@mrosenquist So you mean we should implement civil forfeiture?
Somehow I don't see that working out so well.
The bot registry was part of the STEEMBOTS proposal, I'm glad to see people agree with it.
It wouldn't work on it's own though. You need something for the bots to do that pays enough that the incentive balances the risk / reward proposal for building a bad bot.
However my topic was never about vilifying bots. It was about explaining that proposed changes make life harder for human users and provide incentives for players to game the system.
@williambanks Penalties and rewards are key to any set of social rules, even in virtual places like Steemit. Rewards should be bestowed upon bots which enrich, improve, or benefit the collective user-base as it aligns to the goal/vision of the platform. Alternatively, penalties should clearly be established for those who are caustic and breaking the rules. I think my point is, instituting system guardrails and checks-and-balances is incredibly difficult. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to @dantheman and his cohorts who must achieve and somehow sustain the optimal balance for the growth of the community.
When looking at this challenge it is important to recognize the strengths and available resources to apply to the task. The power of a social network lays in the people. But there are limitations as well. People can create multiple accounts, upvote or downvote as much as they want, and game the system in many other ways. Many of these challenges were obviously considered when Steemit was designed. We have Steam Power for a reason. I see it as an authority rating. Everyone has some and collectively we can use it to make decisions. By leveraging the greatest resource we have, the user base and their willingness to participate, we might establish rules to reward those creative bot programmers who make Steemit stronger while at the same time put in place penalties for malicious bot programmers, set on causing harm, which invalidate their work. Basically making their effort to cause harm, largely ineffective. There would not be a penalty for creating an annoying bot, but if the system worked, it would quickly become irrelevant. What kind of programmer wants that?
A system where the steam of users can be applied by a community in such a way to ‘vote-off’ bot accounts. Let’s call it a tipping-point(TP) where the account would be suspended. Members could vote up if they liked a bot (ex. @Cheetah) or vote-down if they felt the bot was harmful (ex. @isaac.asimov). Just using these account names for illustrative purposes.
When users upvote the TP goes higher. When users downvote it goes lower. Once it reaches zero, the account is suspended, put in the penalty box, or whatever the dev’s want. Registering a bot also adds to the TP, making it tougher to suspend. Members with low Steem Power (SP) won’t be able to move the need much unless there are a lot of them doing it. Those with more SP will have a greater impact, which aligns to the involvement and commitment to the platform.
Again, this just an idea. We all have them. It is up to the Dev’s to really figure out what is best to support their vision of Steemit.
@mrosenquist Essentially we're in agreement. The first way you put it sounded like civil forfeiture. A penalty box would not be bad, but you need to link bot to human first because a penalized bot doesn't care. His owner will though.
Once we know the owners then let them have as many as they want to have as long as they feed and train them. If the bot goes bezerk it's their job to fix it or their account remains frozen until it does. I am totally against forfeiture, but a points based system that locks funds whilst already consolidating them at the owner level and yet allowing the bot to have it's own identity separate from her owner feels like the right solution here.
So yes, this is a good idea.
To be clear, I do think forfeiture is a viable option, one of many to consider. If the TP level is reached, then the community has effectively deemed the bot's action to be damaging. Any acts of the bot which produced gain (Steem, SP, and SD/SBD) would be forfeit to the community, rewarding those who identified the caustic bot. Seizure occurs in the real world all the time. If a thief steals money from your pocket and is caught, they don't get to keep the ill-gotten-goods.
This is one of many penalty options the Dev's can choose. Personally, I think it would be a powerful one. Financial disincentives can be highly effective against financially motivated anti-social behaviors.