RE: HF Proposal: Remove "Free Downvote" and Stop the "Wars"
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hi! To be effective I d suggest you make one proposal for, and one against, so that everyone can voice their opinion and we can compare effectively. As a witness, Id be willing to take the results into account only if both options were votable. The Return Proposal is not intended for this use and that could disrupt other projects otherwise. Thanks.
0
0
0.000
Thanks. I have invited @abitcoinskeptic to help propose one, and he has written a post but may not submit immediately to SPS : https://steempeak.com/hive-145452/@abitcoinskeptic/opinion-poll-yes-keep-free-downvotes-no-hf-or-change-required
What's the correct way to use Return Proposal?
Posted using Partiko iOS
Return proposal is to judge the projects that deserve funding, in general proposals going above the return proposal are funded (except if projects even higher take all the daily funds).
In a case of SPS used for polling, the proposal should not compete with the return proposal but with another proposal tailored to this purpose.
P1 : We should HF to remove the free pool of downvotes.
P2 : We should not remove the free pool of downvotes.
It s a bit more expensive to put in place but its the only fair way to measure the community support.
EDIT : To go further, the different proposals should start and end at a predetermined and identical time to be absolutely fair.
Thanks.
The reason that the proposal appears as a RETURN PROPOSAL is because I imitated what @thecryptodrive 's proposals for Power Down Period in https://steemproposals.com/proposal/53 (https://steempeak.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks). Following that proposal, we set the "fund receiver" to @steem.dao, because we don't want to take fund from SPS, then it shows with RETURN PROPOSAL there. So what's your recommended way to decline fund to the proposal?
I don't understand what "compete with the return proposal" means. And as I mentioned, @abitcoinskeptic has written a proposal but just didn't get it ready to submit yet.
It's a good suggestion to keep the other factors the same, including the authors, creators, start/end date, for the two proposals, I'll talk with @abitcoinskeptic to see whether it's possible for me to use his post to submit to SPS, so voters are not impacted by the name of the submitter.
Also, as you said "it s a bit more expensive", I have also used up my SBD/Steem for submitting the proposal (since I don't post often to receive rewards). Do you mind help funding this proposal for "Keep FREE Downvote"? If you cannot, do you mind recommending anyone else who might help provide the fund? Or we can wait a bit longer such as 1 week after my recent two posts get some rewards back.
Hey I think there s a quid pro quo, when I talked about competing the return proposal, I was referring to what had been done before by thecryptodrive, not talking about your current endeavor.
I am okay to fund the 10SBD if manage to get back the control of our chain, for now this would be pointless. When we do, do not hesitate to contact me about this in here or Discord.
cool. thanks for your support in advance.
Just waiting for the other drama to die down a bit...
Return proposal is optional.
I also think it's not the right timing for this.
About the return proposal, I think there was a misunderstanding about what I meant. I was saying that this proposal shouldnt be competing with the gtg return proposal to mean something, it should compete with another proposal that represents the other alternative.
Thanks for clarifying and yes I intend to work on a counter proposal. The return proposal is completely unrelated. Technically this is a sort of return proposal too.
We will pick similar proposal subjects so it is obvious.
I agree it's not the right timing.
The community is too distracted at the moment and the next planned hard fork is SMT.
sure. I actually mean to include this change in HF23 (similar to what the Power Down period proposal has mentioned), but I want to add another section to analyze the implementation cost, so we won't delay the SMT release (HF23).
Is it possible to implement both Vote and Against in a proposal in SPS? Just an idea
Posted using Partiko iOS
This is not possible for now. See my other answer.