RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!
I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.
Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.
One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.
Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.
It is one of the best ideas I've heard, to date, in terms of constructively dealing with Layer 1 subjective DVs. Regarding smooth's concern about someone splitting their stake to allow themselves the ability to counter downvotes against themselves, the fact that they have to split their stake means their ability to 'maliciously upvote' is cut in half, because if they use both accounts to upvote a single post, then they lose their ability to counter any downvote(s).
Although I don't know all the history, it seems a fair bit of the 'subjective downvoting' going on is focused on haejin and punishing him for past sins. If that is the case, then I would argue that enacting or keeping systemwide policies aimed primarily at punishing a single individual actually gives that individual far more control (over the platform) than is likely warranted. Just my $0.02 regarding something about which I am not fully informed -- so maybe that perspective is worth a proverbial grain of salt ...
does pulling ones upvote then 'zero-sum'
?
I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
If someone revises their upvote, then the original upvote is removed and the new upvote value is applied.
For instance, if I upvote 100% then later change it to 0%, the author gets nothing and I get nothing. However, I do not get my upvote manna back, so zeroing out my upvote takes those author rewards away from the author and also takes those curation rewards away from myself.
I believe u understood quite well, even if I was sleep deprived rambling and couldn't fully form coherence.
Ty, answered well.
I used to think that way pre-HF25. I advocated ending the UV window in like 5 days to leave 2 days solely for the DVs.
I basically got what I wanted with the HF25. The effective UV window shrank to a single day (no big deal) and the next 6 days are DVers' home ground.
Guess what, now we are brainstorming how to counter excessive DVs. It is cool you guys already started to brainstorm how to counter excessive "free upvoting". Still, smooth is spot on and the fact that people (good actors and bad actors alike) need to change their voting tactics (as they do after every change of the rulebook) does not mean the system is fixed. Anti-DVers will be temporarily happy until the next hardfork deals with "unfair advantage" of the "free UVs". Just like anyone who has seen a political party of their choice win an election is going to be temporarily happy till the next government cycle kicks in.
What we need to fix these issues is Bottom Up, Multilevel, Anonymous Concentrated Community Wide Consensus, (with proof of person and Trusted Reputation score , lukely weighting the votes to some extent to eliminate effect of double voting by alt accounts). #matrix8fixesthis
More info here https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@atma.love/re-khaleelkazi-20211229t22719405z?ref=atma.love
Sat Nam
Atma
!PGM !PIZZA !LUV
100 PGM token to send 0.1 PGM three times per day
500 to send and receive 0.1 PGM five times per day
1000 to send and receive 0.1 PGM ten times per day
Discord
@atma.love(3/3) gave you LUV.
No, we do not.
If a system breaks when alt accounts are present, it is poorly designed to start with.
Well yes, and i am talking about a new design.