Prior to Hard Fork 20 there was a 12-hour window prior to payout that you could not upvote a post. During this time you could still downvote, but you were unable to upvote. This worked out to 6.5 days after a post was created. This gave time to counter bad voting and abuse.
This change has made abuse fighting difficult and becomes a cat and mouse game with spammers. Someone will downvote a post at 6.5 days for a few cents and then the spammer will follow it up with a $10 vote.
This has been an ongoing problem even on Steem. It has been made worse by larger abusers skirting this window to avoid being flagged. Unless a bot is made to instantly counter a vote, they can vote just after the 6.5-hour window, and depending on when a downvote comes by it may be a lot weaker than the same value upvote due to being further in the 12-hour window.
Some abuse-fighters flag whatever rewards are on a post at fixed 6.5 days as it is the most efficient way to handle abuse.
The number of resources to monitor thousands of accounts and all their active posts is YUGE. When you can't work with a fixed time to safely flag abuse, it requires far more computational resources.
Another feature that was discussed in the past was to allow changing of votes without penalty. Right now if you downvote 5% and want to change it to 10% you need to pay 15%. This change would allow users to change their votes without incurring a penalty.
The reason this was not allowed was to prevent voting a tiny insignificant amount on all posts and then raising the vote percentage on successful posts. This isn't a problem if the curation rewards get reset on vote percentage changes. It is rare that positive votes would use this feature and it would be most beneficial to downvotes.
My request is to return to the original algorithm where upvotes were no longer accepted after 6.5 days and downvotes behaved normally up to payout.
I support this idea. I didn't know the window was ever removed, to be honest. And now that we can tip old posts past payout, the loss of that last 12 hours of upvotes is lessened.
The fact you did not notice the change reveals it is unnecessary to restore the former state. We should take careful note of the decrease of users that Hive is impacted by and be extremely protective of new users in order to rectify that loss to our community.
Reducing the ability of free speech advocates to counter attempts to censor narratives by the same mechanism used by Spaminator to discourage spam will result in decreased user retention, which prevents growth of Hive.
Presently spam is under control, as you demonstrate above, but we very much lack the growth in new users necessary. I suggest that our current needs are not to facilitate censorship, but to better protect against it, which this proposal is contrary to.
stupid question is this my doing , or marks setting
Marty has more than sufficient reason to mute my comments, so I assume it is his doing.
I muted him a while ago because he kept posting nonsense on a lot of my posts and I got tired of seeing it.
Downvotes are mainly for reward disagreement, either spam or otherwise. There are a lot of users who are abusing the 6.5-day window.
Removing rewards does not impact free speech.
That's blatantly false. Huge numbers of folks signed up and were flagged of the platform. Some may be glad of their silence, but our platform has fewer users today, and many of those people weren't spammers anymore than I am.
OTOH, I may not so vehemently disagree. I'm not particularly sure it was the financial hit so much as the insult of being serially flagged and reduced in rep that so angers folks they rage quit.
Whether or not it's the rewards, serial massive downvotes stop people from posting, as you well know.
It's what you do to stop spam.
This post is about changing the window at 6.5 days. If someone is flagging to "censor" someone they are not doing it at 6,5 days. So it's kind of a moot argument.
For the people that were "flagged off" I'd bet it was about rewards.
You'd lose that bet.
However, in regards to the window, where such flags are contested, they end up there, so they can't be contested.
Why are you pretending not to understand? Do you think ignoring things makes them go away? Or are you intent on actually causing the exact thing you pretend not to understand?
The fact that I did not notice only shows I have not been looking for the change.
No. It shows that you have not been impacted by the change, or you would have noticed. Spam is well controlled through extant mechanisms now. It's not completely perfectly controlled, but it's suppressed nominally to make the 12 hour window irrelevant to you.
That window would be a massive multiplication of the oppressive power of censors availed of substantial stake however. Ask @lucylin if he notices their flags now. He sure does. When they can flag him and not be opposed, he will notice that with great impact too.
It's a double-edged sword.
99.9999% won't be impacted by the change either way, because almost no one does a damn thing about abuse except for a literal handful of people.
If that were true you'd be wasting your time fighting spam. Were you not fighting spam, and the current mechanisms not working, it would dramatically impact every user.
Also, @michael35454's spam comment above was flagged by 20 accounts. This post has ~125 comments. That's a lot more folks countering spam than .00001%. It's about 20%.
That shows a bit of ignorance. Just because people that do flag stuff have 10 accounts following trails doesn't mean 20% of the readers of this post actually flags.
That 20 accounts there are just following @steevc's flags minus 1 or 2 of them.
Those are people blindly following a trail because they want to help but don’t want to do the work.
Honestly, I recommend checking out Blurt. There will be no downvotes and will be perfect for your needs. Basically Whaleshares 2.0. I think you will be happy there.
I feel a video coming on....(And thanks, btw).
Wait, how does this work?
PeakD has a function where you can transfer directly to posts past payout and 1% of it will be burned at @null.
Tipping like this has always been available manually, but most people never bothered for whatever reason.
Good to know, I'll check it out.
If you use the PeakD interface, it adds a tipping icon along with the upvote and downvote options.
Nice.
I reckon that this neglects to consider opinion flagging that can also take advantage of the 12 hour window during which it cannot be countered. We have discussed in the past such flagging, and while you may not engage in it, you neither condemn it that I recall.
Your stake and connections prevent your grasping the censoring impact of such flags, because you are immune. I commend to you the effort necessary to comprehend the pressure on folks without your immunity of such demonetization on their speech, because I think that will improve your ability to defend free speech, which you assert is your purpose in preventing spam. Clearly, spam is no less harmful to our speech than suppression of contrary narratives by opinion flagging, and your work is just as essential to the platform as is countering opinion flagging.
However, it is no less necessary to counter censorship than spam, and this proposal decreases the ability of free speech advocates to do so. For that reason, I do not support it.
As the rote response of substantial stakeholders to noting the censoring effect of serial flags on free speech is to deny it is censorship, I also suggest well understanding the definition of censorship includes any suppression, editing, or concealing of speech, and is not only the utter removal of speech. To be factually accurate, it is actually impossible to to absolutely eliminate targeted information. It is a false claim that only such absolute removal constitutes censorship, and a clear consensus of generally accepted sources (encyclopedias and dictionaries) define censorship as any suppression, which demonetization clearly is. While platforms such as Youtube and Facebook undertake every effort to utterly eliminate contrary narratives, even such Gorilla Kings of the social media market fail to do so.
It is vitally important to differentiate Hive from such centralized platforms, and it is our censorship resistance that best does so. Please do not reduce that censorship resistance unnecessarily.
Thanks!
Beautifully spoken.
This is a really good point and it really brings up the need to address what I might consider the larger problem of abusive flagging. I think different solutions might be needed in order to counteract that. I think one such solution is fixing the broken reputation system. Well, it doesn't really solve it totally, but it would be a first step in the right direction.
Well stated.
Since not looking is a common theme in your statements, why don't you go count how many of his posts that's got at least $15 flags on it. Just look at the recent ones, you don't even have to dig far.
By that same logic, one could even argue @lucylin is immune because his posts are clearly visible and still rewarded despite the downvotes.
And here, I have just adjusted this comment reward for you and nothing is censored. You clearly just make less.
You can make pretense of reason by offering up atypical examples, while ignoring statistical relevance, and do so here. There's a difference between what you represent above and what has been relevant to Hive.
Those flags on the massively staked account don't impact that account any more than your flag on my comment does mine. Even small flags on @lucylin's account do matter, because it's not massively staked and he cares about his rewards, something that is typical of Hive users, and atypical about your examples. @themarkymark has so much stake that even $15 flags don't materially impact him, and I don't care about my financial rewards, because I don't use them as money.
Why don't you contrast the relative impact of flags on accounts you mention? Your flag on my comment has a higher relative financial impact on my account than a $15 flag does on Marty. However, unlike @lucylin I actually benefit from being flagged by censors, because it draws attention to my posts, drives engagement, and proves my points better than my words, and those are things I value far more than tokens.
The fact is that far too many examples of serial flagging driving people off the platform correlate to an abysmal retention rate. Both Marty and I are highly atypical, and @lucylin far more typical.
Therefore your attempt to deceive by providing atypical examples actually bolsters my points, rather than counters them. Do try to be reasonable and relevant, rather than the opposite, if you want to reach rational conclusions from our discourse.
If you just want to bully me, flag away. Rational people will grasp the significance of that attempt to suppress my speech.
You are one of the most annoying people I have had reply to my posts and you reply a ton with nonsense, have I even flagged you?
No. If I was trying to censor people you would be the top of the list.
I agree, except that you intend to stop spammers from posting - to censor them - and I am not a spammer, so you do not. This fact is why I have apologized to you for my incorrect comments, and why I have upvoted this OP and several of your comments with which I agree.
Neither do I state nonsense, even if what I say seems so to you. We do disagree, and that necessarily results from a difference in our understanding. From our individual perspectives, we disagree with what makes no sense to us.
I agree that flagging spammers is the right thing to do, and say so. That is not the same as flagging people you disagree with, but that isn't some different power. Flags on spam and on folks you disagree with are both censorship. Censoring spammers is necessary to Hive, and censoring free speech is harmful to Hive. I support you in your censorship of spammers for that reason, and oppose censorship by others of free speech.
I used to suspect you were flagging people whose speech you disagreed with, but investigated and found very limited examples of it, and despite my provocations, you did not flag me. That's why I have made the statements I make.
That may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me.
I don’t flag people I disagree with and I am not a fan of people who do. I will flag libel and threats or if it gets to the point of spamming.
Although I am one of the few that uses all their flagging power, I do not flag emotionally. Considering the amount of crap I got to put up with that’s a challenge.
I am encouraged to hear it. It happens that some flags fly betimes you would not support. All I ask is that you not undertake to make such flags harder to counter by free speech advocates by creating a window of 12 hours wherein they are not possible to counter.
I am convinced not only is it challenging, but it's necessary to Hive, and a damn good thing you have stepped up to prevent spam. I have said this before, so won't repeat it.
Hive is special because many platforms are being censored and forcing only certain views to be publicly stated, and hive yet resists that. Should we lose that quality, I, and many others, would not remain. It is that for which I come here, not tokens. All I ask of you is that we keep it.
Name them. One by one. Show actual data instead of cherry-picked cases.
The only deception here is your claims that you are atypical whilst using this so-called example to bolster your "points".
A $0.12 flag on a $2.50 post is a much smaller percentage than a $15 flag on a $20 post. I guess it's irrelevant to you because you hate the man in question.
You feel bullied because you are flagged? Tell that to the few people that continually receive daily retaliation because they oppose bad behavior. While you, sitting far away from conflict without lifting a finger.
This is typical of your arguments. I specifically said accounts, and discussed the relative impact of flags on accounts. You substitute a different metric, which is deceptive. It's also deceptive because someone with fewer assets depends on them relatively more than someone with massive stake.
I neither said I feel anything at all, and you cast aspersions unsupported by my statements.
I do oppose bad behaviour, which opinion flagging and censorship is. That's why we're having this conversation, and why you flagged me, bolstering my arguments by providing an example of opinion flagging.
Finally, I absolutely do not hate Marty. Not long ago I commented thanking him for his hard work censoring spammers, and I have upvoted multiple comments he has made on this post, as well as the OP. Do not pretend your values reflect on me whatsoever. I don't agree with his proposal. Maybe you have to hate people to disagree with them, but that doesn't even make any sense to me.
Of course, none of your latest replies to me on this matter have made any sense to me, so that may explain why. This implies that your unreasonable comments are hate driven, and I note that anger is the child of fear. Fear is the mindkiller.
You have nothing to be afraid of, and no reason to hate, from my comments. I am confident you'll make more sense if you embrace your fear rather than letting it drive you to unreasonable statements.
And how do you measure "relative impact". By the assumption that the wallet represents that reality?
Or do we pretend that one person never once feels frustrated since he has "massive stake"? A lot of stuff goes much deeper than on the surface or on the chain.
That $15 flag is not only bigger in percentage, but comes with more stuff off the chain than you realize. And I'm not even talking about income.
And I don't think the downvotes on @lucylin are irrelevant. In fact, there are those who are willing to counter or more. How's that for a fact? That there are benevolent actors on the chain that you may not be aware of?
Again you ignore factual reality and misstate the position I have stated. I don't feel like taking the time to dig it up, but I know damn well a $15 flag on Marty is infinitesimal to his stake compared to a $.30 flag on me.
Tell me more about how feelings get hurt, and passions inflamed by flags. Then think about the flag Marty flies every day.
There damn sure are benevolent actors on the chain I do not know to name, but few of them I can guess, and I have stated this in my apology to @themarkymark within the month. Hive exists, and our speech yet is relatively uncensored if we do not act to prey on the community, only because those massive stakes ninjamined at the outset of the chain permit it.
If you haven't before read this statement from me, you read it here first, but I have said as much before, and never otherwise.
It sounds like a decent idea, I guess the only problem is the larger accounts who use their downvotes in a retaliatory way against smaller accounts, then again I guess community accounts could just pre-empt and 'heal' on the next post?
It would be too late, the free speech post visibility can't be healed.
We can identify the worst offenders and perhaps petition the front end devs to mitigate it at the UI level. I think it would be a glorious FU to abusive flaggers for them to make their downvotes make the post more visible. That would be tits
So you want a free go with downvotes without the option of being corrected ?
About the loss of % it’s only a problem when you have all the HP in one account. That’s why you need more than one account to fight abuse. If fighting abuse is more important than gaining rewards divide the sp in multiple account or find people that would agree with your flags.
Large-stake abusers tend to vote past 6.5 days to ensure they will get something and makes it extremely difficult to clear them out.
it is stupid to vote on last minute ,,, it is not cost effective you would earn more if you just curate normally.
Not really, not if you don't want to spend time on curating posts, or if you want to get more rewards by creating "no content" posts, then upvoting them at the last minute. Such behavior is obviously bad for the overall value of the currency, of course, but that's not always a sufficient deterrent.
Especially in the case where someone controls the posting key for a large account, but doesn't have the active key, so they can never power down the stake. In such a case, they are incentivized to get rewards via author rewards of accounts they control as an indirect means of getting rewards for the stake held in the account.
Unfortunately, we have had plenty of people that think too small to consider the overall value of the currency but are more fixated on getting ahead themselves relative to others.
I haven't assessed the situation lately but hopefully things have changed.
From what I've seen, things are much better in that respect nowadays, but I suppose there will always be such people. So the best thing to do is try to define a set of blockchain rules that limit such abuses as much as possible.
I don't believe I've ever met a charitable libertarian or anarchist, and we seem to be lousy with both.
I believe it's important that any RULES are universal, applying to every account equally, and not "special cases" or "based on the whim of the appointed enforcers".
I'm pretty sure the "human-contentment and empathy" problem is not unique to this particular case.
Even most "charitable organizations" only use 11% of their donations to "help" anyone.
The other 89% they keep for themselves, and that ends up being a pretty effective business model, especially when you can get FREE LABOR from naive VOLUNTEERS.
i did not think of the second scenario that makes sense. now i get the situation. ty
still against it. it attacks the power balance . imo i think is a step back.
It favors downvotes over upvotes, which I presume is what you mean by it attacks the power balance (i.e. it changes the power balance between upvotes and downvotes).
But I think this is a good change in that balance, because payouts to a post are "irreversible". Whereas if a post gets downvoted in a way that other stakeholders feel is unfair, a followup post can be made and stakeholders have a further chance to adjust the payout to the author "after the fact". In fact, we've seen this done before many times in the past, when the community decided that a downvoter was acting unfairly.
On the other hand, there's no way to reverse a payment once it's made, so last minute voting that results in a post payout that most people disagree with, can't be adjusted.
As a side note, downvoting doesn't decrease the amount of rewards paid out by Hive, it only distributes those rewards away from the downvoted post to other active posts and comments. I think this is worth mentioning, since I'm not sure how many people know this.
Generally, people voting at the last minute (like kingscrown, haejin, and others) are doing it to hide a vote so people don't see it or make it more difficult to counter with a downvote as there is a penalty for both upvotes and downvotes once you get into the last 12 hours.
Who cares when the stake is free? Think about it. It's just spite.
Hive will only grow if we stop downvoting for whatever good or bad reason. Abuse we have to live with. There are already posts about a witness downvoting a German goup , this harms the reputation of the new child so much….
Are you suggesting that the only way to grow is to completely ignore bad content that gets upvoted?
Yes. Bad content to the moon!! Bad content is what everyone wants to see more of, bad is the new good. Bad content is badly needed. Downvotes should be used for good content so that bad content can get the visibility it deserves.
XD
Why should we live with abuse? Downvotes are perfectly valid and were designed into Steem to prevent abuse. Of course they can be used maliciously, but we value the freedom to do that we like. By all means name that witness and people can decide whether they deserve support.
The evidence of my argument is the unviable size of steem and hive compared to other platforms. A for the downvoting war in Germany you can read here https://hive.blog/deutsch/@nesomi/abuse-of-power-and-lies-of-hive-witness-pfunk-or-machtmissbrauch-and-luegen-des-hive-zeugen-pfunk#@nesomi/re-pfunk-qbsvfr
I am not involved but the "victim" started sending replies to hundreds of new posts with his cpmplaints.
Downvotes can drive people away, which is why I use them with care. If you saw how much abuse has gone on you would appreciate how necessary it is. Look at Steem to see what it is like when out of control. I see accounts getting thousands each week in rewards by buying votes. That deprives others of the chance to earn much.
I have seen @pfunk do a lot of good on Steem. Can you blame people for feeling bitter when their Steem was taken away? I have been lucky to retain mine so I can sell it off, but Steemit have censored my account and so I have no respect for them.
VOLUNTARY MUTE LISTS would be just as effective and much less onerous to the innocent.
https://hive.blog/hive-171744/@logiczombie/voluntary-blacklists
Hiding the problems does not make them go away. Abusers reduce our rewards.
IRL every dollar you spend reduces your neighbor's spending power.
Upvoting is not THEFT.
In the same way, when I make a large purchase, I am not stealing from my neighbors, even though I am reducing the value of their savings.
please-stop-posting-and-upvoting-you-re-eating-into-my-rewards
https://hive.blog/ethics/@logiczombie/please-stop-posting-and-upvoting-you-re-eating-into-my-rewards
Or, perhaps consider capping the max payout at $20.00 so the reward pool benefits the small fish at the expense of the big fish, insuring a broader distribution.
Or, perhaps consider distributing the reward pool directly to each stake holder's account based purely on their stake and replace the "upvote" button with a quick and easy "delegate 1 hive" button and a quick and easy "tip 1 hive" button on each post (that doesn't expire after 7 days).
You mean the so called German group that voted to support theft of property?
Yeah, losing pending rewards is the least of their worries.
I’m not part of any group but really we need to let go of that and move forward . That’s not an excuse to be downvoting people
Go tell the witness that got his funds stolen to let go. They earned his ire.
who is this witness. has he explicitly said that's why he/she is downvoting them ?
I've had every post down voted for over 2 months now!-by the same moron - lol....(oh, and every upvoted comment).
That German "group" is mass comment spamming, run by a greedy douchebag who wanted people's Steem balances to be stolen, and is obviously not promoting Hive, but Steem instead, to whatever people might be a part of it.
So why should Hive be paying any rewards to @nesomi, again?
@pfunk @likwid @adm
WTF F head idiot !
@actifit @mcfarhat actifit is hive based !
exchange AFIT token to upvoted
STOP DOWNVOTING TO ZERO PAYOUT u FCKERS !
SHIT FCKHEAD
GO FCK URSELF ! FCKERS !
im curious are you downvoting him because he is doing something wrong. or because he likes justing sun ?
Should Hive reward an account owned by a person who collaborates with thieves that stole the funds of major stakeholders of Hive, including my own? Should Hive reward a person that wished for my Steem stake and other people's stake to get stolen? Should Hive reward this person despite their distaste for Hive, and their anti-promotion of it?
My stake says no, and I'm not alone. The answer should be plain and obvious to a Hive stakeholder.
with this attitude you turn this platform into a shill fest. you are a witness you need to raise above that . you should downvote the posts in which you disagree not everypost regardless.
there was a list of sun supporters they dint get a stake, now they have bought a stake.
why is their account on spamminators black list ??? is it because of this or because it did something wrong?
what you doing (if you doing it for that reason) is wrong on principal.
i'll let you in a secret not everyone that is here loves this platform they are here to earn from it whats next downvote everyone that sells hive because they not holding.
I had a quick look at the account to me it looked legit maybe not something i would upvote but not worth a downvote.
and for that it should not be in spaminators list. you are ofcourse entitled to use your stake as you see fit. spamminator is not .
Probably because they spammed automated messages of personal feud with @pfunk WITH the said "charity" account on other people's posts.
Yeah, that's not gonna go down well.
Dude can't even be bothered to post with his @greece-lover account, but hide behind his "charities" so they can be his meat shield.
I'm not a fan of @greece-lover at all @enforcer, trust me on that. He started with mass spamming after his "charity" (Which is legit btw, I've researched it) account got downvoted. All this stupid issues are just toxic for this blockchain and split people again into different groups.
@pfunk @likwid @adm
WTF F head idiot !
@actifit @mcfarhat actifit is hive based !
exchange AFIT token to upvoted
STOP DOWNVOTING TO ZERO PAYOUT u FCKERS !
SHIT FCKHEAD
GO FCK URSELF ! FCKERS !
I do not know the history but now see another person don-thomas complaining about censorship. I just wanna say this is bad publicity for the future of hive.
Then, why are you making statements as if you already looked into things?
The only bad publicity is people who don't know what's going on and publishing stuff as if they have followed the situation closely.
Funny how the only people attempting to defend this scumbag grease-lover are ignorant, right?
Typical.
@pfunk @likwid @adm
WTF F head idiot !
@actifit @mcfarhat actifit is hive based !
exchange AFIT token to upvoted
STOP DOWNVOTING TO ZERO PAYOUT u FCKERS !
SHIT FCKHEAD
GO FCK URSELF ! FCKERS !
Downvotes are not censorship. The post is not removed from the blockchain, just the rewards.
Suppressing speech in any way is censorship. If you shot me in the back of the head, that would censor me effectively, but my already posted content would remain on the blockchain. By your definition that would not be censorship.
Please use the widely accepted definition of censorship that has long been in use as published on credible dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Yeah downvoting trash and spam is shooting someone in the back of the head. If you wonder why I have you on mute, good example.
You are claiming with the above comment to not understand that censorship includes multiple mechanisms that leave data on the blockchain, and that all you understood from my comment was that shooting in the head something something equals flagging spam.
All I can say is good luck. It seems you do not have reason to depend on in this matter, so luck and nepotism is all that's left, and I don't approve of nepotism.
@pfunk @likwid @adm
WTF F head idiot !
@actifit @mcfarhat actifit is hive based !
exchange AFIT token to upvoted
STOP DOWNVOTING TO ZERO PAYOUT u FCKERS !
SHIT FCKHEAD
GO FCK URSELF ! FCKERS !
Please stop spamming those comments as your own followers, friends and former supporters keep reporting you. You misunderstood a lot of things which have led to this situation.
Leave the negative feedback, I do not know any spam!
Ok, we did, and we decided that you're not adding value here. You're a greedy toxic leech. Go scurry off back to Steem with the rest of your kind.
At first glance, this seems like a reasonable reversion to earlier behavior. Does anyone know why the change was made in HF20? I was actually surprised to find it didn't still work the way you described, where the cutoff on upvotes was 6.5 days and downvotes were allowed for 7 days.
Though uncommon, this created an opening for malicious users to wait until the lockout period to issue punitive downvotes so that they couldn’t be countered with upvotes.
Velocity will address this potential scenario by modifying the lock-out to a cool-down. After Velocity, upvotes and downvotes will both be allowed during the last 12 hours of the payout period, but their strength (for the same amount of voting power) will decrease linearly from 100% to 0% over that 12-hour period. In other words, it will take twice as much voting power to have the same impact on a post’s payout if the vote is done with only six hours left on the payout window instead of twelve. An upvote or downvote cast during the last minute would have virtually no impact on a post’s rewards.
This change will help ensure that no matter when a post receives an upvote or downvote, users will be able to counter-vote. This will also help to stabilize the potential payout of posts during the last 12 hours by decreasing the strength of votes as it gets closer to the payout time
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/1267
Thanks for finding that!
As far as I can tell, the reasoning is flawed, which is good, since I was concerned there was a better reason for the change that I wasn't aware of. It seems to ignore the inherent difficulty of countervoting a vote that is cast at the beginning of the last 12 hours, because someone finding that the post has been upvoted a couple of horus after the 12 hour period begins is at a serious disadvantage to the initial voter. The change that was made clearly favors the initial voter (either up or down) over later voters.
IMO, the original behavior was better as it favors the distribution of the reward pool over more posts rather than less posts (because it favors downvoting over upvoting) and it served as a better mechanism against abusive voting by large stakeholders to enrich themselves.
No upvotes allowed 24h before payout should not be a problem. Who upvotes after 6.5 days anyway, other than spammers? I have never done it.
Free speech advocates countering censorship. Allowing flags to be uncontested decreases the censorship resistance of Hive. We see that spam is well controlled through flags, as are flying all over @michael35454's spam post above. It would be tragic were our platform to enable censorship of unconventional opinions to be similarly effective.
I did it.
those that don't care about curation reward
I think all votes matter up until payout so my vote is no to return it. This would ultimately lead to flag abuse in my opinion. I've caught several posts in the last few hours I wasn't aware of either and was able to smash some cents into it which helped the author in their just rewards. Just my $.02
Yes to
Hey you @transisto, my content is my own original and I work hard for it, I spend more than 10 hours a day to elaborate each one and publish it. I do not understand. I don't think it's fair that you gave me a negative vote. "downvote"! To my creative work and original content. Thanks anyway. :( That downvote will never let me increase my reputation without meaning. :'( Please consider adjusting your error. I don't understand if this is how they want people to join the community, if they are going to waste their effort.
I am 1000% for this change, it should never have been an issue from the beginning. Just reset curation for upvotes, no need to have had the penalty in the first place.
But what is being done about abusive flagging?
The only way for the community to handle abusive flags, is to have an auto comment generated by the down vote. Then if the down vote was abusive, the community can counter with a down vote on the original down voter.
My own personal feelings about the down vote is that a comment must be generated, I have heard the counter we don't mandate a comment for an upvote, why a down vote, and it has never mattered how often I pointed out a down vote is a negative action, the argument is a down vote is not a negative argument.
So the addition of an auto comment for any down vote will never be made, thus we as a community will never be able to deal with the blind down vote accounts. (account that have only down voted, thus no retaliatory down votes can be given).
I think a low hanging fruit to mitigate some of this would be to fix the broken reputation system. I suggested something here.
While it won't affect rewards, it will diminish the ability of a large-staked abuser to tarnish one's "reputation".
Currently, you have @freezepeach.
If your rewards are below zero, @steemflagrewards still run the healing function that can counter unfair downvotes.
And then, there are benevolent actors.
Nothing on a blockchain level, the only current solution is a benevolent actor countering the downvotes.
+1
All because of a few bad actors with large stake.
Who is doing this? Do we have a list?
I think think this will make everything a little bit more balanced
This is the bestest Hive suggestion I've read all month...seriously.
I second the idea. Even though I doubt that many accounts have the ability to cast a 10$ vote, let alone being an abuse account.
But ya, overall it would help to fight spam and abuse
I support it.
A decent idea to fight abuse.
I don't really care either way.
Just out of curiosity why did they take it away in the first place?
This was part of the EIP?
Weird.
because it was not fair :) and all the witnesses run the stincs code they agreed then
Yes
Supported.
sounds reasonable, supported :) with a 12 hour window, spam fighters have the chance to review and downvote problematic posts.
Sounds reasonable. There is a risk of people downvoting in retaliation at the last minute, but they cannot do too much of that. Changing an upvote percentage should not give you more curation rewards.
So far a lot of the bigger abusers are being dealt with on Hive whilst they continue to milk Steem. I look forward to the Steem price plummeting as it's sad to see them profit from all that crap.
The risk of people downvoting at the last minute will drive free speech out of Hive through censorship.
didn't know it was removed, think it's a good idea to bring it back 👍
sounds reasonable
I support this idea, to fight the bad actors and abusers of the inflation pool. We have seen a lot this even back on Stinc
I agree, the 12 hour window should be brought back.
Sounds good to me
I support this change.
Spaminator aka "some abuse-fighters" is in full support.
Of all the things to work on... Let's fiddle with Internal Downvoting again!
I support this change.
Upvoting and downvoting should be 100% symmetrical.
Any kind of restrictions (time allowed, number, frequency) placed on upvoting should also apply to downvoting.
Any kind of restrictions (time allowed, number, frequency) placed on downvoting should also apply to upvoting.
Giving one type of vote any "advantage" over the other creates a systemic imbalance.
Perfect symmetry between the voting types should be preserved at all costs.
Full support here
Shut up you bloody motherfucker @themarkymark . you are real abuser of hive.. spam fighter word not suit on you and your mouth. you are biggest spammer ever on hive bloody motherfucker. you bloody pig upvoting @berniesanders shit and 1 word written post by your shitty bot @buildawhale. you can just target small and poor users.. where is decentralization? you are targeting small people and praising and supporting big people even they doing serious crime??? show me just one post where you supported original and quality post of any new users who deserve. you are just upvoting shitty post you so called spam fighter. this is called decentralization ? you are killing decentralization of hive . and yes you are racist too.. get lost..and who the hell is upvoting this scammer as a witness?