RE: Vote No to the PoB Downvote Proposal

My concerns is that this process will limit and not prevent bad behavior and while negotiations occur people can continue to behave poorly. It also doesn't safeguard people if the person being complained about is within the leading faction.

The proposal never intended to prevent anything. No proposal, no matter how intelligent, will prevent bad behavior. The proposal's intent was to limit malicious downvoting by adding consensus to the action. The proposal failed mostly because of participation. Weeks before, @trostparadox requested input from the community and received little.

Another reason for the failure though was because it didn't already line up the most common bad behaviors. Malicious UV'ing, for example, wasn't addressed. If you wanted to reduce payout as a result of MUV, you'd have to wait on a consensus to debate and authorize.

Down votes are a vital part of the block chain that not only disincentivises poor behavior but also safe guards your earnings.

DVs are also used as an attack or a threat. In the threat category, "With me or against me" is one such post I read. Also, statements on witholding upvotes for voting against someone is another issue. A classic example of malicious DV'ing on HIVE AND POB is @lucylin. It's just one example.

Im urging people to vote NO on the proposal and help end crap content and reward authentic authors who work hard for their blogs.

Your statement is consistent with mine and everyone else's and that's great. It's also the problem and speaks to the need for definition and consensus in the community. What you think is crap is not the same as what someone else believes. Over rewards can become abusive, but not necessarily because someone wants to be malicious. At this point on HIVE and POB, I've seen many people get over rewarded. Even people who DV to reduce over rewarding have kept interestingly quiet when their posts get over rewarded.

The concept of over rewarding and quality is too subjective. Everyone has their opinion, but large stakeholders hold the power. Trost's proposal was meant to address this fact. Another proposal will fail without a clear attempt at defining over rewarding and quality. The community will also need to participate in its development before voting.