I have never said that the community should not be able to affect content placement - I have always said the total opposite.
But you are saying exactly that. Even in this here comment.
I am not even against downvoting for 'disagreement over rewards'.
So youre excluding all other reasons. And that IN FACT is restricting the community ability to affect content placement.
Youre saying that disagreement on rewards can be the only "allowed" reason to downvote. Or the only reason that should "count".
I think thats wrong. I think that if the community doesnt want to see a piece of content on the trending pages they should be able to reduce its visibility.
No, I am not saying any of these things. I have made very clear what I am saying numerous times.
No, I'm not. You aren't really explaining yourself or making sense here.
No, I'm not. Nothing I have said even sounds vaguely like I am saying that. Is it a full moon? lol
< Youre saying that disagreement on rewards can be the only "allowed" reason to downvote.
No, I'm not saying that.
To be super clear:
Free downvoting was introduced primarily to counter bid bots, which it did. I was 50/50 split on whether it was a good idea before it went live and when I saw the bid bots disappear I thought it was mostly a good idea to have free downvotes. We were then left with the somewhat rare problem of people going on downvote rampages for ideological or other reasons - which sows discord in the community and sets a negative PR tone.
As long as there is spam and plagiarism and other problems, we need a way to protect the reward pool, to optimise the attractiveness of Hive to users and to maximise sentiment and morale. Downvoting is currently the best tool for doing that that I know of. I have never said anything other than this.
So for now, downvoting is a good idea to me.
The problem is that it introduces a grey area of potential issues - such as was typified by Bernie Sanders and his malicious downvote crusades on Steem that had nothing to do with POB or respect for community spirit. As Dan stated in the community talk session that we both participated in (after you had left), the use of downvotes has a place, but an be abused to nuke accounts and destroy reputations in ways that have nothing to do with enhancing the spirit of POB - but are actually just driven by fragile egos or worse, an intent to stifle debate or limit information.. This is especially a problem when the information involved exposes serious potential corporate crimes that those involved may be financially invested in through stocks, employment or other routes.
When bad actors get large stake, we have problems. This needs to be addressed somehow and this is what I am addressing.
You keep on making completely contradictory statements.
If youre ok with the community affecting content placement, why are ideological downvotes wrong? You shouldnt be treating ideological downvotes any different than reward disagreement downvotes.
So obviously you do not support community affecting content placement for any reason they might have.
If its ok for the community to place content high on the trending pages for WHAT EVER REASON then it should be ok for the community to vote if off there FOR WHATEVER REASON.
And those that do so should NOT be called tyrants.
Now, you can disagree with their downvote and vote otherwise, but their action is as legitimate as any other action.
If you support the community affecting content placement freely, then you should have no problem with what @acidyo and @curangel are doing. Yet, you do.
Could it be that you just dont like getting downvoted?
I am saying that in principle I do not have a problem with downvoting for a variety of reasons. There are many scammers and spammers here who will try to take reward payouts and this is a problem for the value of Hive and also the attractiveness of Hive as a source of quality content. The rules surrounding what is plagiarism and what is spam could potentially even be hard coded into the blockchain to remove the human element involved in downvoting or removing them.
When it comes to downvoting content based only on differences of opinion - whether that be about the level of rewards involved or just thinking differently - people need to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of doing so. Small downvotes to express sentiment can add up and then the community can truly speak as a consensus if they want to remove larger amounts of rewards from posts. This is what Dan from 3speak was highlighting and advocating for - more downvotes, but on a smaller scale, with no nuking from one account deliberately destroying other accounts.
Such downvoting, when the account holder has not broken any community rules, is reasonable to me. What is not reasonable is people with larger amounts of stake deciding on their own that entire accounts are to be nuked, regardless of what they say or do. Sure, the blockchain currently allows that to be done, but even since the earliest days of Steem it has generally been understood and agreed that this is not a good idea, either from the perspective of community spirit or from a public PR perspective. The main public sentiment about steem and hive has always been that it is a pyramid scheme run by scammers. That might have changed a bit now, but that was always what I saw on social channels from influencers and others. This is because POB favours circle jerks and all the other issues we know so well. If individual stakeholders go around nuking those who are doing well on the platform, it just reinforces the image that POB is a sham and that there is only proof of wallet. This leads to a situation where investors who might have been interested in POB, instead just see a platform that rewards and promotes the content that is preferred by the wealthiest people - which is EXACTLY the problem with FB and MSM etc. - so the key selling points of this Web 3.0 platform fall apart rapidly. No real decentralisation, no real POB, no real change from Web 2.0. This was all explained in the show that you were on and generally agreed upon by all parties present.
If you want me to say it another way - I am saying that I am offering the suggestion that this behaviour is not inspiring to anyone, gives people a sense of being able to be dominated at any moment - despite what literally hundreds of other community members want.. And to top it off it is being done with a sense of aggressive tone, no feedback, ridicule and even threats of physical abuse in the case of one of them. No rational person considers this 'social' or a good PR look for Hive. I know for 100% sure that the majority of people I have personally tried to introduce to Hive have seen this kind of thing and just walked away.
A SOCIAL Network requires SOCIAL skills - not Gulag skills and a big wallet. It's time to evolve.