There is something we can do....
Downvote whoever he upvotes with the same weight to counter his curation rewards.
It's what OCD does when you get a Rancher vote on Hive.
It's not ideal, but it's something.
Along with a comment explaining why I don't think it's too much of a problem.
There is some talk of him being the proofofbrain account holder too, but that could just be Spec.
Nothing like a bit of drama to keep us on our toes!
Then those they upvote will reply in doing same to whoever downvotes them. Even though you are factually and maybe morally right just think of the back and fourth it will likely cause. I would stick to downvoting the bad actor directly only. Many who don’t even know what’s going on will just do same to us. I don’t think it will work regardless even we are right to do so.
Yes i was just thinking out loud TBH!
When you do that, you only hurt the little voters?
He still has x% of the somewhat smaller curation pool.
It could make his share go up as a percentage of the whole?
I'd suggest burning him to the ground and compensating the collateral damage, but what do I know?
Yes it would hurt everyone and I guess turn his vote into something of a curse.
You've got me thinking about bot solutions to this now, or 'solutions' maybe a better way of putting it.
DVing and then posting other content and sharing the rewards of those in transfers to everyone else affected by the DV.
I'm sure it's codeable.
Yes, most everything can be solved by 'good' rules adhered to by 'good' people, iyam.
Where we find said people probably requires a crowd and much conversation to find 'the truth'.
Some will change to fit the rules, others will change the rules to fit them.
In the hive, I would say more need to change to fit the rules, rather than the other way around.
Greedy people are gonna greed.
It still makes more sense to me to burn him, and others that don't contribute 'good' content to the chain, to the ground.
This is a crab bucket, after all.
We have an abundance around us, we just need the greediest to leave a little for everybody else.
I'd make it a box to check on the 'is this a good person' checklist.
That’s a brutal idea. So much collateral damage. It’s why most people quit Hive… vindictive downvoting.
There's no ideal solution, I just remember Steem when there were no DVs
It was shit.
I think @themarkymark put it most succinctly in a comment somewhere - for every malicious DV there are 100 irresponsible upvotes.
On a complete tangent i think it's a moot point - I'm not about to invest that heavily in a side chain where I don't know who the token issuer is, or worse, where i don't know but i've got an idea and I think he might be a bit of a loose cannon.
Maybe for that reason we shouldn't have DVs - from an investor's perspective POB can only ever be a bit of fun anyway! Dvs can ruin that for sure.
100? More like 1000-10000 :)
Yes, I overuse my 0 key so I have to be conservative with it.
Some of the extremes that you pointed out were pretty clear to see like with your article on Lassecash.
Is there a word count/rewards ratio where you deem something is over-rewarded? Could it be that objective? Is there some consensus behind the scenes before a DV on over-rewarding gets issued?
For instance, self-voting is tolerated, but if I gave this comment a full upvote on my POB account, I "feel" that would be malicious. Would I be correct in writing that observation?
Are there types of malicious upvoting? Just looking for guidance here.
It is very subjective.
In my opinion? Yes. I am personally not a fan of self voting comments. In some rare cases I may do so with a small vote to bring it to the top of the comments if it is something critical. But in almost all cases self voting comments is just farming.
All the conspiracy posts that take half of trending that get massive votes for pseudo science. All the whales that voted 5-20 vote posts that had no rewards to maximize their curation with little effort (pre-hardfork 25). There are a few whales dropping $15-40 votes without regard to quality or even content and they stack on top of each other to take posts near $100 when they normally only take a few cents. Just look at trending, you will see the same 5-6 whales controlling it with no regard to quality.
I could go on, but I will struggle to find many cases of this elusive "malicious downvoting" that we are trying to stop by making laws on how to vote with their stake.
Christ almighty. I keep going back to what you said in discord some time ago about the number of fraud attempts that occur on Hive. This type of upvoting is just as bad.
I appreciate your response, though. Have you written any posts related to this type of upvoting? Or, do you know anyone who has?
I think I have an idea about what people talk about regarding "malicious downvoting", but I don't have a full picture yet so I can't speak to it at this time.
I’ve written many posts about specific cases but not in the idea in general.
It’s unavoidable, people will vote friends, many will vote using as little effort as possible, many will vote things that are ridiculous but it is something they believe in, very few will organically curate to the best of the ability.
But if you think of it, what crypto requires you to spend 2-8 hours a day really mostly shit content to receive 10% at best reward for it? It’s expect that people in general will avoid doing that.
Yeah… I see way too much collateral damage when whales start downvoting whales.. and minnows get wiped out. Lots of people quitting over losing a few pennies on the 7th day. 1 or 2 hive is nothing to a whale but it’s a meal for some people in the world.
Agreed 💯
But Nobody cares.
Sadly...
It’s just like real Life ... the Rich get richer and the poor have what little they have stolen from them by the Rich. It’s just how it goes ... absolutely nothing can be done about it. It sucks to be poor.
Oh, what's a rancher vote? I've talked with @trostparadox about that in the past.
Explaining the reasoning for the downvote, as you mentioned, would eliminate a lot of problems too. No one knows who the POB account holder truly is. I think...
If someone is acting counter to the interests of the group, and won't discuss the situation, you have to figure out what you are gonna do.
As this situation is in a community still finding it's rhythm there are no precedence to go by.
I'm of the opinion that one would force a pow wow to find consensus with the object of the friction, and absent that, one would act unilaterally to support the interests of the group.
One might want to reach out for other options from within the tribe, but ultimately the good of the tribe is what has to be determined by the tribe.
Maybe most folks don't think this is an issue.
They would have to be asked.
I don’t rely think more accounts should get hurt by all the back and fourth. It should be POB big wigs make some policy on this. If they don’t then dump and show them u guys are serious. I just think the downvoting thing will make things worse as random accounts who don’t know background will be hurt and do it back
He is referring to haejin aka ranchorelaxo.
ranchorelaxo has 1.5 million HP.
Whenever ranchorelaxo upvotes someone's content, the 'powers-that-be' like to swoop in and downvote the post, to nullify the rancho upvote.
As @antisocialist pointed out above:
That's the point I was making on Discord. Nuking the post because you don't like the whale upvoter punishes all the legitimate manual curators who genuinely thought the content deserved an upvote -- a very short-sighted and small-minded approach, imho.
I would burn anything he voted on to zero, then I would compensate some percentage to the innocent, but that would require some greedy f**ks to let some pennies fall from their grasp.
This option has been rejected multiple times in the past when suggested.
It makes me wonder which side those folks are on.
Clearly they don't care about the little people that get hurt, because they know the math inside and out, and refuse to do anything but harm them even more.
Smdh.
Unfortunately it will just start more back and fourth downvoting. Ur morally in right I’d def say with this idea. But it won’t end there. Seen it enough on Steemit years back and here on Hive. Just seen it or similar b4. I hope I’m wrong if that’s the plan
Either we let these accounts bleed us slowly, or we bite whatever bullets it takes to rid ourselves of them, imo.
Until enough stake comes together to do this, they are just the cost of maintaining this business, I guess.
Rancherelaxo, aka Haejin, who i'm sure you've heard of?!? I'm an occasional victim of his upvotes.
Communication to the owner is almost certainly the best direction, I guess what we really want is them delegating to some kind of ethical curation account.
It's probably possible to narrow the account owner down to a tiny handful of people you know, with a bit of digging!
Doesn't it cost a small fortune in BEE or something to set up a proper token? Someone had to shift funds around to buy that shortly before, not many people doing that in the time window this all came live.
It'd be worth knowing. I don't generally invest very much in projects run by ONE ANONYMOUS individual, that's EXTREME HIGH RISK.
Haejin I've heard of but I didn't know the alias.
I heard is was a couple of thousands of BEE to set it up. I'm not sure what the actual number is at this time.
I can't fault your concerns. They're definitely valid. The only token I'm 100% comfortable holding is my STEM tokens. The owner always responds to questions. I haven't really seen him push anyone away to the point of ignoring. That's kind of amazing.
I thought it was around a thousand so in that area for sure.
Leo is pretty trustworthy too!
Of course. While I was on Leo, I felt good there. I just don't think I can comment too much about Leo. It's just not my thing. I tried writing about finances and the like, but it didn't synch with me.