Instead of asking whether the author did a bad job, we can ask ourselves whether the voters did a bad job.
And who will judge the voters of the "bad" voters?
The voters of the bad voters of the bad voters?
If we have a fair system(?). Theoretical the end result of the voters vote should be fair(?) No?
Maybe make it more democratic/fair?.... We should not take into account only SP but the voters reputation also !
It makes more sense when for example 2 whales have the same SP (Steem Power) that the voting weight of the more reputable whale have more impact compared with the less reputable whale! Think about it!
Give at least 30% weight to REPUTATION! (debatable)
70% impact because of SP
30% impact because of REPUTATION
What do you think?
I think it's too natural for a user with a 65 reputation to be for such a proposal
Do you want an account of a reputation of (-4) to have the same or more impact than an account with a reputation of (42) for example? ;)
Well that would make both solutions quite similar wouldn't it?
One would reward those who vote fairly, the other one would reward those who make content/comments that are well received on the site. Since good commenters aren't necessarily good voters, the former system seems more suitable.
Interesting concept, we will see what happens.
It still ends up as a popularity contest. Who will be the masters, who the slaves?