This is an example of one of those "high value" posts Mr. Richard keeps supporting on the 15th (!) second of the post. How long it takes for you to type 58 words?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is an example of one of those "high value" posts Mr. Richard keeps supporting on the 15th (!) second of the post. How long it takes for you to type 58 words?
It's a good point. I think there are worse example though. It would honestly be easier if we set some kind of standard. What do you, or anyone else, think of that idea?
Seems like an endless task to try to combat it on your own.
For instance, you mentioned you DV'd some of Crill's rewards for "over-rewarding". You provided an example. @trostparadox, would this be a candidate for DV'ing by consensus? It's definitely slippery.
Yes, we could approach this sort of thing a number of ways.
As I mentioned on Discord, the best approach is to contact the upvoter directly. Has anyone contacted @richardcrill to alert him to the fact that @littledisciples may be taking advantage of his auto-vote?
I have not looked closely at @littledisciples posting habits, but there is a natural tendency for an account-holder who gets put on a 'fan-list' by a whale, to start posting more and more frequently, often with less and less quality. Most 'whales' don't want their auto-votes taken advantage of like that and will remove the auto-vote for that account or greatly diminish future upvote percentages.
A community consensus protocol could also be created. There are a myriad of ways to go about that. For example, maybe we have a group of 5 POBLeus curators each grade the flagged post based on their assessment of 'level of effort' (and take the median value), then apply a 'community-derived' sliding scale (equating ascribed level of effort to maximum allowable reward). If the post is deemed to have been over-rewarded, then [1] disable additional upvoting via the front-end [2] send a message to the top voter and ask him/her to reduce their vote value for that post, [3] auto-downvote from the proofofbrainio account just before payout (if needed), to reduce the total reward down to the 'community-derived' amount.
That way, if the highest upvoter adjusts his/her vote before payout, the DV gets skipped and no other curators suffer the penalty of the DV.
Also, if it turns out that a specific upvoter is consistently over-rewarding posts and refuses to adjust his/her voting habits, then other curators can consciously avoid upvoting posts that are also upvoted by that 'rogue' curator. (A weekly report of DVs for over-rewarded posts would help with this). Leading to that rogue curator getting only his/her upvotes downvoted.
This is just one very-quickly-put-together example.
Again, there are a myriad of ways to address this, some more elegant than others, no doubt.