All this muting, hiding, and safe spaces are favoring the abusers.
Hiding abuse to not confront it is not conducive to healthy ecosystems, imo.
Bring back the n2, flag the ~70 accounts that can, if they do, abuse it enough to make the math unworkable.
We solved this problem, but stinc vetoed it to give us bid bots and proof of wallet.
Despite knowing from the gitgo where we would end up.
Here we are.
All hail, stinc!
How will N^2 solve anything, except give a 1 million SP whale a 1 trillion voting power?
Oh, I see now, you'd use that super-power to... flag! Nice.
There are, actually, amusing ways around such flags.
I worked on this too, so know which algorithms can be discovered - send a sentinel to catch a bot. All of which leaves the users, the middle class, either ignoring the flagwars or feeling that the system is not so social.
I would prefer to change the economic code so that abuses are marginal and marginally profitable.
We do, however, agree that building a healthy community on top of an unhealthy ecosystem is not working.
Yes, give downvotes equal power to upvotes and let's see if the abusers win, or if the community defends itself.
Negative curation should pay just like positive curation, imo.
If the community doesn't defend itself from abuse, then it earned its failure.
Do tell?
Retribution is always after the event, is it not better to design a system whereby less flagging is needed because perceived abuse is less profitable?
Eg, voting rings are less visible to most users but are a content-less drain on rewards. Flagging can be done by dedicated sentinels, but needs SP to keep it going. Would it not be better to design a system whereby such votes drain their power more quickly, thereby making them less profitable?
What do you mean by giving downvotes "equal power"? You mean get curation rewards for flagging?
If we arent getting back the n2 proof of brain, then downvotes should be same same with upvotes and flags used for abuse.
Curation is positive, and negative.
Steem is open to abuse by design, if we don't want it abused we have to defend it.
By design.
That design was getting worked out by the guy that designed it until an appeal to authority rekt it, two years ago.
Downvoting does not have a proven track record in solving problems - it requires continual engagement and tends to fade out without ever really changing anything. It requires investors to forego their own profits and that can't last forever.
It appears to be the way the system was designed.
Is it perfect, no.
Is it better than linear rewards, i think so.
We see what ned gave us, i say we give dan's design a chance.
Will some whales have to be the adults, yes.
Will the 1.4 million accounts be better off, i think so.
We have to solve the abuse of the less than 70 accounts that are still abusing us somehow.
I say make downvoting equal to upvoting and lets find out if the abusers will push us off the cliff or if the community will defend itself.
I'm pretty sure a combination of empowering users to reject content they don't want via voter muting and also improving curation rewards should be enough to tip things towards organic post discovery and proof of brain.. but ultimately, we won't really know until the different options are tried out since there are so many variables involved and so many different people. It would be good if the new foundation made plans to find ways to experiment with the different ideas that people have to improve these areas.
Muting just pushes abuse off the radar.
Instead of confronting, and resolving, abuse, hiding in a safe space is not a viable means to ending abuse, imo.
Excising cancerous stake needs to be discussed.
Especially if the n2 is to return.
Look what proposing a fork got us.
Steem was doing just fine with the n2 until an appeal to authority rekt us.
All hail, stinc!
My vision for voter muting (which is not the same as normal muting) is that it would result in everyone being empowered to just negate the entire net result of using bid bots. Partiko already does this as i understand and so does steve. All it takes is for this kind of feature to be popularised and it becomes the norm and now there's no benefit from an exposure perspective to using bots. At that point the users of bots might still continue to some extent, but the margins are very small now I think and ultimately we can probably never stop private agreements to upvote each other anyway. From my perspective, as long as proof of brain is working again, many problems get fixed that are absolutely essential for Steem's survival and usefulness.
The justification for bots is based on ROI and those magical 'market forces' - so I think it's appropriate to use those to negate them.
Ned has stated that he is all for forks, just not ones that split the chain deliberately. SMTs could absolutely provide a framework to try out many experiments - so it's very unfortunate we are having to wait so long for them. We are in limbo right now really.
All because of an outranking.
I agree that proof of brain is the desired end goal.
I just think that the abusers that have brought us here may not be the optimal choice in counsel.
Obviously, their opinion comes with bias.
Unfortunately, our world's inherited, general model of 'success' involves domination and maintaining that position. I see the solution as being whatever empowers as many people as possible to create the experience that they personally prefer. We can't necessarily please all of the people all of the time, but we can open the space for them to please themselves without getting in each other's way!