Don’t we have to factor in display of listings which are ranked by pre-existing votes.
Wouldn’t level-0 strategy dominate the game theory because higher level players will never see the lower ranked content later in the sequential game?
Related point is will anyone be able to vote their conscience when they can’t find the content they like?
Soon there will be so much content that we otherwise will not be able to find the content we are interested in.
Yeah, I think that's basically what I'm saying - in my model, it doesn't matter what level you are - if there's a tie, you vote for your favorite among the tied posts; if a post is strictly winning, you vote for the one that's winning. In this way, the first voter on the scene gets to choose which post wins.
Sure, those are fair comments. But take a close look at my article - I'm arguing that even if everybody could find what they like, they would still be incentivized to vote with the crowd.
I’ve concluded that the minnows have the incentive to always vote their conscience:
Nevertheless the dominant game theory seems to remain that the most upvoted posts are likely to be the most upvoted in a vortex of one-size-fits-all, simply because other posts get buried and not seen. And if whales vote early enough, they drive which posts get seen the most. And whales have a dominant game theory which would be to vote for the most popular posts if they were motivated by the curator rewards, but for the largest of the whales that is unlikely to be the case because:
Hypothetically a potential improvement appears to be the one I blogged.
Another fly-in-the-ointment is that minnows can potentially be a Sybil attack, since there is no way to really confirm that a sign up is a unique user.
Yeah, I think that all makes a lot of sense. Curator rewards are so small for minnows that it's all dust - we can't say it's irrational to vote for what you like because it will mean forfeiting 0.003 SP.
I realized they could employ a bot.