RE: What's the point to downvote a post until it reach zero rewards & zero payouts?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I almost missed your answer since your response was not shown in my notifications (or I might have overseen it).
There are many contradictions here at work. I responded in another blog post to the problem in my own language and give you the translation:
The problem here on Hive is that the rules are unclear - not that they ever reach a clarity that satisfies everyone. Some of the big players do it through their community operations (where they upvote their own postings, for example - those who don't know this may not be around long enough or prefer to ignore it for some reason) and make clear announcements about onboarding, for example, and emphasise that spam and plagiarism will be punished, so users are under observation. They also define that there must be a certain variation in the use of images and text, and classify this as "quality". The self-voting of the big community operators, however, is perceived as a double standard, how could it be otherwise?
Other big players say there are no rules on Hive and so everyone votes as they feel like it and what deserves down- or upvotes according to their own subjective opinion.
If the Witnesses were in agreement about the rules, something would be gained in this respect, that is the thinking. But since they are not, it remains as it is.
This lack of clarity in the rules requires the individual to accept operating in an uncertain space and to develop a certain intuition as to whether one's actions are overshooting an (admittedly vague) boundary. I would think that people have this intuition. Those who ignore it are caught cold. Nevertheless, I have a great aversion to "lecturing" in the comment section.
The other problem of the "executive" in this respect is that they punish first and do not first express suspicion of abuse, but establish it directly. It gives me the impression that hivewatchers have too little desire and serious energy to devote themselves to each individual case. In my estimation, there is no professional legal understanding here, as the people don't seem to be trained in such things. In my opinion, a warning would be the better way, i.e. entering into a dialogue with a suspected case of abuse. That they don't do it publicly but on Discord, I can understand in a way, because they have to fear that bystanders will get involved and a huge wave will take place. But that happens anyway - LOL
I state that there is no explicit solution and that one has to live with implicit perceptions.
I agree that in the long run, however, this does more harm than good to the platform as a whole if it gives the impression that, despite contradictory messages among themselves, the Witnesses rarely stand up for an individual case where abuse has been perpetrated on a small fish from within their own Witness ranks. Clearly there has been. I suspect that this happens so little (at least not obviously to me) has the background that the Witnesses fear that a new war will then be sparked among themselves, which will then also cause a bad external image.
There is also the assumption circulating that the big accounts do not have an interest that Hive becomes mainstream for they might fear a hostile takeover and so, as a consequence of that anxiety, keep the place small.
card game
you mean Splinterlands? Yeah, I personally find that utterly uninteresting.
I would like to see this place actually go through another whale experiment.
What exactly do you mean by that?
That whales negate other whales votes, but I would like this to be done with delegations that nullify stake and even burn it if for example 2x the stake is delegated so at that point if the penalized tries to power down they forfeit 50% of their power, and preferably at 4x the size of the nullifying delegation vs their stake powering down would be burning 100% of the power.
Like that one account did with marky? I don't know if he nullified his postings or comments but we saw two wales at war with each other.
What do you mean with "nullify stake" and "burning" it in combination with delegation power?
Can you give me an example which I can understand better?
Like "A" abuses and "B", "C" and "D"-wales come along and nullify "A"s stake, for example.
Would they delegate part of their own stake into a special created account in order to have bigger power to counteract one or more abusive players?
In order to have a case of "abuse", you'd have to have an investigation and the partaking of the parties involved (involvement then is key, for a wale who wants to establish a rule against abuse, must involve himself and have an understanding of legalities). In combination with that, there has to be a certain protocol to which the wales commit themselves.
Like in the customary law of the country, according to which all the considerations and preliminary investigations have to be made before a judgement is reached (the famous trial).
It seems to me that there is not the necessary seriousness on this portal that the actors would really want to put as much work into it as is expected outside the platform, for example.
The witnesses would have to agree on a protocol and procedure and set up the separation of powers similar to the way it is done in democracies. You would need a judge at the end. But he cannot be part of this reward structure and should not have his own account here, in my view. But then the question arises why someone should do that if he is not remunerated for it. He would still have to have a high level of non-participation and not be loyally associated with those who program the code or are big players. I don't see how that could work?
After all, the crucial point is: how exactly and by whom was abuse committed, and what exactly justifies the punishment that goes with it? You need proof, don't you.
As this post, and many other such instances of punishment ought to come with harsh consequences. We don't need a judge, we need consensus of the large accounts who can intervene stop the faggots. It'd be account x can delegate -y to account z, where y is vests/stake/powered up. It's not a "punishment" as much as it's a reproach, the downside is that they can simply power down and continue their objectives of being faggots, which it ought to come with such consequences that after the second intervention they agreed once more to stop and instead they simply powered down and started with another account then that should be their last time they'll power down.
There seems to be a consensus among the witnesses that any criticism in the form of a post by a blogger referring to what they see as bad actors and using terms such as pest, parasite, greedy, criminal, duplicitous, etc., are unwelcome to be heard and they either vote such articles down themselves or condone others doing so.
No matter how much factual information the article may contain, it disqualifies itself by containing name-calling.
I observe that criticism, where it is formulated as such, without insulting or denigrating, and the formulator is someone who is either a whale himself or an established blogger with some stake, tends not to be downvoted.
Criticism where it directly attacks actors and makes criminal intent or arbitrariness the strong subject and it comes from a small fish is more likely to be downvoted.
While the whales can use a caustic tone or schoolmaster, the small fish cannot afford to do so because they lose out, since there is no authority to which they can turn.
Since such an authority does not exist (there is no consensus to impose self-regulation on the witnesses) this non-existence of an address gets out of hand in the fact that there is outrage. Which is expressed in articles similar to the one here under which we are commenting.
I would beg to differ. A judge is needed since it can be that in the investigation of a case of suspected abuse of power (stake) there can be conflict within the partaking witness or wale himself and he cannot be objective towards his own interests if they are conflicting him. Often in such a way that it does not even becomes conscious. But before that a power abuser needs to come to a hearing (now, what if he just won't and don't?)
You cannot follow a protocol and be attacker, defender and judge in the same person. You therefore need - once you have reached a consensus as witnesses - an independent body to stand by as arbitrators when cases of abuse of power are brought to their attention. To do this, they must be found, i.e. they must have an address.
I do not see this form of consensus coming.
Your suggestion of punishment or the imposition of impressive financial penalties already exists on the Chain, but "the people" and also the participants themselves are very divided on this.
Ultimately, there seems to be no will to work properly here.
Then you can also start to take the whole thing from the funny side, at least I tell myself in doing so would be better for me.
A judge is only needed when a crime has been committed, this isn't the issue, there's no crime, even when Justin lost all his steem stake on hive, there wasn't any crime. I call them faggots because that's how they act, that's how they operate, they're not criminals, they are irrational and incompetent, a rational whale should distinguish between the superficial and the factual, but because they are triggered by such descriptions it demonstrates that they lack the ability to do that, and thus they clearly demonstrate that they too are faggots, utterly incompetent and irrational. I don't hold much hope of the suggestions being considered, let alone implemented because it seems the place is captured by the retards, tinpot dictators who police opinions they don't care to understand and ideas they deem dangerous, but regardless I believe the only way forward is by implementing drastic changes and I've little desire to "mock" the retards or to avoid calling them as I see them because I believe it will only go hand in hand with the ass sucking culture they promote. As long as I can yell
Idiots
I'll be content with causing them mental anguish, nothing hurts more than Truth, if what I said wasn't true my words wouldn't elicit their 'ire', exactly like @gtg, monumental faggot triggered by Truth.
Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes indeed, you don't need to call it a crime and I got confused by the constant chanting down of terms like "abuse" and "rape of the reward pool".
It is true what you say that a rational person need not and does not feel provoked by insults, but since it does happen and rational responses are exceedingly hard to find, the irrational dominates. You have to be very solid in your existence and not mind receiving caustic attributions. To simply put them to one side and look at the facts requires a great deal of composure.
Well, you have your own way of dealing with it and I don't judge you for that. Everyone plays some role in the spheres they move in and I wouldn't know how to assess that in totality. As a rule, I try to work out my own impulses more with myself in silence or publish articles that cannot be forced into a camp in terms of content. I don't care about expressing insults, rather I still have to learn how to deal with them myself and to understand every insult as a chance for my own maturing process. Nothing less is what you expect, is it not.
I understand that you don't feel insulted when someone calls you names? I would call that "one in a million" - it never occurs that you have sensations of revenge or other so called sinful impulses?
The anger you evoke, yes, that is an interesting approach and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your action is necessary so that it is clear what is hiding under a mask of righteousness. You have chosen the most difficult of roles. I myself do not do that. I would perhaps do it if I felt mature and stable to do so, and I am not. ... Not really sure about that.
I am not what others think of me, or beholden to their opinion, and if I value their opinions I'll engage in dialogue to flesh out their validity, otherwise I move on.
I observed that. Flashing out validity is something to go for, yes.
I first disliked your aggressiveness and was hit by the attributes you gave me in our very first encounters. Then I went to your comment section and saw you talking to practicalthought and others and changed my mind about you. I am not saying though that I see you as perfect or always correct in what you express. But I learned something about directness.
I'm certainly with faults and can err like everyone else, my opinions aren't always for everyone.
P.S. The problem with your approach - as I see it - is that you yourself are not seen as a rational actor, because you hurl insults and the intention behind them is not clear if people do not "know" you or let themselves be unsettled by you and refuse to get to know you by argument. On the surface, you seem like an angry, lashing out actor who is being accused of irrationality for that very reason.
This reminds me of "things aren't what they seem, nor are they otherwise". If some see me as lashing out and disregard what I say that's fine, it's not as if they even acknowledge those who don't seem like me, as far as I can tell they are just as disregarded and ignored like the faggot who thought it necessary to explain why people zero out others posts, no matter how you approach them, they will respond in the same dismissive manner.
Are you saying it doesn't matter if you approach someone rationally or (seemingly) irrationally if he himself is not rational and no matter what you say, it doesn't hit home anyways? So, you can as well cause them pain? ...
Hm ... I am thinking about my own encounters where I thought I argued from a rational point of view and received an irrational response. The way I inwardly dealt with it was that the response might be senseless because the other one doesn't like to give in. But my message nevertheless might stuck and being accepted without the other one letting me know.
Where is this to be found?
The top coment under this post by Jacob. Yes irrational people aren't receptive to rational messages, they suffer from cognitive dissonance and deflect, avoid, deny, and ultimately ignore them. No amount of facts or logic will get through to the imbecile, no matter how self evident and simple it might be, they only understand asskissery or punishment.