Note: I don't actually think this should be implemented because I wouldn't want to encourage more down-voting. But those who do want more downvoting of disliked users, might find it interesting.
I was thinking about Steem and how I've heard a lot of people complain about policing content and self-voting.
Currently down-voting is self-destructive because there is no chance of a curation reward but it still takes away voting power. There is an opportunity cost associated with down-voting.
One idea I have to counter that is reverse curation rewards. This is basically the idea that you get rewards for downvoting something that later gets downvoted a lot more.
I imagine it working in a way where positive and negative curation rewards run parallel. So for example say we have a post which gets +$10 but also -$10 in downvotes.
The author reward would be canceled out to $0. But the curation reward would take into account the full $20 of voting power used.
$20 * 0.25 = $5 authors reward
$2.50 in upvotes to be distributed among the up-voters
$2.50 in downvotes to be distributed among the down-voters.
This setup would recognize the power cost of both up-voters and down-voters and reward the subjective curation process of both sides. Another example:
$5 in upvotes
$2 in downvotes
author gets $3 * 0.75
upvoters get $5 * 0.25
downvoters get $2 * 0.25
Of course this system inherently will increase the amount downvoting down on Steem. This could be a good or bad thing depending on who you ask.
There is probably a psychological reason behind Facebook not even having a downvote button.
To me down voting is the equivalent of showing a steemian the brand new water tank you built for the community and that steemian you show it to takes a pick axe and wacks a whole in it.
I suppose one could argue that creating positive curation for down voting might plug the whole, but I have to say that I like that idea about as much as I like the idea of a dog shitting in my living room.
Down voting is a social harm because it is a violation of the none aggression principal. One is supposed to avoid harming others, which includes their pocket book. The complaint that down voting is a legit way for people to show their opinion is really just a lazy steemians way of getting out of using logic and reason to change a persons mind and heart in comments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes good point, personally I don't mind that haejin guy, if you own a lot of steem I think you have the right to use it anyway you see fit.
I don't think his strategy is necessarily the best one but it is a strategy and he is very invested. By holding so much steem he is essentially helping to keep the price up for other content makers who want to cash out.
Providing investment is a contribution to the ecosystem so it should be rewarded, at least to some extent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Right choices should be rewarded. I don't know this guy haejin. I also don't know any excuse for violating the none aggression principal. It is the only problem I have with the steemit society. It lacks social morals most likely because its creators don't believe in creator. The sad truth is that all societies must have universal principals that serve as the higher calling of its members or it self destructs and people lose their lives and livlyhoods.. There are a lot of examples of this in history and the simple truth is there are no examples in history that show otherwise.
The creators and investors of steemit had better grab their shoulders and pull until they hear that pop sound that tells you that you have successfully pulled your head out of your ass. Doing so will show why it is said that the meek shall inherit the earth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In regards to this part of your comment.
" if you own a lot of steem I think you have the right to use it anyway you see fit."
Sure, but I know a lot of people who own Gun's and I must say most of them would not agree that because they have a lot of Guns they should be able to use them in any way that they see fit. Most of them recognize that having a thing doesn't automatically mean you have the right to use it. In self defense of your life, absolutely natural law provides that you will use whatever you have. To attack another living being to have it you way, no. No one has the right to violently attack another or there wallet.
The fact is the the new regulation and the flagging wars are happening so coordinated is not a coincidence! It is naive to think so.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great discussion. I like this idea in theory. One of the pitfalls I see, though, is that if someone developed a vendetta against someone, they could then downvote all their material, even if it's high quality. To that end, I'd discourage liberal downvoting and maybe set a limit between 5-10 downvotes per day and/or incorporating some sort of algorithm that would search for and prohibit abuses of the downvote button.
I contribute regularly at Quora, where there is a downvote button, and I think a similar model could possibly work at Steemit. I have downvoted comments on my own posts, for instance, that were outright nasty. I had an answer that went viral last year that invited many positive comments, but it also invited haters. Downvoting collapses the comments, which a user has to manually expand in order to view them.
Similar to Steemit, you can also flag content on Quora, so it would be important to differentiate when a user should downvote versus flag. My suggestion would be to use downvotes to collapse negative / unhelpful comments and use flags for posts for plagiarism and low quality. And that model could work on Steemit: you could continue to flag posts but you would not be able to downvote a post. You could, however, downvote a comment. The negative curation rewards would then kick in on comments only. I think it's important to make distinctions as some people make their living on Steemit, so you have to be careful when it comes to people's livelihoods. A great idea, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Steemit tests this at some point.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you make an excellent point. However, I feel as though not upvoting is a less rude way of telling someone their post is not worth anything. I think that upvoting is very constructive. If someone does not like your post then they dont have to upvote it which makes the most sense.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit