RE: What's the point to downvote a post until it reach zero rewards & zero payouts?

[baah]

No I don't want to see this place shut down, I would like to see this place actually go through another whale experiment. I believe that the major flaw is irrational actors working for immoral purposes being allowed to disturb and defraud the community. These people promote their irrational behaviour in others, and punish rational honest people, and this then drives them away. This has effectively resulted in the less than mediocre content on here. Discussion has never been rewarded on par with posts, so comments aren't encouraged other than to assvaccum the OP, making much of the conversation disgusting to consume and which explains the thorough tongue cleaning these dignified folk generally respond to, further driving the rational honest individual away, and why nobody cares to engage.

I also think this place is not a community which is what these irrational people prefer, you can't have a community of suck ups and so we have a congregation of the most devout brown-nosers that join to pray to the altar of rewards and since these large accounts are incapable of introspection or intellectual honesty they can’t cope with disruptive behaviours from rational and honest people which they will silence by punishment as none of their "friends" or people they support will manifest a moment of honesty or push back are more likely to denounce, deflect or find some insignificant objection to make against the disrupting individual since they lack the same introspective capacity like the large accounts. The message is constantly "quit, leave, if you don't like it why are you here" and soon enough this will have effectively been realized, the apex reached when nobody but Irrational Dolts are left here and I wouldn't be surprised if this place persists solely as a card game.

Comments

[erh.germany]

I almost missed your answer since your response was not shown in my notifications (or I might have overseen it).

There are many contradictions here at work. I responded in another blog post to the problem in my own language and give you the translation:

The problem here on Hive is that the rules are unclear - not that they ever reach a clarity that satisfies everyone. Some of the big players do it through their community operations (where they upvote their own postings, for example - those who don't know this may not be around long enough or prefer to ignore it for some reason) and make clear announcements about onboarding, for example, and emphasise that spam and plagiarism will be punished, so users are under observation. They also define that there must be a certain variation in the use of images and text, and classify this as "quality". The self-voting of the big community operators, however, is perceived as a double standard, how could it be otherwise?

Other big players say there are no rules on Hive and so everyone votes as they feel like it and what deserves down- or upvotes according to their own subjective opinion.
If the Witnesses were in agreement about the rules, something would be gained in this respect, that is the thinking. But since they are not, it remains as it is.

This lack of clarity in the rules requires the individual to accept operating in an uncertain space and to develop a certain intuition as to whether one's actions are overshooting an (admittedly vague) boundary. I would think that people have this intuition. Those who ignore it are caught cold. Nevertheless, I have a great aversion to "lecturing" in the comment section.

The other problem of the "executive" in this respect is that they punish first and do not first express suspicion of abuse, but establish it directly. It gives me the impression that hivewatchers have too little desire and serious energy to devote themselves to each individual case. In my estimation, there is no professional legal understanding here, as the people don't seem to be trained in such things. In my opinion, a warning would be the better way, i.e. entering into a dialogue with a suspected case of abuse. That they don't do it publicly but on Discord, I can understand in a way, because they have to fear that bystanders will get involved and a huge wave will take place. But that happens anyway - LOL

I state that there is no explicit solution and that one has to live with implicit perceptions.

I agree that in the long run, however, this does more harm than good to the platform as a whole if it gives the impression that, despite contradictory messages among themselves, the Witnesses rarely stand up for an individual case where abuse has been perpetrated on a small fish from within their own Witness ranks. Clearly there has been. I suspect that this happens so little (at least not obviously to me) has the background that the Witnesses fear that a new war will then be sparked among themselves, which will then also cause a bad external image.

There is also the assumption circulating that the big accounts do not have an interest that Hive becomes mainstream for they might fear a hostile takeover and so, as a consequence of that anxiety, keep the place small.

card game

you mean Splinterlands? Yeah, I personally find that utterly uninteresting.

I would like to see this place actually go through another whale experiment.

What exactly do you mean by that?

[erh.germany]

Like that one account did with marky? I don't know if he nullified his postings or comments but we saw two wales at war with each other.
What do you mean with "nullify stake" and "burning" it in combination with delegation power?
Can you give me an example which I can understand better?
Like "A" abuses and "B", "C" and "D"-wales come along and nullify "A"s stake, for example.
Would they delegate part of their own stake into a special created account in order to have bigger power to counteract one or more abusive players?

In order to have a case of "abuse", you'd have to have an investigation and the partaking of the parties involved (involvement then is key, for a wale who wants to establish a rule against abuse, must involve himself and have an understanding of legalities). In combination with that, there has to be a certain protocol to which the wales commit themselves.

Like in the customary law of the country, according to which all the considerations and preliminary investigations have to be made before a judgement is reached (the famous trial).

It seems to me that there is not the necessary seriousness on this portal that the actors would really want to put as much work into it as is expected outside the platform, for example.

The witnesses would have to agree on a protocol and procedure and set up the separation of powers similar to the way it is done in democracies. You would need a judge at the end. But he cannot be part of this reward structure and should not have his own account here, in my view. But then the question arises why someone should do that if he is not remunerated for it. He would still have to have a high level of non-participation and not be loyally associated with those who program the code or are big players. I don't see how that could work?

After all, the crucial point is: how exactly and by whom was abuse committed, and what exactly justifies the punishment that goes with it? You need proof, don't you.

[erh.germany]

There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.

No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.

I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.

While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.

I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)

You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.

I do not see this form of consensus coming.

Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.

Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.

Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.

[erh.germany]

P.S. The problem with your approach - as I see it - is that you yourself are not seen as a rational actor, because you hurl insults and the intention behind them is not clear if people do not "know" you or let themselves be unsettled by you and refuse to get to know you by argument. On the surface, you seem like an angry, lashing out actor who is being accused of irrationality for that very reason.

[erh.germany]

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes indeed, you don't need to call it a crime and I got confused by the constant chanting down of terms like "abuse" and "rape of the reward pool".

It is true what you say that a rational person need not and does not feel provoked by insults, but since it does happen and rational responses are exceedingly hard to find, the irrational dominates. You have to be very solid in your existence and not mind receiving caustic attributions. To simply put them to one side and look at the facts requires a great deal of composure.

Well, you have your own way of dealing with it and I don't judge you for that. Everyone plays some role in the spheres they move in and I wouldn't know how to assess that in totality. As a rule, I try to work out my own impulses more with myself in silence or publish articles that cannot be forced into a camp in terms of content. I don't care about expressing insults, rather I still have to learn how to deal with them myself and to understand every insult as a chance for my own maturing process. Nothing less is what you expect, is it not.
I understand that you don't feel insulted when someone calls you names? I would call that "one in a million" - it never occurs that you have sensations of revenge or other so called sinful impulses?

The anger you evoke, yes, that is an interesting approach and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your action is necessary so that it is clear what is hiding under a mask of righteousness. You have chosen the most difficult of roles. I myself do not do that. I would perhaps do it if I felt mature and stable to do so, and I am not. ... Not really sure about that.

[ganjafarmer]

You deserve the downvotes for your behavior. I hope they decide to mute your content across the Blockchain.

I'm happy to help them downvote you.

Mr -11 rep... Hahahahhahahahaha