There are a lot of flaws. I can think of several more scenarios where it might run into problems. My goal is not to be a pessimistic dickhead, nor will I suggest you're shooting it down for pointing out flaws you see. Best to place all the flaws on the table first before finding solutions or you just end up running back and forth between the fridge and kitchen.
I agree. I simply prefer to point out the flaws I can think of AND potential solutions that I can think of at the time at the same time.
I don't want to get someone else to tell me what they are before I'll tell them what I am thinking.
If they choose to share (as you do) then I'll try to respond to what you say. Unless I can't think of anything worthy of being said.
I think people would opt out.
A lot of people probably would. Yet you have been surprised before. So have I. You were surprised that the free down votes didn't result in more down voting than they have (I was reading other comments here and remember this one).
Nothing we try need be set in stone. We learn from the experiments. We don't act like idiots today that their experiment is a "sacred cow" that must not be allowed to fail. If it fails we learn from it, revert if need be, etc.
It turns a flag into free advertising. It creates a scenario where someone who's not qualified to make a call, has to make a call. How good are you at spotting art fraud? What if it's a false flag on art fraud. Will you know? So if the majority is wrong, then what? Then what? The system in place now is streamlined and removing these fraudsters is simple. Why add so many layers of complexity?
There are a lot of things that could be tried. What if people had a reputation score tracked based upon art fraud? In fact why not just use the existing reputation system in some way. Reputation is not tied to hive power. I forgot about it until just now.
It was invented to give people a way to fight spam even if the account they were fighting had more steem power.
We could potentially use that with the jury system as well. This helps with the art fraud angle. If they have a reputation that is low it should take less to flag their content.
logiczombie offered a 'solution' with some kind of "form" stating each party writes some kind of description before it's sent out to 1000 people.
They had comments added to flags on steemit back in the day and people just put "because", "rewards", etc. so it didn't really help.
I don't believe for one second anyone involved here in support of that idea will even attempt building it. So that's a flaw as well. It's all talk. Prove me wrong.
This may be the best point you have made. I wouldn't be surprised if @trostparadox and such tried on layer 2. Yet determining how to do it would potentially be the barrier.
And if you're willing to risk distributing illegal obscene images, or deny the existence of that risk, or do not understand the consequences of that risk, or just feel like saying it can't happen because happy thoughts; maybe just put the idea to bed
See my comments about reputation above. It addresses this and is actually how we fight such things now without requiring massive voting power.
I'm pretty much set in stone on this one. But I threw down enough flaws I think, which gives people something to work with if they wanted to. I won't rub it in if it doesn't work. More fun to be wrong. Being right isn't much fun because look how much people will argue with you. JOKING!
I'm on the fence about a lot of this. I've seen so much minor stuff get blown out of proportion. That's actually where I started here with whatsup. I've seen some nasty things, but that's rare. Even attempting to explain to Trost a situation with downvotes that led to some turmoil and a lot of lost potential money and attention coming this way, framing it honestly, every step of the way, I can't pin it solely on downvotes.
Been thinking about this pretty hard though.
That is what we should do. It is impossible to know when that moment of inspiration will strike.