Check this out. I just downvoted myself. Now 1000 people have to come figure this shit out. And now that you're here, I was wondering if you'd be interested in my new line of merch? We just got the new shirts in this week, and check out this cap. Mugs too! Supplies are limited though. Get yours today!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
THEY MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST "RECEPTIVE" CUSTOMERS
ALSO, THERE'S A FAIR CHANCE THAT 60% OF THEM WILL DETECT YOUR RUSE AND OBLITERATE YOUR POST.
I'm pointing out the most obvious flaw in design when it comes to that plan. That particular flaw would have this system you're describing become completely useless within the first day going live. Can you describe what this flaw is?
Let's imagine you find something you believe should be removed.
You click the "flag" button and type your "reason" into the form.
The account you've decided to "flag" can then add their "response" to your case for "flagging".
Then, the randomized jury is given a chance to read BOTH cases and review the actual post.
Then they vote.
If a 60% majority agrees that the post should be removed, then it is removed.
If 41% of the jury agrees that the post should stand, the post is unaffected.
Repeating what's already there, does not describe the flaw in design. I can already see where you're going with this, but can you find one thing wrong with how it's to be implemented? I gave you a good example to draw conclusions from.
I added a form.
Your "publicity stunt" will be more difficult to get away with if you are unable to articulate your case to the jury.
What happens if one individual triggers this system to commence proceedings 1000 times within 10 seconds?
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.
DECENTRALIZED JURY - FIELD TEST
[SKIP TO 782 SECONDS]
[SKIP TO 782 SECONDS]
What about it?
you seemed to suggest a decentralized jury would never work "irl"
this is a humorous example or a real world field test and proof of concept
I said that example you're providing wouldn't work here in this scenario. Offered several flaws with it and could keep going. The main flaw though is the fact it can be used/exploited easily by anyone who wants attention to their product with the simple push of a button. Since it's voluntary and will be used to cry wolf, most will ignore, and the entire system breaks itself probably within the first day of going live. There's no point in even talking about this again. I debunked that system already when applied to what we do here.
You're not even working out the odds or doing any thinking beyond what your device is feeding you. Do you know how long it would take to process ONE flag by choosing 1000 accounts at random? That could take years.
it's a concept.
not an immutable stone tablet.
i found a better example for you.
i appreciate your critique.