Lets say whale 5 gives you a vote with a value of $500.00. Whale 3 thinks that is way way off the mark, so they down vote YOU 100%, which happens to take you from a reputation of 60 to a reputation of 25. Is that fair to you? Did you ask whale 5 for 500 dollars? Did whale 3 see that it was whale 5 that gave you 500 dollars? Did I as a drive by steemit surfer, bother to look at your post that was greyed out because of a whale vote? What I am saying is if it is a disagreement about money, then the person giving the excessive money is the one who should take the hit, not the person who just posted their thoughts ideas or dreams. The poster did nothing wrong or deceitful. They did not ask, beg, borrow, or steal the 500 dollar vote, (they may have had a heart attack, I know I would), but they did nothing wrong. Why should they be punished?
It's a good point, but you should be accurate - you cannot down vote an account, you can only down vote a post. Whale 3 down votes a post, and this indirectly has negative effect on your rep if and only if the post goes into negative rewards (you can't see this in the steemit.com UI, it just shows zero, but it's recorded).
It's up to Whale 3 to be responsible enough to just counter the rewards they think should be countered. The UI could help with this simple calculation if the Whale is not bothered to do it themselves.
I understand your point. But we should not restrict the possibility of this situation on the blockchain, we should just support positive action and warn of potential common mistakes in the UI (like we do with transfers for example).
I am still new, August 1, 2017. So I am still learning and trying to remember the different terminology used. The person may only be downvoting a Post, but it does affect the posters account and rep. I know because I was downvoted without cause very early on by bernie and his house of 52 cards, (52 down votes), that did affect my reputation. Fortunately I knew about cheetah, steamcleaners, and @timcliff, and they fixed things for me.
But yes when it is strictly a money/reward issue, it is not always the posters fault.
This is exactly what @aggroed is suggesting below and it's something I've supported in the past too. I think it's still a good idea, but now in my opinion the better one is what @timcliff suggests
Lets say whale 5 gives you a vote with a value of $500.00. Whale 3 thinks that is way way off the mark, so they down vote YOU 100%, which happens to take you from a reputation of 60 to a reputation of 25. Is that fair to you? Did you ask whale 5 for 500 dollars? Did whale 3 see that it was whale 5 that gave you 500 dollars? Did I as a drive by steemit surfer, bother to look at your post that was greyed out because of a whale vote? What I am saying is if it is a disagreement about money, then the person giving the excessive money is the one who should take the hit, not the person who just posted their thoughts ideas or dreams. The poster did nothing wrong or deceitful. They did not ask, beg, borrow, or steal the 500 dollar vote, (they may have had a heart attack, I know I would), but they did nothing wrong. Why should they be punished?
It's a good point, but you should be accurate - you cannot down vote an account, you can only down vote a post. Whale 3 down votes a post, and this indirectly has negative effect on your rep if and only if the post goes into negative rewards (you can't see this in the steemit.com UI, it just shows zero, but it's recorded).
It's up to Whale 3 to be responsible enough to just counter the rewards they think should be countered. The UI could help with this simple calculation if the Whale is not bothered to do it themselves.
I understand your point. But we should not restrict the possibility of this situation on the blockchain, we should just support positive action and warn of potential common mistakes in the UI (like we do with transfers for example).
I am still new, August 1, 2017. So I am still learning and trying to remember the different terminology used. The person may only be downvoting a Post, but it does affect the posters account and rep. I know because I was downvoted without cause very early on by bernie and his house of 52 cards, (52 down votes), that did affect my reputation. Fortunately I knew about cheetah, steamcleaners, and @timcliff, and they fixed things for me.
But yes when it is strictly a money/reward issue, it is not always the posters fault.
I think reserving a "downvote of the rep" for flags might be a good idea. Keeping it separate from "dislikes".
This is exactly what @aggroed is suggesting below and it's something I've supported in the past too. I think it's still a good idea, but now in my opinion the better one is what @timcliff suggests
I don't think the two concepts clash though. On a fundamental level, they are both sounds and could be implemented side by side, could they not?
Edit: Duplicate. Tried editing the first comment so that it didn't say "sounds" and this is what happened.