I have mixed feelings about downvotes... There is a case for them, but I think that there is a problem with them being consequence free. Like all things, no risk of consequences leads to some odd behaviours... For instance, if you can crash a world economy (GFC) through consequence free actions and still be rich... Why not do it?
Proportionate downvoting is useful to signal disagreement... But what is chump change for one is a huge hit for another. It takes some level of wisdom to understand that instead of mashing 100%
SBI does well with long term support, and this is a model that is great for retention (the weakness of Steem). The curation projects are great, but having sugar hit means you need more of them...
Agree. I still don’t know why people labeled themselves as some sort of “Steemit Police” Who cares if someone is using a tag several times instead of one time? Who are we to downvote zero quality posts? Do we create more valuable and quality content ourselves? Just have fun posting bogs and comments and just don’t always look at what others are doing. There is never consensus about what is quality and what is not. You post blogs to ventilate your opinion which you like others to read in my opinion. Live and let live
I would agree fully with you if it weren't for the fact that STEEM is supposed to have value. If certain behaviours were not discouraged, we would find the chain completely overrun with bot accounts which would drain the value of STEEM to zero. If someone could run a million accounts and pick up a few cents on them daily... well, this would be a disaster.
I wasn’t talking about bots.
They're vigilante mobs. Steem is a libertarian utopia. If you want "law and order" you have to make it yourself (through consensus building).
What do you think about perhaps requiring an active post as a prerequisite for downvoting (or voting in general). If you have no active posts (less than 7 days old), then you are frozen out of the whole upvote/downvote game.
If comments were counted as posts it would be ok with me.
Yes, the goal is to simply have the downvoters put some "skin in the game". A comment or reply is able to be downvoted (or upvoted), so that would "expose" them to their own "law of the jungle" standard.
(I thought I had replied to this...)...
I'm afraid that if you have an active post but you just don't care about it... then it isn't really a consequence. There is no loss, as nothing is staked that you actually care about!
It does expose you to downvotes from higher-rep accounts. There are some accounts that level-up to (45) or so and then erase all their posts and comments, power-up a few thousand steem-power and then go around power stomping smaller accounts with IMPUNITY. This seems to be a problem.
It would not be that bad making one comment every week would it?
Well its a social media platform, so maybe it would provide proof of engagement?
Why would it be a negative in your eyes ?
Do you think It may be an easy fix for dealing with these kind of accounts which as far as i have been able to tell have only be used for abusing others so far?
@mandraki
@grenilcu
@brassir
@artrilstev
@rezdam
@clirkliev
@warzi
@blickhil
@dentbos
@septima
@moille
@pfisbrem
@inbort
If someone posts spam on their own blog, just unfollow them. How is this going to "inconvenience" anyone? If anything, it'll probably encourage more engagement.
It would expose them to retaliation.
If I'm bullet-proof, I can shoot down anyone I wish with impunity.
If I'm bullet-vulnerable, I'll probably be slightly more careful who I shoot down, in order to mitigate potential retribution.
Do you think it's better to have accounts like bloom, who do nothing but downvote?
And since they never post, they can act with impunity?
Let's just say, hypothetically, that the Chinese Censorship Brigade decided they wanted to create an account (or buy an existing account) with (a relatively small) 2 million steem-power and start obliterating any accounts they didn't like (anything not written in Chinese).
And since this account makes zero posts, they cannot be downvoted themselves.
Would you consider that a "problem" or would you stand by your, "downvotes are freespeech" credo?
Thanks for telling me what I think. Please explain WHY you think that. What's the "problem" with requiring an active post (or comment) as a prerequisite for upvoting/downvoting?
Accounts with high-rep can downvote anyone with lower rep than them below (0) which automatically hides all their posts and comments and breaks any links to their posts and comments.
If a rogue account had an active post, at least there would be a chance that a higher-rep account could take action to reduce their rep, thus mitigating the amount of damage they could wreak by reducing the number of accounts they could de facto censor wholesale.
Yes, even if they were ranked below (0) they could still wipe out rewards on individual posts and or comments, but they couldn't wipe out ENTIRE ACCOUNTS.
Broken link to illustrate,
https://steemit.com/steem/@bewarecenterbase/6ctepz-steem-freedom-downvote-downvoting-manslaughterers-v-8-0-1-strategy-news-and-list
Broken links to replies (-4rep) that don't show on my replies feed,
IMAGE SOURCE
For example, https://steemit.com/steemit/@logiczombie/q5p0k8
Doesn't show stopthemarkymarks comment at all, not behind a click through "show comment" or anything.
And if you view the comment from stopthemarkymark's replies page, the link is broken,
For example,
https://steemit.com/steemit/@stopthemarkymark/re-q5p0k8-20200214t153241
Getting downvoted by an account with lower rep than you does not affect your rep.
Getting downvoted by an account with higher rep than you KILLS your rep.
By forcing an active post, the downvoters could potentially be downvoted by a higher-rep account, and thus lose their rep, which would take away their ability to KILL other people's rep.