This is good news and something we desperately need. Would I be correct in presuming, based on your wording, that it will be a case of the higher the rep the less damage a downvote inflicts? Or will it be only users over a certain level of reputation that receive any level of protection?
I read the arguments yesterday, and frankly I didn't see any agreement on a solution, if you think someone is getting too many votes off of his 4 daily posts why don't you reduce the maximum posts to 1? I don't see how anyone can make a reasonably good article 4 times a day except if he is like Hemingway and I haven't read anyone that good on Steemit (maybe @lordvader's articles, but that's because I like his type of humour and he doesn't post that often because making a good article takes time) the only reason people post so much is to make as much as possible, perhaps because they know a whale or two will vote for them.
Also I don't like bots, even though of the few articles I have made I only get about 10 votes and at least half are bots. But if bots don't vote, you would have less flagging, which is what people are most upset about. I also don't think anyone should have more than one account.
That's the way I see it, maybe I am just being dumb.
I disagree. Lowering the post limit is a bad idea. I post articles that I spent a lot of time, that took me the best part of a day. But, I also post shorter ones that are meant to engage my followers in discussion or laughter. Then there is bounty posts, they only take a few minutes.
And as far as quality content, if you're a productive person like @krnel, @thecryptofiend, or @aggroed before he stopped posting(probably because of his shit) then you can get more than one, or even two quality pieces of content up in a day.
I agree that bots can be a problem though, especially auto-downvote bots. These should be banned.
Ok, sure, see we agree on one thing I think that's the way things can be fixed on Steem.
As for the posts things (I guess I only speak for myself, I am not not much of a writer), then how about a person only voting once a day for a specific author? Actually I personally don't care if a person makes a lot of money on not so great posts, I am just trying out ideas that can help Steem overcome this problem.
Again I think that would be a bad idea, because people would just vote for their friends or their alt accounts and none of the STEEM would be distributed effectively.
All ideas are good ideas, for they serve to eliminate the bad ones and give cause to create better ones. So this is why I think we need a lot more discussion like this, and those with the means to implement change ought to pay attention-- at least to the refined, finished proposals.
We still will need a Peace Oracle moving forward. Some things take a special human to accomplish, and peace is one of them.
This is good news and something we desperately need. Would I be correct in presuming, based on your wording, that it will be a case of the higher the rep the less damage a downvote inflicts? Or will it be only users over a certain level of reputation that receive any level of protection?
I read the arguments yesterday, and frankly I didn't see any agreement on a solution, if you think someone is getting too many votes off of his 4 daily posts why don't you reduce the maximum posts to 1? I don't see how anyone can make a reasonably good article 4 times a day except if he is like Hemingway and I haven't read anyone that good on Steemit (maybe @lordvader's articles, but that's because I like his type of humour and he doesn't post that often because making a good article takes time) the only reason people post so much is to make as much as possible, perhaps because they know a whale or two will vote for them.
Also I don't like bots, even though of the few articles I have made I only get about 10 votes and at least half are bots. But if bots don't vote, you would have less flagging, which is what people are most upset about. I also don't think anyone should have more than one account.
That's the way I see it, maybe I am just being dumb.
I disagree. Lowering the post limit is a bad idea. I post articles that I spent a lot of time, that took me the best part of a day. But, I also post shorter ones that are meant to engage my followers in discussion or laughter. Then there is bounty posts, they only take a few minutes.
And as far as quality content, if you're a productive person like @krnel, @thecryptofiend, or @aggroed before he stopped posting(probably because of his shit) then you can get more than one, or even two quality pieces of content up in a day.
I agree that bots can be a problem though, especially auto-downvote bots. These should be banned.
Ok, sure, see we agree on one thing I think that's the way things can be fixed on Steem.
As for the posts things (I guess I only speak for myself, I am not not much of a writer), then how about a person only voting once a day for a specific author? Actually I personally don't care if a person makes a lot of money on not so great posts, I am just trying out ideas that can help Steem overcome this problem.
Again I think that would be a bad idea, because people would just vote for their friends or their alt accounts and none of the STEEM would be distributed effectively.
All ideas are good ideas, for they serve to eliminate the bad ones and give cause to create better ones. So this is why I think we need a lot more discussion like this, and those with the means to implement change ought to pay attention-- at least to the refined, finished proposals.