...In the near future, Follow My Vote will releasing the first voting DAC...

...NuSpark is a startup incubator in Blacksburg, VA, that has supported Follow My Vote in since their early stages of development...

• One set of "processor" delegates just for processing transactions
• A second set of "spending" delegates responsible for "spending" the transaction fees

Anyone who is registered can register you.  But you have to ask using chat.

The ACLs are set up so people have to be registered before they can move or even talk.  This is to keep people or bots from coming on and causing interruption during sessions.

Once registered you can create your own temporary rooms, move/talk openly and record.

Quote from: bytemaster on July 11, 2014, 02:42:10 am

Suppose Bad Actor has 25% approval, everyone else has to find someone they can agree to give 26% approval to bump the Bad Actor.... there are 2 solid candidates and they each split the vote 13% / 13% and thus neither is able to bump the Bad Actor.    Everyone can agree the Bad Actor should go, so they simply vote against him.

Should this point be overlooked? How important is it in real world terms?

It is possible for there to be a candidate who would receive 40% support for a role as delegate, but 60% strong opposition. Should it be possible for this candidate to become a delegate?
If people have the option to vote against, the candidate would be unsuccessful. Without "vote against" the candidate would probably become a delegate, and I propose this to be undesirable. In order for the candidate to be partially unsuccessful, the opposing 60% would likely have to agree to collaborate. They would have organize their "votes for" in a way which they may find unsatisfactory, thus compromising their REAL preferences.

Importantly, even if the 60% managed to use their votes to get another candidate in front of the one they oppose, BOTH candidates would likely still end up being delegates. Now we would still have a delegate who 60% STRONGLY OPPOSE!

Bear in mind that this needn't be a polarized case of a candidate being either a good or bad actor, or processing transactions well or poorly. What if the candidate is proposing to use transaction fees for a certain controversial purpose? It is easy to imagine a scenario whereby the candidate incentivizes 40% to vote for him/her by some means, and this 40% are not opposed to the way the fees will be used. But what if the other 60% are fundamentally against the proposed use of the fees? Should they not be given the chance to voice their concerns?

Could not "vote against" potentially be a useful, if not necessary, tool? If the majority opposes something in principle, shouldn't there be a proper way for them to oppose it in practice?

I admit I haven't thought much about this, and also haven't followed closely enough the way voting works with DPOS, so I may be mistaken.
However, I thought I should post this in case it is useful, or in case it may act as a catalyst in some way.

Agent86 is very persistent and talked with me on Skype last night to argue against negative votes.

The primary argument he made was that abstaining is the responsible thing to do for uninterested users and that large stake holders will be very pro-active.

Small stake holders collectively do not have much influence.

I have decided to make it an option that is easy to turn on in the future with a hard-fork, but off by default.  If it becomes a problem then the delegates can vote to support it.

• Make it so that users have to save changes to their "Approve" selections. The idea is that it will protect from accidental changes which would be both undesirable and a PITA. The downside is that some may find that having to remember to save changes is a PITA
• Add the ability to "Deselect All" for the "Approve" selections. The idea is that the list is very long and a user may want to start from scratch with their selections.