I feel it is a great decision too. I just wish we wouldn't poke and prod each other. Additionally, some clarification could be beneficial. UV - engage. DV - engage. Speaking about the reasoning for approval or not, I imagine, would only serve to improve things in the community.
Edited: changed "I just wish we would" to "wouldn't".
As I said above, I will continue downvote as I please based on my personal criteria, as I see fit. It makes no difference to me if I am muted in POB tribe or not.
After this much discussion, it is still quite clear to me that the project manager of POB is clueless on blockchain technology especially DPOS etiquette. If that is true, it is likely that he will make mistake again. Just like his previous post is a mistake and it is currently over rewarded in my opinion. It doesn't worth 250 POB as it is currently carrying, so I will adjust the reward if it continues to carry it. I am explaining my thoughts here, but I won't do in future before I DV a post. As I DV posts every single day.
Clarification: I meant I wish we wouldn't poke or prod each other.
Thank you for the engagement. My personal reasons on the mute have been addressed.
It is your right to DV if you feel a post is over rewarded. It is system law. It doesn't have to be liked. Voting should not be contested without proof of malicious intent or action. I mentioned that the other day to someone complaining about an over rewarded post.
The communication people provide is important, but horribly captured. Between various tribes and Hive, critical information gets lost over time. Common positions on DV and rewards appears common, but ill-explained. I believe by exploring it further and communicating the findings certain stigmas can be resolved.
Query: DPOS etiquette? I would like to learn more about this if it's outside of common knowledge. If you can, I would appreciate a link. I've been trying to gather up information to disseminate it. For instance, with livingUKtaiwan's article on newbies or Marky's article on markups/engine tools.
I will help you there, simply because you are actually a rational voice among a large amount of people without any “brain” in POB. If I can respectfully say so! Kudos to you for that.
Rewards belong to the reward pool until 7 th day at payout. It is not yours until that day
When one makes a post therefore, there shouldn’t be any expectation of rewards. As it is optional based on net sum of upvote and downvote
Most common usage of DV (other than to mitigate spam or plagiarism) is disagreement of rewards
There is no difference between upvote and downvote other than sign conversion
Downvote is not attack
Downvote doesn’t benefit the caster in any way, neither socially nor financially. It only makes the caster of DV unpopular. Yet we still do it to protect the reward pool. As pool being constant, more lopsided the vote, more net rewards are taken by the lopsided posts at the expense of common users like you.
I DV to protect you.
That’s the etiquette and explanation. This is not an opinion it’s a fact.
There are no alternative facts. :)
Hope this is helpful to you.
PS. If you understand the above, you will see that it is impossible to “take” any rewards away, as it was never yours in the first place.
PS. DPOS = Delegated Proof of Stake; wasn’t sure if you were asking that. Hive is a DPOS blockchain
This is arguable. If a downvoter is also an author, denying rewards to others also increases their own rewards. I'm not saying it's your case, I'm saying there are situations where "alternative facts" actually happen.
This is also arguable. Code-wise, it isn't an attack, but it can be used as such and it has been used as such numerous times.
Considering expectations are human, not code, this is the most controversial point you're making. If you expect humans to act like code, then your actions might be more biased towards your preferences than you thought.
A human judging articles. There is a lot of difference between things that make you upvote and things that make you downvote. Explaining yourself as if you were code isn't logical. No one's questioning the code. You are the one being questioned. Therefore, this sounds more like an excuse to do your own bidding regardless of what other people think, which is, quite frankly, very arrogant.
@azircon @scholaris
You are free to make your own opinion. However, there are no alternative facts. I will not change a single word of what I said. If anyone calls me arrogant; so be it ;)
yeah that's not healthy for hive
Says who? You :)
Anyways, this thread is damn old. Get a move on. I won't reply again. Replied out of courtesy:) Have a good evening!
Excellent. This is helpful. I endeavor to include something similar when I introduce guidelines for plagiarism/moderation. The first release is for review and recommendations only. I need community input before submitting it for proposals. It will be vetted again after revision through the approval process. I expect the approval process to be the longest part.
It took me a long time to put together a lot of what you presented. I had my own ideas and I put pen to paper, but there's only so many searches through peakD that's possible. I've been through all of the POB-discussions at this point. I reviewed as many HW posts as possible.
There are some things that weren't common knowledge:
I am familiar with the DPOS term and significance. I am not familiar with the politics or some of its customs.
One goal of mine with POB is to keep these guidelines at the forefront of the interface. I imagine a time when users, for instance, utilizing the POB-Ecency front can just click on a convenient link to see the policies we develop. Mind you, it won't solve all the issues of communication, but I believe its a start.
This whole debacle never clicked for me until I read this just now.
This right here, is what I would love to see more of!
Yes many people are clueless, and lash out emotionally, but I feel it's due to a huge lack of understanding of THIS!
I guess the only thing I would hope for, is more communication about this, even if it's just a post you link to when you DV, just so there is at least a chance for these people to learn from their mistakes.
I certainly don't expect all the people who are full time creators to have learned how Hive works on the back end, so I treat every situation as a opportunity to educate first, and then DV only if needed.
An idea that I would like to maybe see implemented in a future fork, would be a DV with a drop down of different reasons why they are getting DV, and an other option when you can write a little message. That way there is no confusion, and content creators won't automatically feel like they are being pushed off of the platform.
Yeah all these peepheads are clueless, what spineless brains they have, Haha!
As Azircon says, DVing is something of a duty!
We should all be thankful he does it, it's only really the larger stake holders that can without fear of reprisals. Note he doesn't take being muted on POB as much of a reprisal!