Since each jury is randomized, mostly different people will be selected for each "flag".
We could raise the bar for flaggers and jurors so only those in the top 90% of stake-holders could "flag" and act as jurors (if you're worried about weenies).
And perhaps there could also be some reputation system that throttles an account's ability to "flag" if they report three or more "false flags" in a row.
Your scathing critique is appreciated.
What happens if 1000 people trigger this system to commence proceedings while not acting nefariously, within 10 seconds?
The same thing that happens if 1000 people post a comment or transact to HIVE or upvote or downvote within 10 seconds.
Please just say what you mean.
You're creating a nuisance. You're creating something that will annoy people. Constantly. You're not thinking of them, while designing something that suits your needs. Every few minutes. Nonstop. Some stupid message to go do "jury duty" being spread all over the entire community, nonstop, everywhere. When designing something you must scale it both up and down. In essence you've designed a spam bot. In no time, due to people acting nefariously and not, this prompt to go do jury duty becomes the most ignored option the place has to offer. What makes you think people would want to go browse posts that have been flagged, all day, just to see if there's something wrong with it? Maybe they'll do it once or twice until they realize how lame it is. People browse content naturally all day, all over the internet, looking for things they like. Some noob shows up, doesn't know a damn thing, gets a message, then must go observe obscene images they would never think of looking at on their own, and decide if it's good or not. Are you kidding me?
Now lets just look at this, using the case above, where that individual known as Lucylin is being downvoted. Now suddenly 1000 people actually have to go look at his content. Nice try, guys.
There are better ways to get attention.
ALGORAND solves this by allowing people to "opt out" or "delegate" their jury option.
There is also a small financial incentive for participation.
And there is also an additional small financial incentive for voting with the majority (if there is a 60% majority).
The person who chooses to "flag" might even add a "bounty" to incentivize juror attention.
Your scathing critique is appreciated.
Does that not then whittle it down to a small group making all the decisions?
And how does it eliminate disputes? You're offered a case by case basis with no background story. So if I come across one of these posts where someone is being downvoted. They're blasting the entire community. Flying off the handle about not being able to earn or the censorship argument that never makes sense. So, 1000 people come along. They agree there's no reason to pay that individual. Does that individual then magically convert themselves into someone accepting of this fate? Wouldn't they just turn around and say this police force is out to get them and we're right back where we left off having posts like these and people frantically trying to figure out what to do instead of just looking at the isolated incidents and attempting to resolve them?
What about art fraud? I know how to detect certain forms of art fraud. I have to count on 999 others to make the right decision? Yet it's just a random group and majority wouldn't know the first thing about what to look for? So either, by dumb luck, this art fraudster can continue on earning, or not. Plagiarism. Suddenly 1000 people are going to go on their own, dig, find proof, make the right call? Can you see how inefficient that is?
A. Rule 404(b) -- Crimes and other isolated acts of bad behavior (not done frequently
enough to be a pattern)
negates the presumption of innocence. Empirical studies show that jurors are willing to give an
accused the benefit of the presumption of innocence only if this is the accused's first offense.
Once he has proved himself to be "a criminal," the jury assumes he is guilty. However, proving
that the defendant has criminal tendencies would seem to be prohibited as character evidence. **
You're free to use the "MUTE" button or subscribe to a "MUTE" list of your choosing.
The "point" here is to reduce abusive flags and create a system where everyone is treated the same, regardless of how many friends they have and how much stake they're sitting on.
So I have to know to MUTE someone in advance, before I come across that post? How do I do that?
I can see you're trying to make a point. I can see the point. I'm not critical of the system you're presenting because I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm critical because it doesn't make sense and won't work.
It's likely to be a much larger group than currently decides what's "worthy" of the "trending page".
I know there are a lot of people on HIVE from very poor countries who would likely be more than happy to review posts for the jury rewards.
I've always been particularly interested in finding heavily downvoted posts and reviewing cases might even be more interesting than reading the "trending page".
I'm pretty sure people are 100% free to rant about whatever the hell they wish.
Do you downvote people for posting Giphy gifs?
Giphy does not own the copyrights to any of the images it hosts.
“Instagram‘s privacy policy states that “[b]y using our Service you understand and agree that we are providing a platform for you to post content, including photos, comments and other materials (“User Content”), to the Service and to share User Content publicly. This means that other Users may search for, see, USE, or SHARE any of your User Content that you make publicly available through the Service.” (Privacy Policy, Instagram.com, Instagram Help Center (last visited Mar. 5, 2015)) The privacy policy further states, “[a]ny information or content that you voluntarily disclose for posting to the Service, such as User Content, becomes available to the public, as controlled by any applicable privacy settings that you set. . . . Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.” (Id.)” **
By this measure it seems that anyone can repost what they find on instagram without attribution as much as they please.
(IFF) the "community" doesn't think it's a "crime" (THEN) it's not a "crime"
And if it is an actual literal crime, then call the actual literal police or something.
Most people will be able to make a decision based on the case presented by the "flagger" and the counter-argument presented by the "defendant".
If the case for the "flag" is obviously "OPINION" BASED, then the content is not removed.
If the content is in violation of some specific LAW, then it will be removed.
Actually viewing the post itself is optional.
First of all, I must say, your scattered thoughts absolutely massacred the flow of this conversation. Moving on...
I say it's impossible to know to mute someone before having a reason to mute them, you come back with telling me I'm supposed to somehow know which mute lists to subscribe to without first having a reason to select them. If you were actually paying attention to what I'm saying, you'd see how your logic is all twisted and bent out of shape.
Then you go on to tell me everyone would be happier in an echo chamber, so we should make echo chambers like Facebook where everyone is friends. Well, maybe so, if you're just sitting around talking. I actually enjoyed being able to place things like art in front of people who didn't necessarily come for art but took an interest. In general, I don't really like those social echo chambers online you're describing. Moving on.
You then go on to take 'art fraud' out of context. I'm talking about art fraud. Presenting someone else's work as if it's your own and attempting to monetize that work. Or taking a photo, running it through a filter resembling paint, then claiming to be a painter, and attempting to monetize that behavior, while accepting praise from the viewers and saying thanks when they come along to tell the fraud they are talented. There are several more examples of art fraud.
It's funny, here I am saying many people don't know how to recognize art fraud, which is a clear flaw in the system you're presenting since people who don't know should not be making a call in either direction, you seem to disagree, thinking it's not a flaw, yet prove my point all in one fell swoop. That's truly remarkable and I bet you didn't even notice. You even say viewing the post is optional. So some won't even look at the art, yet make a decision. Clear flaw in design. You can't even argue that now.
I can't really figure out why you're offering such strange comebacks. I'm merely pointing out this system you're presenting is full of flaws. You need to recognize that, and go back to the drawing board.
There's no fucking way I'd ever buy that idea sitting in the condition it's in. And I'm not going let someone cram a broken tool down my throat either.
That's all.