Nope, I also think it would have the adverse effect. It will lead to radicalized positions and witness flagging wars. Then, how will they ever reach consensus?
To make an analogy with politics, let's say a voter has the power to vote for his candidate, but also downvote the opposing candidate? Do you think reason would prevail regarding the "downvoting" part? They'll just do it because they can, they'll stick it to the other side, and that's it.
Interesting thoughts! However, regarding "politics voting" vs "witness voting" on steem, in politics you get 1 vote per person (not 30) and it's also "1-person 1-vote"-based (instead of stake-based).
As a net consequence, more dynamics in witness ranks are added.
Not true? Did I miss something?
Thx for replying!
You missed this:
But I agree maybe some sort of stimulus to update your votes regularly can be added, for example. Not to mention to vote for all witnesses.
Wouldn't the net end result still be 20 witnesses in the top 20? How would adding an approval / disapproval option per slot lead to no consensus? Can you explain that?
Because of the radicalization that I think would follow with the possibility to punish and retaliate.
But then again, the exact same mechanism has existed for years regarding the flagging of posts and comments! And that works reasonably well (with an occasional quarrel left and right).
So why wouldn't the exact same mechanism not work regarding witness voting?
Flag wars are not good for Steem's image as they are now. If they are going to the governance level, it will only be worse. Only my opinion here.
And valued (your opinion) it is (at least by me), thx again for sharing!
I only now saw this:
I thought it was part of the quote from me, and didn't read it the first time.
Yes, I agree flagging is at the expense of approving another witness, but after watching the witness channels for quite some time, I'm pretty sure there are some who would rather flag than approve. Then, often comes retaliation. And so we have a war.
When we add the possibility to punish, we always have to think about retaliation. And about what that means.
I don't know, for me, it seems in this paradigm consensus can be way more difficult to obtain even on trivial things.
The top20 stays the top20, no? Who is in the top20 could change, but the consensus would still be decided by the resulting top20.
I don't think this bashing will not do anyone any good. But if people think it's a good idea...
Would it be bashing, though?
It's not unlimited bashing, simply because the number of slots is limited. And unlike post flagging, your witness vote doesnt "recharge" and can't be used time after time...
That is true! Well, we'll have to see. I agree we need something to incentivize some sort of dynamics in the witness ranks, even in Top 20 when they are underperforming.