I think most of the time people onboard content consumers but tell them they have to create content. Of course that isn't going to work. It's like inviting someone to a hockey game, then telling them to go play.
Set people up for failure then blame the platform. Rinse and repeat.
Yet this is the only place they can get paid for buying a ticket and get paid for enjoying the game. As soon as that clicks, everything changes...
The Chain is pretty innocent in that game, the Frontend runners are pretty decent altogether, while organized curation is a totally out of control and has burned most of the people I've put on the chain.
For example by using the tag #gaming in the wrong context and then getting downvotes by the Hive Gaming curators. Or my nephew who just dropped some MEME and played some Hive based games, RIP https://peakd.com/hive-193084/@marviman/6eyppwhmp4mohfm86utezd , nuked to 0 REP so that none saw his comments anymore and he was assumed as toxic. Great achievement at the age of 13. Even I got flagged and had to go through struggle sessions three times with different Overlords around here, and trust me I was annoyed and not cooperative.
The reputation system needs a serious overhaul and organized positive and negative curation has become a bigger burden than positive. Which makes a lot of sense to me, why are we allowing Gatekeeper to patrol the usage of Hashtags on a blogging platform? Make literally 0 sense.
Meanwhile those creating actual content and know what they're doing don't have a problem. For instance, why would I tag my post #racing, then post art that has nothing to do with racing.
If someone makes a mistake and get downvoted, it's not the downvoters making a mistake.
Not even 1% of the distributed rewards gets downvoted, and much of that small percentile is focused on HBD funder stuff.
People are also free to create communities, make rules, and ask people to follow them, plus mute them if they don't. That's their right.
It's really easy to focus on little mishaps. It's also really easy to change course and improve. It's not up to Hive. Hive is just a blockchain. Look at the vast majority of accounts not having any issues. If that's ignored while asking for overhauls, of course you won't be taken seriously. Also, one can simply fire up their own tokenized community and set their own rules. Embrace the solutions rather than trying to change things for everyone because you've been inconvenienced. It's a decentralized platform.
We all get a longer leach over time. One of the examples of that is Leo threats, which is making proper rewards on comments. Marky/BuildAWhale was downvoting such content rigorously for years prior to that and I was part of that downvote trail, so I take part of the blame as well. But I also got a chance to read the responses and to get contacted by those who felt mistreated. Lots and lots of people.
Urun is making a very solid point and he's been consistent with his POV, it shouldn't matter to what degree the curators trust or endorse people. My personal standpoint has always been that the "Network Effect" should be left alone, leaving room for natural evolution in the marketplace of ideas.
Most dangerous are Zero-Cost Reputation damages by big accounts to small ones. One account should not be able to "downvote" another one without losing some of its own reputation as well. That is a big problem, especially when curators are destroying reputations by using other people's funds. Devastation without any winners.
Actually it does matter. I'm not going to upvote plagiarists and art fraudsters for instance. I don't want to pay people that can't do their own work. And I'm glad I don't have to research every individual I come across first for legitimacy before upvoting. I can trust that rep system. If I catch someone doing some shady shit and downvote them, shouldn't my rep increase? It doesn't. And that's fine. Rep goes up if you get upvoted and down if you get downvoted. Reddit is similar. Youtube has similar functions as well.
All those trolls with negative rep. I'm glad that happens. They bring nothing of value anyway. And it's not unusual. Bars kick people like that out, theaters, events. It's always the same. They go otherwise they ruin it for everyone. That's normal.
Again. Simply build a tokenized community to your standards. Watch what happens.
I have to speak my truth or I will cease to exist. I can't influence my own tribe of people utilizing the life that I'm living right now. Maybe one day I might be able to, and maybe my opinion on this topic will have changed by then, right now I think curators shouldn't be able to downvote with the delegated stake, and delegated stake should lose at least 5% of rewards due to not being used in a decentralized fashion.
I'm not a huge fan of delegated stake either. People delegate their stake away, then post, and act confused, wondering why nobody with stake is voting. It's their own damn fault. That's the choice people make and when several do it, causes a negative feedback loop. They sacrifice post rewards on their work for post rewards stemming from the work of others without having to actually look at it. They get paid to look away, and others get paid to not look at theirs. Again, that's the choice they made. If they don't want that, they can stop. No need to makes rules. Common sense might kick in eventually but until then that's what they get. You had mentioned allowing network effect to freely do its thing, and that's one of the results.
This is me looking at a very difficult question:
Can I onboard people to blog on a Hive frontend without having it backfire on my physical life reputation?
Practical truth is: Absolutely not, 0/10 people stayed, all got burned
Then don't. Leave that up to someone more qualified.
I mean we can play that, I onboard five people for you just to witness their demise.
Would you be interested in accompanying such an experiment?
No. I'm not interested in playing your games. I've been around for over six years. If you onboard five or create five alts and make the same mistakes, who's fault is that? I can show you 500 not having any problems, probably far more than 500. And those doing well are not getting some kind of special treatment. It's up to the individuals to set themselves up for success. Nobody else. Making it sound like everyone will fail, is such a slap in the face.
Now am I calling out something that was presenting itself to me, or am I trapped in my own anecdotal chain of events?
Unclear to me and yet I am sure that soon from now I'll collide with another curator again. Doing my thing, minding my stuff, and investing in all kinds of different projects in this ecosystem, and still looking forward to being treated like a second-class citizen of the Hive Tribe. Any "curator" can read these comments of mine, decide to not like them and end this account of mine - without any repercussions. The existence of such entities is a problem in itself.
If you view yourself as some kind of second-class citizen, you can't blame others if you feel like one. That's your outlook on life. Your fault.
And yes anyone can come up and downvote. But they're not.
Just like anyone in life can walk up and smack you, but they don't.
Maybe ditch the paranoia.
Debates are common in life. Disputes are common in life. But if someone is going around conducting themselves in an antisocial manner, never in the history of humanity would that give them a good repuation.
Well, we saw the right on the first night enforced by royalty for at least a century. People use plunder, purge, and conquest to gain access to women, young children and land. ISIS did that only a couple of years ago. On the other side Schwab, Trudeau, Merkel, and Berlusconi had pretty bad reputations for most of their lives. Didn't bother them too much.
Conflict is natural, life is unfair. We dance - we fall - we struggle and die.
Yeah. The world is full of bad shit. Gets worse when that's all one looks at.
In order to stop all the bad shit, you'd have to be 10x worse supreme leader with a god complex.
If terrorists came here we could just downvote their asses LOL.