I self vote for my posts because I spend time writing and creating the content and feel it deserves my vote. I also vote for an entire community of developers.
I could easily delegate to another account and have that vote for me if I wanted to be tricky.
I could send money to bittrex and buy delegated steem from blocktrades to a random account if I wanted. There are ALWAYS ways to game the system.
I am speaking of abusive self voting.. upvoting yourself 100 SBD on each article comment etc. or abusive up voting of other accounts by a single account.. not minnow upvoting. There needs to be a way to track if someone is gaming the system so to speak, that was the point I was making. Here have .03 cents :)... This is proper up voting, you interacted, I liked what you had to say so I up voted you. Now if I went through here an up voted all my own comments with my powerful .03 then that would be abusive regardless of value, a point exacerbated relative to a users wealth.
That is why this entire situation is very hard to police. Is my vote more abuse than your vote? That all depends on the persons point of view relative to their circumstances.
That's why I think we should encourage downvotes from everyone. If 10000 minnows downvote an article that earns $500, one whale would be challenged to retaliate.
While I do think that it would be more difficult to retaliate against 1000 users it is hard to get 1000 users to downvote or get any users to downvote in the lower levels for fear of retaliation which I why I think anonymity would be good idea. I likewise think that we should keep a "flag" for illicit or illegal content and have a simple thumbs up or down for the article next to each other below the article and with equal weight.
At current I believe there lies a stigma to down voting someone as you come of like a jerk, or you put yourself on the radar for them to come after you etc.
As to whose vote is more abusive, I believe that is subjective. I think your 4 dollar vote is mehh.. if you upvote your own articles and original content, or if you split it with other users as well (as you have done.. thank you).. However if you just start posting thank you to every comment and upvoting it hundreds of times, it would be abusive. Much likely lies with intent and the outward perception of your actions. To use the legal standard of "would a reasonable person" assume the actions to have intent to defraud the system behind them.
As always one person can bring the issue up and if it is viewed as gaming the system then the community engages in flag wars or negative reinforcement until the problem is rectified. Luckily we are in BETA and hopefully a solution can be implemented to address these critical issues.
Lastly with the rampant use of bots, retaliation against a large number of users would not be that difficult for someone with sufficient SP.
Maybe, but that would prevent the ability to see abusive self voting practices
Self voting is not necessarily abusive.
I self vote for my posts because I spend time writing and creating the content and feel it deserves my vote. I also vote for an entire community of developers.
I could easily delegate to another account and have that vote for me if I wanted to be tricky.
I could send money to bittrex and buy delegated steem from blocktrades to a random account if I wanted. There are ALWAYS ways to game the system.
Self votes are not immediately abuse.
I am speaking of abusive self voting.. upvoting yourself 100 SBD on each article comment etc. or abusive up voting of other accounts by a single account.. not minnow upvoting. There needs to be a way to track if someone is gaming the system so to speak, that was the point I was making. Here have .03 cents :)... This is proper up voting, you interacted, I liked what you had to say so I up voted you. Now if I went through here an up voted all my own comments with my powerful .03 then that would be abusive regardless of value, a point exacerbated relative to a users wealth.
Absolutely.
That is why this entire situation is very hard to police. Is my vote more abuse than your vote? That all depends on the persons point of view relative to their circumstances.
That's why I think we should encourage downvotes from everyone. If 10000 minnows downvote an article that earns $500, one whale would be challenged to retaliate.
I agree and have written articles to that end as well.. Feel free to read..
https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@pawsdog/steemcleaners-useful-fallacy-or-wasted-effort
https://steemit.com/steemit/@pawsdog/steemians-need-to-downvote-more
While I do think that it would be more difficult to retaliate against 1000 users it is hard to get 1000 users to downvote or get any users to downvote in the lower levels for fear of retaliation which I why I think anonymity would be good idea. I likewise think that we should keep a "flag" for illicit or illegal content and have a simple thumbs up or down for the article next to each other below the article and with equal weight.
At current I believe there lies a stigma to down voting someone as you come of like a jerk, or you put yourself on the radar for them to come after you etc.
As to whose vote is more abusive, I believe that is subjective. I think your 4 dollar vote is mehh.. if you upvote your own articles and original content, or if you split it with other users as well (as you have done.. thank you).. However if you just start posting thank you to every comment and upvoting it hundreds of times, it would be abusive. Much likely lies with intent and the outward perception of your actions. To use the legal standard of "would a reasonable person" assume the actions to have intent to defraud the system behind them.
As always one person can bring the issue up and if it is viewed as gaming the system then the community engages in flag wars or negative reinforcement until the problem is rectified. Luckily we are in BETA and hopefully a solution can be implemented to address these critical issues.
Lastly with the rampant use of bots, retaliation against a large number of users would not be that difficult for someone with sufficient SP.