It would depend on how many people downvoted the individual post.
A 100 steem post would get chopped down to 50 if it’s the self voter and the downvoter. 33 on the second downvote. 25 on the third. 20 on the fourth.
We’re talking about curation, right? A bad post should get multiple downvotes if people take the job seriously.
If you have a post at 100 Steem and there is an upvote/downvote split at 50/50 with 100 voters, the reward is only 50. In this case, something else is happening because curation will tilt heavily for or against a post.
If the votes are not heavily skewed, then it’s likely a vote war. The one person one vote for downvotes method would ensure that the creator doesn’t walk away empty-handed.
It would also discourage team votes. If your upvotes are worth $1 at 100%, but you’re trying to help your friend by upvoting his lame post, a downvote would cut your share too.
It has to hurt the bad content creator and also the accomplices.
On the other side, if it’s good content with lots of upvotes, let’s say 50 upvotes, then losing 1/51 of the reward for one downvote would be negligible. It protects genuinely good content.
Whereas ownership downvotes strongly favor big accounts. A popular post with 100 upvotes can be zeroed our by one big account. There is no protection for genuinely good work.
Upvotes by ownership. Downvotes by percent of votes.
Posted using Partiko iOS
To be clear, I’m satisfied with the way it is now. The fact that they are asking means they intend to monkey with the downvote. I think that whatever gets instituted will have people figure out how to game it out of principle.
Posted using Partiko iOS