I did see this problem coming and when I suggested a proposed solution (vote negation) it was rejected by the very whale(s) who are acting out today. With vote negation it is possible to let the two disagreeing parties "stand down" and leave the voting to everyone else.
People were concerned that this would lead to "hard feelings" and a new kind of "abuse". I still stand by vote negation, but obviously it takes a vote war to get some people to see the problems I saw 6 months ago.
I think vote negation is better handled at a post-level than an account level. For instance if you negated @berniesanders' votes you would be crippling the Curie curation guild.
The veil of "good" that those who do wrong hide behind.
The person who owns @berniesanders is not some evil cartoon character bad guy. And Dan's disagreements with him doesn't make it so.
He sure types like one. Please go review his comments. (on the block chain)
Doing wrong isn't a permanent state. Indeed.
I'm stealing that quote and tattooing it on my first born child.
Know what's ironic about that? I wrote a post supporting vote negation that @berniesanders upvoted for a tick due to a curation guild. He realized it later and removed his upvote.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Maybe after some time has passed, we can now revisit some of the arguments about negation, but on a post-level, rather than an account-level. I would entertain such arguments.
The argument is here, in this post. Dan's downvoted posts that others have upvoted. That's the negation.
You're such a smarty-pants!
Link: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/negative-voting-and-steem
How would it cripple curie? I noticed they don't have bernie or nextgens votes on almost any of their supported posts. He only upvotes the curie post which should really be declining payout too imo.
Most of Curie's stake comes from the @berniesanders and related accounts. Without them, the votes would not be as high powered. It was his stake that founded Curie.
and wht does he get in return? I don't think its fair to represent this as pure charity
Then why does his vote not appear on steemd?
I could be missing how curie works
(nest reply)
Curie is not upvoting their own posts with their full available stake right now. But some posts that are voted by Curie get a berniesanders upvote.
So I'm not wrong. He's not even part of the guild, he just does what any of us could do, go through the curie promoted links and select the ones he wants to upvote. From what I checked it wasn't a lot of them! Just some as you say. And this is the good deed everybody jumps to in his defence? That he sometimes upvotes curie promoted posts?? And his charge is to be the first to upvote curie posts every single day for curation reward.
Nice. Sure Ned votes for those posts as often if not more often than him!
That too. In that case at least things are more on the surface and visible.
@dantheman Negation would be promise breaking for this platform. It's literally blocking a person from excerising the only promise made by this platform, i.e. you can buy and exercise influence.
A much simpler solution would be split out downvoting and flagging and make both require a comment explaining why.
If you did this there would be no problem here.
"I'm downvoting this because it is redundant, low quality and does not deserve the fraction of the limited reward pool it has earned. By downvoting this I am redistributing the pool to others."
That's all flaggin is in this case right? A redistribution of someone else's earnings to those who may be more deserving, needy or whatever but lower profile?
I mean seriously, would @ozchartart forgo payment for a day if he knew it would help @deviedev get her little sister out of jail?
https://steemit.com/life/@deviedev/jenny-jump-up-is-in-trouble
I know I would.
Point is, keep doing what you're doing but take a second to explain why, each time.
You can always go into the chamber and change the "N SQUARED" curve to not approach infinity so fast
to bring a little mortality to the current STEEM god population.
This would be the single thing that would drastically improve steemit.
Fair enough.
Now the problem is going to be even harder to deal with. You have accounts powering up that never intend to make a post or comment in an attempt to shield themselves. Everyday steemians have no defense against this and seeing it happen is a strong deterrent to investing .
Once content is here that "powers that be" want silenced it will be no problem at all to power up the largest whale ever known. Remember, the Clinton's have over 7000 youtube accounts backed by Soros money.
This ain't the BBS days of trolling Dan, these people are well paid and far beyond petty whale wars we see today..
Steem on..
I have also been making the case of the need to counterbalance voting power. There is some very sound game theory regrading the need for tit-for-tat reward/punishment.
Well, I feel confident you can find a solution. I am just not as confident it will be accepted by the community.
We're all in this together now, but some are way deeper than others :)
Thanks for your attention.
we don't have any mechanism to deal with conflicts that cannot be resolved via a computer screen.
Talking with each other is essential to deal with irreconcilable differences.
@the-ego-is-you Nest limit reached.
have you ever considered the need for a conflict resolution specialist?
No offence, but don't we already have that "in theory", with whales, flag back at yous, trails, guilds, specially made bots and a crowd of people who end up saying the same thing over and over again?
It doesn't seem to be working so well for the moment and I'm very hesitant to add further centralization to that mix...
Much rather, I would like to see a sensible change to how downvotes are displayed and what effect they have.
There could be a community service sort of thing, where users can vote on disputed flags for very small STEEM rewards. Once a certain amount of people have reviewed the decision and found a 75% favour in one way or another, then the damages(payout and rep deduction) could be applied--if the flag was agreed upon that is. If a flag is overturned, there could also be some sort of penalty, applied to the one who produced the flag-- for example, the weight of the flag is reversed and applied to them. This would discourage people from flagging for insignificant reasons.
There would be no way to abuse this because the whales could not use bots to manipulate the results.
There may have to be a lot more users before that could be implemented however.
Thats not a solution. The solution is what youre doing right now -- downvoting crap sockpuppet accounts when they make crap, overrewarded posts. IMO, its long overdue.
The system already provides a means to negate a vote that you disagree with. Casting a vote in the opposite direction.The vote negation thing, IMO, was a cop out. It was a way to downvote bad content without having to sign your name to a downvote.
It was also potentially hugely abusable. What happens when the guy you describe as prone to tantrums decides he doesnt like someone so he's going to take away their vote (which he can do, if theyre a non-ninja, with just a small sub account that he doesnt use anyway)
part of being a leader is coming to terms with the notion that sometimes, maybe even often, youre going to make a call that some people don't like. And youre going to get called a shithead.