You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
I saw a comment here I forgot who from about a possible inflation reward pool for DVs. Meaning if you don't use the DVs, you miss out on rewards. I believe nudging good people to use downvotes will be very healthy. It's ok to do a small/normal size downvote in relation to the post rewards if you disagree. And if we had a more balanced healthy DV system, we would see much more competition for the rewards. Obv this would also help "bad" downvoters, so my point above remains. Maybe a mix of both, one to encourage healthy DVs and one to help counter overhanded ones.
0E-8 BEE
Imagine an economy where you had the option to EITHER give performers a tip OR take a tip from a performer.
Now imagine that when you take a tip from a performer, they're tip gets "redistributed" to the remaining performers, with the largest share going to the performers who earn the most tips.
Small performers will be heckled because there is no fear of retaliation.
Large performers will always reap the majority of the rewards kicked out of the hats of the smaller performers.
In the end, you're simply reinforcing an anti-competitive environment where the big fish use their position to only allow performances they personally approve of.
Sure, there may be some legitimately "bad actors" - but even they deserve some pretense of a FAIR public trial and some reasonable path to redemption.
Secret DISCORD kangaroo courts do not meet this standard.
Downvotes spread more widely would indeed help with some cases, since then getting downvotes would not be so devastating to rewards (most content would have some so the zero-sum aspect would mean it would tend to balance out some).
Though it still wouldn't help with these "downvoted to zero" situations. Again, people have to accept that in a voted-reward system, highly controversial content with a lot of disagreement won't do well on rewards. We don't (for the most part, though front ends do hard block child porn, etc.) censor it, but we won't reward it either.
Layer two where a narrower subcommunity (i.e. with less disagreement on some things) can decide differently about what it wants to reward is probably the best solution.
You probably have problems locating that comment because it is hidden as it came from a shadow-banned account.
As for the above post - I do not see why an "UV to counter DV" should be treated more favourably than a regular UV.
The technical part is interesting as my proposition also has to deal with DVs going past the zero threshold (it would be too easy to park $20 worth of your DV mana on a $0.01 post) AND allow these to still be upvoted back to positive numbers.