Yes i was just thinking out loud TBH!



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@revise.pob/qw1rb6)</sub></center>

https://youtu.be/y1uCBYt6Pe4



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@mineopoly/qvwgn4)</sub></center>

Yes it would hurt everyone and I guess turn his vote into something of a curse. 

You've got me thinking about bot solutions to this now, or 'solutions' maybe a better way of putting it. 

DVing and then posting other content and sharing the rewards of those in transfers to everyone else affected by the DV. 

I'm sure it's codeable.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@revise.pob/qvx6b2)</sub></center>

There's no ideal solution, I just remember Steem when there were no DVs 

It was shit. 

I think @themarkymark put it most succinctly in a comment somewhere - for every malicious DV there are 100 irresponsible upvotes.

On a complete tangent i think it's a moot point - I'm not about to invest that heavily in a side chain where I don't know who the token issuer is, or worse, where i don't know but i've got an idea and I think he might be a bit of a loose cannon. 

Maybe for that reason we shouldn't have DVs - from an investor's perspective POB can only ever be a bit of fun anyway! Dvs can ruin that for sure. 



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@revise.pob/qvzwjq)</sub></center>

If someone is acting counter to the interests of the group, and won't discuss the situation, you have to figure out what you are gonna do.
As this situation is in a community still finding it's rhythm there are no precedence to go by.

I'm of the opinion that one would force a pow wow to find consensus with the object of the friction, and absent that, one would act unilaterally to support the interests of the group.
One might want to reach out for other options from within the tribe, but ultimately the good of the tribe is what has to be determined by the tribe.
Maybe most folks don't think this is an issue.
They would have to be asked.

Rancherelaxo, aka Haejin, who i'm sure you've heard of?!? I'm an occasional victim of his upvotes. 

Communication to the owner is almost certainly the best direction, I guess what we really want is them delegating to some kind of ethical curation account. 

It's probably possible to narrow the account owner down to a tiny handful of people you know, with a bit of digging!

Doesn't it cost a small fortune in BEE or something to set up a proper token? Someone had to shift funds around to buy that shortly before, not many people doing that in the time window this all came live. 

It'd be worth knowing. I don't generally invest very much in projects run by ONE ANONYMOUS individual, that's EXTREME HIGH RISK.  

---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@revise.pob/qvx5v3)</sub></center>

>what's a rancher vote?

He is referring to haejin aka ranchorelaxo.

ranchorelaxo has 1.5 million HP.

Whenever ranchorelaxo upvotes someone's content, the 'powers-that-be' like to swoop in and downvote the post, to nullify the rancho upvote.

As @antisocialist pointed out above:
>When you do that, you only hurt the little voters?
He still has x% of the somewhat smaller curation pool.

That's the point I was making on Discord.  Nuking the post because you don't like the whale upvoter punishes all the legitimate manual curators who genuinely thought the content deserved an upvote -- a very short-sighted and small-minded approach, imho.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@trostparadox/qvwpos)</sub></center>