Also when new people come here and explain their experience and what they think about it it can be interesting after having been here for so long you kind of just forget what it's like to see shit with new eyes.

@acidyo, I am relatively new to Hive (came on-board in February thanks to @theycallmedan). I initially found Hive to be a 'breath of fresh air' and I gave extra-credit to encourage my students give it a try. Beginning in February, I transitioned away from all other forms of social media (and haven't missed that a bit). And, up until recently, I have been planning to make value-creation via Hive a mandatory term-project for my students this fall (I teach a university honors seminar on Entrepreneurial Value Creation in Society).

However, what I have witnessed the past 6 weeks or so with respect to downvotes by whales for 'over-rewarded' posts quite honestly disgusts me. @dwinblood has done an excellent job explaining why opinion-based downvotes are problematic. He has also done an excellent job summarizing why removing downvotes altogether (and other efforts to 'fix' the various abuse problems associated with  Steem  / Hive) have also proven problematic.

His perspective is the best I have heard. He spent lots of energy arguing against downvotes in the early days of  Steem , then, through that dialogue, began to see the 'other' perspective (or at least began to appreciate the nuanced nature of it all).

Although I believe serious reform is needed with respect to the way the downvote protocol functions on Hive, I am focusing at the moment on experimenting with creative ways to deal with this issue at the tribe level, namely the Proof of Brain tribe.

When I first began dialoguing with @theycallmedan in January, and had him discuss Hive with my students in February, I was extremely bullish about Hive and its untapped potential. However, I have to say that this whole notion of 'we must be able to downvote over-rewarded posts' (and how persistent that ethos pervades this ecosystem, at least among those who hold the 'power') leaves me relatively lukewarm about Hive and its future potential.

As an outsider, I can tell you that this concept of downvoting 'over-rewarded' posts is repulsive to me (because of the message it sends to all those upvoters who are having their votes and curation rewards nullified by someone else's 'opinion'). And, it is making me seriously second-guess whether or not to incorporate some form of mandatory Hive participation into my course curriculum this fall.

In particular, your downvote of this post, which has generated an extreme amount of interesting engagement and dialogue, represents an exemplary display of bad form, imho -- and merely serves to conform the OP's argument. You disagree with some of the views expressed by the author and, as is your right, you have expressed your disagreement in the comments. However, you also felt it necessary to nullify 201 upvotes in the process. You can say that you were merely countering the upvotes of haejin/ranchorelaxo, but the reality is that you directly punished 200+ freedom-loving, critical-thinking Hivians who valued the content and the engagement and debate sparked by this post.

At this point, the one thing that gives me hope is the fact that there are many within the Proof of Brain tribe who are willing to put some creative energy into curbing the potential for downvote abuse by whales (and upvote abuse, also), while also combatting plagiarism and spam -- and letting the community-at-large decide what constitutes 'over-rewarded' content, via establishment of some objective standards.

I don't expect to change your mind with my words here. But hopefully I can provide some of the "when new people come here and explain their experience" perspective that you seem to be open to.

To summarize, imho, finding a suitable alternative for stemming abuse is paramount, if Hive is to ever be poised for exponential growth. We need an alternative that can effectively punish bad actors without simultaneously punishing good or neutral actors -- an alternative that can also keep abuse-watchers from being abusers themselves.

An 'ideal' solution is probably not feasible. However, I have no doubt that numerous 'better ways' exist. At this point, experimentation and iteration at the tribe level seems the best way to discover and flesh out some of those 'better ways'. Hopefully you are supportive of tribes seeking to do just that.