Sort:  

It would not be that bad making one comment every week would it?

So what would that do?

Well its a social media platform, so maybe it would provide proof of engagement?
Why would it be a negative in your eyes ?

Easy, you're forcing people to post in a bid to do certain transactions with their account which means they will probably chose the easiest option and spam, which I don't see as meaningful in preventing anything or incurring ANY risk, and we are basically making everyone do this in an effort to affect only a very minute few but all it'll do is inconvenience everyone at absolutely no perceivable benefit.

Do you think It may be an easy fix for dealing with these kind of accounts which as far as i have been able to tell have only be used for abusing others so far?
@mandraki
@grenilcu
@brassir
@artrilstev
@rezdam
@clirkliev
@warzi
@blickhil
@dentbos
@septima
@moille
@pfisbrem
@inbort

Not at all.

Because it doesn't fix anything as I've explained. You're suggesting that people who have conclusively demonstrated not to care about incentives or punishments alike will all of a sudden stop being jerks because they have to make a post or comment. They won't, they will more than likely demonstrate yet once more that the punishment of making a post doesn't mean anything. You do run the risk of peaking their Joy by inviting others to downvote their posts/comments and in turn satisfying the jerks with the thought that others wasted their voting power on them. The best way to deal with jerks is to ignore them because without reaction to their nonsense they will move on as their satisfaction is hinged entirely on others reactionary responses.

These people crave negative attention like many crave rewards. Giving them more negative consequences on top of the waste of voting power won't make them reconsider their habitual need for negative attention but it ought to create quite the "engagement" seeing that now they are forced to spam in order to get their fix of disapproval, and each spam post and comment will be paid for by everyone else's attention, and each of those instances are but another chance for the jerks to revel at what a jerk they are. But maybe I'm completely wrong and it'll be a huge success.

If someone posts spam on their own blog, just unfollow them. How is this going to "inconvenience" anyone? If anything, it'll probably encourage more engagement.

They can chose to spam any tag or comment spam any place they want. You think that forcing people to post so that they can downvote will encourage their engagement?

It would expose them to retaliation.

If I'm bullet-proof, I can shoot down anyone I wish with impunity.

If I'm bullet-vulnerable, I'll probably be slightly more careful who I shoot down, in order to mitigate potential retribution.

And that won't change anything. Do some god damn basic math and use your noggin:

User A used their stake for no benefit other than to be a jerk.

Why would A give a fuck at all if anyone downvoted the spam he made ONLY to jump through a hoop so that they can freely be a jerk?

You're literally saying that making serial downvoters spam will make them reconsider being a serial downvoter, but you avoid the glaringly obvious, or that they don't give a fuck about someone downvoting them. Heck I can see them even embracing being downvoted simply because it might tickle them to see people"retaliate", aka Waste Their Fucking Voting Power.

It's like I'm the only one who can see this glaringly obvious conclusion and no matter how I explain it all you're fixated on is the idiotic thought that you can stop Downvoting by making them post so they MIGHT be downvoted, and o yeah, because downvoting will surely stop Downvoting.

Do you think it's better to have accounts like bloom, who do nothing but downvote?

And since they never post, they can act with impunity?

Let's just say, hypothetically, that the Chinese Censorship Brigade decided they wanted to create an account (or buy an existing account) with (a relatively small) 2 million steem-power and start obliterating any accounts they didn't like (anything not written in Chinese).

And since this account makes zero posts, they cannot be downvoted themselves.

Would you consider that a "problem" or would you stand by your, "downvotes are freespeech" credo?

Do you think it's better to have accounts like bloom, who do nothing but downvote?

Better than Forcing them to post every so often simply so they can downvote, yes, and I am sure that had you seriously thought and considered what you suggested you'd agree with me.

And since they never post, they can act with impunity?

You somehow think that they cannot act with impunity EVEN if they post, every single day, hour, minute or second?

Let's just say, hypothetically, that the Chinese Censorship Brigade decided they wanted to create an account (or buy an existing account) with (a relatively small) 2 million steem-power and start obliterating any accounts they didn't like (anything not written in Chinese).

And since this account makes zero posts, they cannot be downvoted themselves.

So you think that such an account would, idk, hilarity hold your horses... They would stop or change at all if they could be downvoted? Why do I have to seemingly be the only one who actually considers what you write because surely had you considered it, you wouldn't have made such a horrible oversight: that downvoting won't stop Downvoting, and neither will it change anything were they required to jump through some hoops to be able to downvote like that.

Would you consider that a "problem" or would you stand by your, "downvotes are freespeech" credo?

I consider, period. Try it sometimes.

Better than Forcing them to post every so often simply so they can downvote, yes, and I am sure that had you seriously thought and considered what you suggested you'd agree with me.

Thanks for telling me what I think. Please explain WHY you think that. What's the "problem" with requiring an active post (or comment) as a prerequisite for upvoting/downvoting?

Spam. That's the problem. You're forcing jerks to spam, and I'm sure they will, they have more than conclusively demonstrated that positive incentives don't mean jack shit to them as they continue being jerks, but go ahead and sit there and tell me that you seriously considered what you proposed and it's consequences as you are ever so oblivious to the facts of people chosing to be jerks, REGARDLESS of the cost.

You somehow think that they cannot act with impunity EVEN if they post, every single day, hour, minute or second?

Accounts with high-rep can downvote anyone with lower rep than them below (0) which automatically hides all their posts and comments and breaks any links to their posts and comments.

If a rogue account had an active post, at least there would be a chance that a higher-rep account could take action to reduce their rep, thus mitigating the amount of damage they could wreak by reducing the number of accounts they could de facto censor wholesale.

Yes, even if they were ranked below (0) they could still wipe out rewards on individual posts and or comments, but they couldn't wipe out ENTIRE ACCOUNTS.

Accounts with high-rep can downvote anyone with lower rep than them below (0) which automatically hides all their posts and comments and breaks any links to their posts and comments.

It doesn't break any links, and the fact that it's hidden is completely contingent on the front end/block explorer being used. Moreso it doesn't stop or hinder them one iota from continuing to downvote and effectuate the only metric that means jack shit, unlike reputation which has always been gamed, broken and never had any weight outside a value for front ends to interpret.

but they couldn't wipe out ENTIRE ACCOUNTS.

Please.

Broken links to replies (-4rep) that don't show on my replies feed,


IMAGE SOURCE

For example, https://steemit.com/steemit/@logiczombie/q5p0k8

Doesn't show stopthemarkymarks comment at all, not behind a click through "show comment" or anything.

And if you view the comment from stopthemarkymark's replies page, the link is broken,

For example,
https://steemit.com/steemit/@stopthemarkymark/re-q5p0k8-20200214t153241

Thats like I said contingent on the fromt end. For example when I clicked on it it automatically phrases it as steempeak, seems all is ok.

https://steempeak.com/steemit/@stopthemarkymark/re-q5p0k8-20200214t153241

It doesn't matter what steemit or any other front end does, they cannot undo transactions or change them, the blockchain data will always have integrity.

Ok, I really should switch over to steempeak...

...you wouldn't have made such a horrible oversight: that downvoting won't stop Downvoting,

Getting downvoted by an account with lower rep than you does not affect your rep.

Getting downvoted by an account with higher rep than you KILLS your rep.

By forcing an active post, the downvoters could potentially be downvoted by a higher-rep account, and thus lose their rep, which would take away their ability to KILL other people's rep.

Rep is a meaningless metric that has no bearing on anything meaningful, period. What people care about is the rewards on their stuff that downvoting reallocates.