“Fighting corrupt behavior in a subjective world means that actions have consequences. Any action without consequences will be abused by a minority if they can gain even a small benefit.”
Ok, I’m beginning to get re-assured…
“The most basic consequence is a loss of reputation of an individual user.”
But the issue we are encountering is that due to abuse, the wrong people are losing reputation due to what amouts to smear campaigns using the flagging system.
“A community consisting of mostly good people can fight of an infection of anti-social individuals hoping to get something for nothing, but only if they have the power to deny rewards or claw it back.”
We don’t appear to have this power and shunning doesn’t work
“Overall the community will be more civilized if there is properly balanced tit-for-tat.”
But there isn’t and this seems to be where relying PRIMARILY on game theory has become an issue. Yes game theory is a very valuable tool, but it appears you are assuming a level playing field which is not the case. If someone has a huge stack of chips while the rest only have a few, then what is the most likely outcome? The outcome we are seeing unfold before us I’d say. The argument that the 1% benefits the 99% by the “trickle down” effect is shown to be false in modern Capitalist societies – how is it going to be any different by placing the word “Anarcho in front of it?
“Banning Down Votes is like Banning Guns”
Great….then ban down voting!
“They will use their guns to secure privatized profits at the hands of those without guns.”
This sounds great in theory, I live in the UK – how many deaths by gun occur in the US compared to the UK? You would implement a theory even if it caused many actual human lives lost? Now I know this, I fully understand why you would implement anything if it was aligned to your particular ideology or theory even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even if it caused serious harm to others….very, very concerning
“I am a proponent of non-violent solutions”
But you would implement a system whereby everyone is armed so the likelihood of violence is greater, the evidence is that there would be more deaths, but the more important thing is that you’ve stuck by your ideology?
“ An armed society is a polite society” –Heinlein
Hardly surprising! Great if the ultimate goal is politeness and etiquette, nevermind the body count though eh? I’d prefer people spoke their minds and had freedom of speech without fear of being shot for being fucking rude…
“If the rules favor corruption”
They currently do……
“….and don't provide tools to fight it”
They currently don’t….
“….then eventually everyone (including the good people) will become corrupt.”
Brilliant…..job done then eh?
Just to exercise my freedom of speech and to be deliberately rude - I have never read such a load of bollocks in all my life.... so shoot me!
It is clear that your perspective in life is one where "guns should be banned" but I bet you believe "government should have guns". This creates an unbalanced system in itself, but perhaps what you really want is a system where the guns are put in the hands of people who are up voted. Perhaps only the top N people by total approval voting should have the power to down vote.
This kind of representative government would suffer the same problems that our governments suffer today. The people who are given power do not pay the price for their abuse of power. The worst that happens is they get voted out.
The current system is unbalanced, but only because people can shoot from behind a shield where they cannot be hurt. People will stop shooting as soon as they risk retaliation.
You don't go into a bar full of armed people and shoot someone unless you are sure everyone else in the bar is on your side. Gun crime is only a problem if people can "get away with murder", if the probability of getting caught and shot yourself is high enough then you will behave.
Unlike the use of guns, the network has the ability to "heal" those who are shot and compensate them for the abuse they suffered from the less civilized among us.
awesome way to put it... although I did agree with some points he made... it was still too anti-gunish for me that I intentionally upvoted my comment to keep away from his...
speaking of... would that be considered abuse?
nope, I often upvote my own comments to bring them to the top of the discussion. Privilege of Steem Power.
I do exactly the same! And here comes an idea!!!
When I upvote my comment I should have the option to not get paid (like with post where I decline rewards) That way I push my comment to the top without the community to accuse me that I am doing it for the rewards! And another suggestion is to get double power (visibility) when doing this!!!!!
Same
Touche
Yours is an interesting perspective too, I have some difficulty applying the analogy of guns and shooting to the actual Network and the mechanics of this due to lack of tech knowledge. Maybe if I just work through your post mainly keeping to the real world and see how it goes. There are some major differences though, such as no physical borders online, so some things that would work online would not translate/work in the real world. Due to this I may find myself objecting to things on the grounds they wouldn’t work in the real world, when in fact they could online.
I would say that in an ideal world neither govt nor anybody else would have guns. However, we live in a world with borders and the security of the populace from invasion and such is a legitimate concern. It’s interesting that you mentioned property rights earlier because it is quite pertinent to this conversation. Property rights originally stem from whoever uses the land. If we take the UK as an example, the inhabitants can’t defend their borders without working together and paying for an army etc. If an invader was successful, then they would have the property rights – in order to protect our property rights we end up with a representative Govt given the consensus of the majority to raise an army. The army has the guns, directed by the Govt, who in turn are given this right by the population. I don’t see this as an un-balanced situation, it’s not ideal but a needs must situation. I’d say it is only unbalanced if the Govt has guns without the consensus of the populace.
The ideal situation to me would be to do away with Govt functionality/powers insofar as that is possible and de-centralise things as much as possible, bearing in mind what I’ve said, there are certain areas where for practical purposes we need some form of centralised entity. We still need governance even without Govt though. While I’m thinking about it, your argument about representative Govt would also seem to apply to the way the witness system works?
One thing I would change is the way political parties set out their various stalls/manifestos for the population to vote on which one to choose. I would de-centralise this so that the population agree on an agenda then employ a “Govt” to carry out that agenda, along with the ability to sack that Govt for gross misconduct for not carrying out the populations wishes. I would also ensure that all public funds/Govt meetings etc are put on some kind of Blockchain for transparency. This would also be useful for tax purposes…..OH NOES….I mentioned the “T” word…..lol.
I’d say that the idea of a community pot to pay for infrastructure and care of the weak and vulnerable is a good thing. The main objection seems to be that money is spent on things that people don’t want it spent on. Again, if this is de-centralised and everybody given a choice on where to spend it for the good of the community as a whole then I think it’s a good thing.
Having pondered the upvote/downvote/flag situation some more I have come to the conclusion that we do indeed need all 3. The main issue I see now is around conflict resolution and I suggested a Court of peers randomly picked each week. This would work in conjunction with a time delay before rewards are paid. The “accused” could be found algorithmically I think, There would be no central authority and no people in position for more than a week, thereby negating fears of corruption. Users click the “agree to terms” and Bob’s your uncle, you’re covered. Any claims of force being used would be illegitimate as people can decide not to agree in exactly the same way people have the choice to join any society/community or not. Anyway, just my thoughts, cheers.
Edit: The flagging in this model would have no impact whatsoever on a post, it only alerts the community who alert the court. This will make people think twice about flagging.