I would like to point out that I agree with cp0x’s statement.
On Feb 12th, Seed Gov has unilateraly changed the parameters of the Delegate programme.
These changes were all in accordance with the original rules, which give them the authority to introduce changes (as they have pointed out multiple times), so this is not a matter of “could they change it or not”.
The point raised here is, they seem to be hovering in a new gray area of abuse of power where their points allocation (although via a rubric) is already highly subjective (I’m sure they’ll contest this statement and post a lengthy reply as to why this is not the case, but let’s be real: it is highly subjective in practice) and in the name of “enhancing quality of participation” they are overly complicating things, introducing changes unilaterally, and demanding a specific type of participation which under their logic is the right participation to have. The amount of AI comments and SPAM in forums seen as of late is, imo, a consequence of these enforcements, and at times they do not provide actual value.
Some concrete feedback: in my opinion, having 100% voting participation rate, and having a 100% vote comment rationale (i.e. forum posts as to why a vote was cast a certain way) should be enough to earn minimum rewards. With the changes introduced by Seed Gov, this is no longer the case. I think additional and thoughtful delegate feedback would be a nice to have (and could boost rewards exponentially), but not an exclusionary measure. Perhaps we can consider a different approach when a new wave of changes (or a new program manager) is introduced.