My point in bringing in the old post was just this situation isn't new and has always happened.

I completely agree that both the downvoter and the downvoted often name-call, smear, and escalate the conflict, and say unnecessary things without merit about the other. Many people it seems could benefit from taking a conflict resolution course.

At the end of the day all systems and platforms have pros and cons and DPOS means stake is the tie-breaker in any conflict regardless of who is right and wrong, who uses nice words, etc.

In many cases diplomacy would go a long way, but this is a weakness of DPOS in general. Having the most stake is a fine tie-breaker, but stake doesn't take skill sets into account. In another setting an organization might put their most diplomatic people on the front line of moderation, their best business minds at the top of the project, etc.

I understand DPOS, I think it is imperfect, but all systems have strengths and weaknesses. There is kind of a perfect balance in knowing what the tie breaker is.

The POB group is looking to experiment with other methods of moderation and I find it interesting, but I also don't feel attracted to having a complicated set of rules. It is what it is, and after 1000 debates, it still will be tomorrow.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta