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.