Do you know where you picked up this sense that the current post status is the entitlement of the poster?
Sorry I do not understand that line or reference. People do seem to forget that the window is 7 days long. I don't think I have ever had the thought that the person/author of a post is entitled to anything pre 7 day period. I also do not think as you can see from my suggestion that curators are Entitled to anything until the end of the 7 day window, thus the removal of curator earnings in a reward dispute, and not the author rewards in that one particular case.
I quoted it for easy reference. I'll add emphasis:
It makes it sound like downvotes are taking something away from someone. You can't take something away from somebody if they don't have it, don't own it, and have no entitlement to it. If you don't see people as entitled to post rewards prior to the end of the voting period, then what's the issue with downvotes?
The big issue with post rewards is people feeling as if something has been taken from them yes, does not matter if it is reality or not that is the way those that receive large down votes apparently feel. People rarely complain about the down vote received on spam, plagiarism, or the other items in the list. It is only when large vote values are removed. Thus my solution is for the curation reward to be removed from the top five up votes and not from the portion of the rewards the Author/poster would receive, that way they would lose no perceived value on day 7.
People have issues with the down votes, they will always have issues with the down votes. If people did not have issues with the down votes there would not be a lot of people posting about getting down votes, or bitching about the down votes or leaving Hive because of the down votes, so there are obviously issues with the down vote system as it currently stands.
There are few solutions being offered to the system other than ignoring there is an issue with it.
Sure, some people rage quit a basketball game and go home when they lose, but we don't say it's a problem with basketball and change the game so there aren't losers. Being bad at something doesn't mean that thing is a problem. I've read a lot lately on people complaining about downvotes, but I still don't see an issue with downvotes. I've owned several businesses, some of them worked, some of them didn't. It never occurred to me to go change the laws and change how everyone thinks and feels to make my businesses successful. Applying that kind of thinking to Hive and restricting everyone's freedoms to help a handful of people feel better... like... it could happen, but there would need to be a really good reason. So far, the only reason I'm hearing is "some people feel bad when they don't get as much free money as they felt entitled to". That isn't an issue that needs to be fixed
I think the entitled part with the big votes is the primary issue. Lets take three large daily up voters, haejin, ranch, and xeldal. Self votes are allowed. If these three individual made a post and only up voted themselves 10 times a day what would happen to them? They are no longer up voting content and other people for a curation reward they are only voting for themselves.
The down vote does serve a purpose, but it is currently not a fully functioning system. It is ignoring the large up voters that are only concerned with curation reward their vote is going to give them. Right now when it is a reward dispute the only person that is affected is the person that made the post.
Most people want to see the Hive Block Chain grow, want to see more users. Perception is very important for growth and for retaining people. Changing the system is only going to seriously effect a handful of people, the only down vote accounts and the excessive up voter accounts. balance will be reached only when the tools are available to achieve balance.
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that the poster is the only person with hurt feelings and your system would hurt the feelings of the upvoters to balance the system and that would somehow make Hive better? Or do you think downvotes don't impact the curation portion of the post payout?
sure, but I'm not convinced handing out participation trophies or stripping people of their freedom to up or downvote and move on is the way to go about it. The games are driving more growth than blogging is right now. This makes sense. I'm not really convinced there's a huge demand for blogging - no matter how you try to tweak it so that people don't get hurt feelings
Right now if a post is down voted all the curators are effected by the down vote if the down vote was over rewards. By removing the curation reward portion only the top 3-5 up voters would be the only ones affected by the down vote. The Author reward portion would not be affected. By nullifying the top 3-5 curators would mean that the remain curation would be split with the lower voters. They would still get some curation rewards unless the rewards on the post were totally zeroed out.
By removing the payout portion of curation from the top 3-5 people those 3-5 people may be a bit more cautious on how they vote, by not piling on to another large up voter for rewards only. If we want only a mining system then make Hive only a mining system and down vote all the social users out of hive. That way the big voters will be happy and there would be no need for a down vote system at all. That would kill hive and a lot of second layer dreams, but if that is the will of the DPOS voters then so be it.
There may not be a large blogging community, but there is a pretty large social side of Hive. The music makers are finding Hive, quite a few of them lately, while maybe not bloggers in the true sense they are joining and sharing. 3Speak, and Dtube continue to grow, while they may not all be bloggers they do use and are part of Hive.
I do not understand why people do not want to justify their down vote. We can do it by code, and a comment can be left and then we can see if a balance is able to be made. I think there will be a balance reached, I do not understand the resistance after all it is only a down vote. When it comes to reward disputes it is an adverse action, it is someone telling someone their post is not worth it or they are telling the up voters they valued it to highly, either way you cut it when it comes to down votes for reward disputes it is a negative action and people see it as such.
Hard Forks can be set up with contingency plans, so if a change does not work they can hard fork the change out in the next hard fork. Look at how many times it was hard fork after hard fork to FIX the reward pool over on steem. Yet when it comes to talk of trying to or even suggesting a different system of down voting people find all kinds of reasons to ignore or not see there is an issue with the down vote system.
I am not and I do not think I have said anything at all about
Why is one extra step in the down vote process so hard for people to accept. Why so concerned to see their name in a comment say "I down voted your post for reward dispute, or I down voted your post for fraud, or I down voted your post as spam."
A poster knows the why of an up vote..."Hurray someone liked my post", A down vote they have almost no clue why unless the person who down voted it took a few seconds to leave a comment why. It is not always about the money to a user. It is about the why the down vote, a simple question that almost always goes unanswered.