Thanks.

We need them done yesterday.

What do you mean?

Great points here. It keeps coming back to communities with how best to improve the social experience on here. We can't get those shipped soon enough.

Either way, I think some changes need to be made.

Actually many news sources don't even allow comments anymore due to the absurd trolling that often goes on. And, many other social sites allow the owner to moderate their own content and have control over

Yes. This is better than nothing.

Hopefully.

Can't see it without logging in. It seems to be that we need a witness vote total less than whatever the decision making witness total is. Meaning that if 20 witnesses decide things, we need less than

We shall see.

Thanks.

Yes I like that as well. Though I think a long period of time is needed. Something like a year sounds reasonable to me, where votes expire after 12 months.

It then becomes easier all else being equal for one large stakeholder to elect some witnesses But we are not talking about "electing some of the witnesses". Sure they could get a few of their

Yes exactly.

the top two stakeholders can not even come close to electing even a single witness at all, much less all witnesses. Their two votes alone get someone very close to the number 20 spot by themselves and

Only if they had enough stake, but it would require MORE stake for them to control the entire top 20 witnesses by limiting the votes per account to 5 than it does currently. For example, an 8 million steem

here you are claiming that it would be better I am claiming that having more people deciding who the top 20 witnesses are is better than having less people deciding who they are. At 5 votes per, even if

Which did you chose?

Pain pain pain.

What about when it goes down?