvotes revolves around lack of education. I am always surprised how many people have no idea how the reward pool works.
I am getting less surprised each day though š¤£
"Mostly because I think having those discussion on Hive is more valuable than in discord."
I won't use discord, if someone has a beef with me, they know where to find me. @hurtlocker, I don't know how the reward pool works. Thought it was you post you get rewarded by fellow posters. What gets my gall are the whales that take away up votes with their down voters while not contributing any content. They just use their money to play god .
The reward pool is not infinite. If we did not have downvotes people on average would get a lot less in my opinion.
That is speculation obviously but there would be no way to stop self voting or multiple accounts so that activity would ramp up.
Get your point with self voting but who does it hurt? "bot" accounts are just as bad.
I do not really care about self voting as much as other people. The problem with self voting is people are double dipping in the reward pool. Getting extra author rewards and getting curation rewards for your own post. Which is why I burned this post because I figured someone would complain. And someone did complain even though I do not get author rewards from the post š
To me self voting is only an issue if it is on posts that are not very "good." But good is subjective so it opens people up to downvotes. I "usually" avoid downvoting based on self voting because not everyone cares.
You should always explain why you downvote someoneās post the first time. Itās educational and helps the community grow and become more thoughtful. When you donāt do this, you create toxic relationships, demotivate authors, and ultimately damage the community.