RE: The Stupidity of Hivewatchers
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
You make it sound like Hivewatchers are actually multiple persons. It's not. The operation is mostly run by @logic. It's a one-man shop.
@Guiltyparties is your peripheral "head" in charge of an operation he has no business or time to attend to. After all, he spends more time dealing with other projects on Hive.
The third and mysterious @nuttin is just someone collecting all the payments and interests off of HBD. Who knows if that's an actual active member in the community or some red herring used to pay Logic some more.
I bet if anyone ran a cost-benefit analysis, the so-called "abuse" they curb is much less than the money the community is paying. Unfortunately, large stakeholders such as @blocktrades, @theycallmedan, and @smooth don't think there are any viable alternatives. I argue HW isn't needed at all.
That sort of organization doesn't scale. It's much better to develop tools and allow individual communities and their mods/curators to collaborate and figure out ways to mitigate things within their own boundaries and in their own terms. It's insanity to expect Hivewatchers to be judge, jury, and executioner for every community across the chain.
The accounts Hivewatchers now operate can and will eventually be decommissioned and used by Logic as personal accounts, as seen by the activities of @steemcleaners, courtesy of GuiltyParties, which he uses against opinions differ from his narrow world view. In fact, it's not unusual @adm is abused in such manner as well.
If you feel so bad for Logic, just donate money to him. Stop this charade of giving him undeserved authority to dictate what others can do on this chain.
I have voiced my discontent about them in the past only to be booted out of the chat channels by GuiltyConscious himself. He even tried to brand me as some anti-Hive element, but couldn't muster the so-called "evidence".
To echo @pfunk's sentiments about HW, it's time to consider firing them.
Everyone should unvote @abit and @guiltyparties as witnesses as well as the Hivewatchers proposal.
The keys to @adm needs to be changed to make sure HW operators no longer possess them. They don't deserve to operate like this on the community's dimes.
EXACTLY! Each community has the ability to mute/ban users who are misbehaving in their community.
You speak the true true.
Not even sure firing is the right term, more of a shift of responsibility towards tending to a well trained algo rather than being the deciding factor.
But yeah, preach the good word captain!
You are much nicer than me.
Understanding, not nice.
I'm an asshole, but also look at things objectively. :P
I'm looking at this after having burned down massive amounts of hours of infighting surrounding this topic. But I've been buying deeper into the Neoxian Tribe for months by now and it seems I was on to something.
These fights started to follow me into my dreams, and that's why I lay low a little bit right now.
Shoutout to you klye, hope you're doing well! cheers
I would agree with this if communities were providing their own reward funds, but since the reward funds all come from the commons of Hive stakeholders, Hive stakeholders have an unavoidable interest in how rewards are paid or not paid.
I'd be all for revamping how rewards work. For example, reallocate all of the common funds to DHF, and individual communities can then make proposals for their own reward funds, which they manage as they see fit. I don't think the one common pool has ever worked very well.
(The above was not meant as a specific proposal, which would require much greater attention and detail, it was a quick idea off the top of my head how the common reward pool which has not added much value and has always been very contentious could be restructured. There are probably better ways.)
We have had small curator-friendly tools developed at little to no cost.
The point is to enable the assigned curators to do what the curation initiatives or delegators expected them to do.
As for more sophisticated tools, I'm sure the stakeholders can fund the development of better algorithms through the DHF to detect certain abuses. There could be multiple people who hang out in the Hive Discord or whatever to scrutinize the feeds, etc. in the open.
The current system is broken. It's like letting the Demiurge pretend he's the Creator God of the universe.
As for rewards, yes, I do agree that some revamp needs to happen. This common pool is cursed.
That's a great idea, but will it increase decentralization and what are the attack vectors?
Host server, I suppose. The bot's database is separate for each server it serves in.
I see, that seems to be rather a feature.
Is this relate to above post?
Hw's maintaining the database of abusive accounts, and having somebody managing that daily grind, is something I have not seen a viable alternative to on offer, yet.
Hive-DR has been the alternative built by 'the community', but we lost our dev at the fork and haven't really recovered from that.
We do have many of the small group of folks cut out for this type of work engaging through our discord server.
While some development is ongoing, as always, more funds would speed things up.
Bad curation is the root of this all.
Curators simply refuse to take the time to vet their votes, most are not suited to working in anti-abuse, don't have the talent nor temperament needed to face the fraudulent users' lies day after day.
I don't blame them, I'm not suited to pull the trigger on flags, either.
I think those that do take on this chore, collectively for us all, should be encouraged, but my stake is a drop in the bucket.
Hw's is not the only option, and hasn't been for a very long time.
Ganging up to improve rewards is the solution?
Better, imo, to crab bucket the governance, individually.
Let the second layer worry about tokens and their various distribution models.
The more hands holding hive the better.
You can see how the curators have fed their friends until they are fat enough to feed their's all while they collectively drove the majority of 2.4 million people away.
Plenty of accounts, lauded as 'par excellence' by the most powerful curators on the platform, with high reps and sub 2mv wallets, while those that do powerup and intend to stay are pushed off the rewards tail entirely by bad curation at the top.
20 accounts take 50+ percent of the pool, day after day, for years now.
Some accounts would be richer than god if the coin mooned.
Instead of the redshills and the bildaboogers running the planet it would be hive whales.
That isn't likely to happen, iyam.
Until it takes 1000 accounts to earn the first 50% of rewards, the coin is not nearly decentralized enough for me.
The database of abusive accounts has largely been corrupted into near worthlessness by @logic's poor logic regarding abuse. I see automated @spaminator downvotes on posts from some of my favorite (non-abusing) users.
Is there some way to automate that?
Or, maybe it's time to find new management?
That daily grind is something that requires a special temperament, but that temperament has to have somebody ride herd on it, or the power goes to its head, in my experience.
I'd like to see the Hivewatchers proposal unfunded until logic finds a job better suited for him. Abuse may increase temporarily but the void of anti-abuse won't be unfilled forever. I've long said that Hivewatchers needs to fire him, or Hive needs to fire Hivewatchers.
Who replaces him?
Not many willing to do that job, that I can see.
Can we get a proposal to manage the abusive account list from somebody capable of doing it?
I'm seeing more a lack of alternatives than any real support from 'the community'.
Absent a viable alternative I wouldn't be in favor of doing without, there is a real need in the hive for what is being done.
I do favor more active voices in the anti-abuse community, though.
There has been far too few of us for far too long, iyam.
There has been a lot of abuse by anti-abusers. It takes a special bird not to be feathered by it's flock.
Power corrupts.
I refute this. Rather, the corrupt seek power.
I was handed power, a few times, I was not up to the responsibility, but I recognize that now, and no longer seek power.
No doubt the corrupt do love them some power.
Can you join this room: https://app.element.io/#/room/#hivediscord:matrix.org?
@amaterasusolar was dissatisfied with your treatment of her, and I would like to see the differences further discussed.
I am aware. I am not responsible for the beliefs of others. I provided factual evidence and they managed to avoid addressing it. I do have things to do that have the potential to benefit good people, and beating my head against the brick wall of someone that refuses to see what is plainly visible isn't one of them.
I appreciate your good concern for your friends, but am confident that you also can profit by restricting yourself to discourse that features mutual agreement as to demonstrable facts.
If you are aware of our discussion you will have observed I plainly and repeatedly requested them to quit. I expect you to be able to imagine how you would consider your request of me were it made of you in that circumstance.
Edit: I realized belatedly I failed to point out that my comment did not mean that everyone that seeks power, or finds themselves with it, has nefarious purpose. We have spoken before of your participation and I am satisfied you have duly considered my thoughts on the matter, and take actions you decide are proper.
I checked out of the conversation as tldr, which was what prompted my attempt to get a rehash in chatroom.
It's private, encrypted, and off chain.
I'll leave it to ya'll to drop or gnaw, as you wish.
One of the things I like best about Hive is that our posts are public, and uncensorable.
I have endeavored to exit that conversation without muting, because I am averse to censorship, and particularly censorship that eliminates information I am availed. I have managed to move on, and that is exactly what I have sought.
Your favourite users are arrogant, self-entitled abusers. Most of them are also as vulgar in their language and insults as you. You are now being muted.
Did you get this comment under the right person?
Says the arrogant asshole who will lose his sorry little ass very soon. Tsk Tsk
Excellent! now the assless asshole won't know what butchered his sorry little ass. LoL
I had no idea I was an arrogant, self-entitled abuser.
There must be more to life.
Hahahaha, ¡Search & Learn!
That may be, in that case, let's have an alternative competing proposal to consider.
I don't consider a free for all with no one putting in the time to identify and push back on systematic extraction (even if necessarily imperfectly to some degree or another) to be an attractive alternative.
People not liking it and raising objections basically goes with the territory. Everyone wants free reign to grab their piece of the pie without pushback, some reasonable some not. Too bad, free reign is a disaster.
And let's be clear about one thing. Regardless of whether you happen to like how it is being handled now, the vast majority of the (small in any case) user base is not affected. People can and do post and comment on all sorts of reasonable things and never get any attention or notice from anti-abuse efforts. We hear from the complainers, not the majority who are unaffected (except in so far as they benefit because the reward pool is preserved for them to some extent, with rampant abuse it wouldn't be)
I can't see not having a searchable, collective memory of the 'naughty' accounts and the details of that determination being open for appraisal.
How can we track large fraud schemes without this kind of database?
I continue to support @logic and hw's until a viable alternative is in place.
That's largely my view without getting into the weeds of how it works since I don't follow the specifics in detail. If there is an alternative making a pitch, I'll consider supporting it instead, or in addition to let them run side by side for a while and compare performance. If the alternative is nothing, then I don't support that.
I recall @themarkymark had a competing idea at one point but was shut down because the stakeholders thought it too excessive for the number of active users and favored HW instead.
This is the problem. Nothing will change because people like Logic know he won't be booted. It's basically holding the chain hostage for their supposed "indispensability".
There were days when HW had to pause operations due to "funding" and the chain didn't implode.
@smooth
There are good people in hive watchers from the ones ive met.
having said that, my initial experiences with them made me feel targeted and actually made me concerned that I was being targeted by a criminal group or harassment. At the end of the day they are people, and fallible. Always will be.
From my personal experience, it strongly made me consider leaving the entire hive ecosystem. The problem I think lies in that the hivewatchers are not HR reps trained to deal with all different types of people and the way that one person expresses something can be totally misinterpreted by various types.
Ive long thought on this, since this happened to me about a year ago.
An adjustment of some form to the system is needed. After brainstorming on this for a year, my best idea is crowdsourcing it.
IF any person flags a post as spam, plagiarism etc. they submit proof of their claim if plagiarism and use citations, or explain their case in the situation of spam or farming. Then let everyone on hive scroll through these situations on a kind of news reel feed, and optionally, give people who perform the service of verification some reward in hive or hbd, they will review the post that was flagged and the case of the reporter and vote thumbs up or thumbs down, if thumbs down on any case reach some threshhold, say 30%, the post has no reduction of rewards. If 70% thumbs up and agree with case of reporter, then all hive rewards from post are removed and vote power can or can not be returned to voters up to u.
Maybe limit accounts to 10 or 20 verifications a day, and 3 reports a day. you can reward a reporter at end if case gets thumbed up.
maybe some type of proof of humanity can help, id do this even for free and im not in hivewatchers, a captcha, idk up to u.
ill think more on it. \
best wishes, there MUST be a better way, systemically
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @forsakensushi, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!If you like BEER and want to support us please consider voting @louis.witness on HIVE and on HIVE Engine.
LOL ?
I don't view the idea I described as ganging up, I view it as decentralizing the reward pool to the community level. Communities that are doing a good job* can pitch to Hive stakeholders to be subsidized to have a larger pool to administer among their members. Those who don't want to do that can still operate entirely as they like with second layer tokens alone.
* Good job meaning things such as active and growing user base, attracting attention and acclaim from outside Hive, not being overrun with spam and abuse, positive SEO stats, energizing real world Hive-related or Hive-sponsored activities and events, etc. This will all be compelling to get subsidized by Hive stakeholders and when aggregated to the community level are more feasible to scrutinize and be reasonably resistant to abuse.
You say communities and I hear gangs.
Groups that exclude voices based on centrally determined 'reasons' are echo chambers.
Perfectly acceptable in the 2nd layer foodie/gardening/latte art communities, political trolls need not apply, but hive governance is better shepherded by being widely distributed, imo.
Better in the hands of the many, than in the hands of a few.
Each community will have governance, that makes it not a collective cooperative but a hierarchy.
Putting rewards into the dao and doling them out is far too centralizing, for me.
The centralized ptb have led us to here, why would giving
themyou guys even more control over who getsrewardsgoverning control make things any better when this framework has failed to deliver wider adoption/distribution up to this point?IF not failed outright, at least has failed to provide a thriving environment that welcomes newbs, real newbs, not just greedy grubbin' sockpuppets.
@penguinpablo has left, or I would quote him, but 12k daily active authors out of 2.4 million, admittedly mostly bot, accounts is a poor reflection on the hive's retention/networking abilities.
We were averaging 16k daily authors, but 4k have left the platform since then.
I can't read @arcange's chart well enough, but it clearly shows us closer to 10k than 20k.
I really would like to avoid being the crypto betamax, if that is gonna be possible.
Large stakehodlers have been determining who is worthy for a long time, how about giving the crowd a chance to determine that?
Do you maintain that centralized 'planners' can better service the needs of a crowd than the crowd themselves?
What happened to the smooth and @abit that forced an 800mv cap on the pool?
That resulted in some distribution of the coins.
Plenty of excited newbs during that run.
Absent the n2 it would have a different, but mostly similar, impact?
Not a repeat, but a rhyme?
Who can better determine sockpuppet/bot posts from real people posts?
Who can better determine who deserves rewards than the crowd receiving the posts?
I get the centralization of control while our market cap was 15m usd, that was a long time ago, times have changed, but how the crowd is managed has not.
'Communities' have flopped, except those centrally supported, accept that the crowd doesn't want them, outside the greedy grubbers.
No self respecting hivizen bows to their authority over who is deserving and who is not.
These are short, and @larkenrose's creations.
Funny how he doesn't post here anymore?
The 800 MV experiment was fine. And indeed, we haven't had n^2 or anything of the sort for years. Did it make a big difference? Not in my view. It might have made matters worse in a sense, since there is no ability to attract the true high value (not just crypto) influencers by concentrating rewards according to attention. We had some real influencers when we could concentrate by n^2. They actually drew attention to Steem. Now we have a bunch of mid-tier non-influencers posting photo and travel blogs, and Hive-centric blog posts, receiving somewhat less but still concentrated rewards, and accomplishing almost nothing.
No, you're not going to have a system where a million bot accounts (i.e. "the crowd") get to vote rewards as they like (which will, with certainly be to each other), being paid primarily by inflating away the stake of the largest stakeholders.
It's fine to have something like reddit, with equal, easily botted votes, as long as there aren't rewards. With rewards it breaks down completely.
Any commercial activity, anywhere, at any time, is run by the golden rule. Whoever is providing the gold makes the rules. There is no way out of that.
Are you saying that bootstrapping the currency by distributing it widely to achieve the network effect is not what we are doing here?
Because I thought mass adoption lies through enticing participation broadly, and not just a few bag holders divvying up the spoils.
As to the concentration of the rewards, doesn't that lay at specific accounts' doorstep?
These accounts have names and real people controlling them.
There is one way, but nobody likes to choose it, because it comes at a loss of comfort.
Comfortable slaves never rebel.
@enforcer48 may prove to be right, until the price drops below a dime there will be no changes.
Buying in doesn't make sense at a higher price.
The return in power is too low.
Time will tell.
Not very well, no. The actual, active human, non-bot, non-spammer user base is very small, and even in that small group the rewards are relatively concentrated (but still not enough to attract real influencers who might in turn grow the user base), and even more importantly the user base is not growing.
Lol, and no wonder, make a sock puppet, put some 'good' content in it, and see how the sycophants treat you.
How many 'you are not good enoughs' would you put up with for a few pennies of effectively worth less than the time magic interwebz munies?
Most people coming here do not get a real greeting, they get met at the door by people with agendas.
Bump every account's roi by 50% and see if things don't work very differently over time.
If nothing else the coin will distribute.
We bumped small/new accounts by FAR more than 50% when we got rid of n^2 and then again when we got rid of convergent linear that "penalized" small payouts. It didn't make a lot of difference. You would have me believe that the next 50%, yeah that's the magic bump that is going to be a game changer. I call bullshit.
Hmm, that is pretty convincing evidence.
You could be right.
Maybe people won't come back once they find out that a new management system has taken root.
One that doesn't endlessly pump inflation to the largest accounts on the platform, but actually lets the coin distribute to those that want to grow their stake.
I firmly support not voting rewards to any authors not on track to make it to 1mv before selling any, or that fall below some minimum expected of high rep accounts.
It is unrealistic to expect you guys to support the price forever while folks are dumping everything they are given.
But, this is on the curators.
Bad curation is hurting the hive.
That's you guys at the top, again.
Why would you suggest that doling out rewards to compliant communities could be a viable alternative?
That doesn't sound very decentralized to me.
It sounds like setting up a random number of new bosses under the even smaller number of old bosses.
It does sound like it pumps the bags of hierarchies and increases sycophancy.
It doesn't sound like user centered management of distributing the governance token of the hive.
But, that may just be me.
Not when they're actively flagged off the platform.
Every time you say rewards pool, I hear your personal stake.
You will be surprised when the golden rule is obsolete.
Did you see my post today?
I think rebutting it will be difficult.
'But, I have 10m hive on an exchange that is being diluted.'
I seriously think we are gonna have to go back to a dime before anything changes.
Curation rewards exchange pecuniary interest for those more valuable. Curating posts on the basis of how much financial reward they will create cannot but produce bad curation.
It is the elevation of financial value above far more valuable things to society that underlies this problem. AI is not the problem Hive faces. Were other values than money primary, no one would try to pass off AI content as their own work, for the reasons I stated earlier.
The ability to catch people posting AI content as their own will decrease precipitously, until it does not exist. Therefore the solution does not lie in that direction. Since the problems of spam, plagiarism, and scams also derive from the same principle, @hivewatchers has never been more than a kludge that reduced the symptoms of the actual problem through means that actually perpetuate the real problem, which is substituting money for more valuable rewards.
That is the underlying problem.
I blame laziness on the part of curators.
IF all of them observed a 10hbd soft cap on average content, the coin would spread farther.
I also blame crapitalism and its scarcity mindset.
We live in a world of abundance that we allow the crapitalusts to put behind a paywall.
On any given tuesday the workers could flip that on its head by working but refusing pay and to pay.
They make all the goods, why are they excluded from their share?
So we can have trillionaires?
People have been misled, for a long time.
It is not merely that we have been misled, because centralized industry has been necessary to advance technology from the Stone Age to the Space Age. However, decentralized means of production of the blessings of civilization are today the cutting edge of technological advance in all fields of industry. This is a new development, nascent, and the law of physics today mandates the paradigm shift from centralization to decentralization of production because the most advanced technology most increases productivity. Mass production, institutional control, hierarchical society, have gradually enabled technological advance because increased productivity benefited overlords with increased wealth derived from parasitizing collective production.
Decentralization eliminates parasitic losses, waste from mass production, and replaces mass produced cookie cutter crap with bespoke goods and services customized to consumer preferences. The massive overhead endemic to overlords parasitizing centralized manufacturing makes centralized production non-competitive with decentralized production. Decentralization eliminates the overlords themselves, and restores the egalitarian meritocracy human society necessarily was prior to the advent of agriculture, ushering in a new paradigm by enabling the blessings of civilization in such meritocracy.
We transcend politics, isms, and institutional power, even as we transcend localization to Earth itself and face the illimitable resources available across the apparently infinite universe. Regardless of any other factor, the ~2x increase in economic benefit to those that seize decentralized means of production inevitably leads to broad meritocratic dispersal of wealth exponentially multiplied by the raw resources becoming available.
I feel incredibly honored to be amongst the generation that creates this transcendence of crude barbarism and the initiation of incipient paradise that is becoming inevitable. I am sure my forebears have better earned such honor, and am confident my posterity will better comport themselves responsibly under such authority.
Edit: all we could have done, and did do, in history is to replace the old boss with new bosses. It is only the advent of decentralization mandated by the law of physics that enables transcendence of psychopathic overlords hell bent on dystopian totalitarian tyranny, and absolute freedom and inconceivable prosperity to be the legacy our posterity will inherit and use to create their felicity they will thereaft
Just to be clear with one thing: I will and never have used any account that has 'steem' as part of it's name. I don't even write or say that word if I don't absolutely have to, such as now. That will never happen.
HW: It would be a great help if people could offer constructive feedback to HW on scope, particularly new scope, and not only when they either got caught for something or someone they like got caught for something.
You gifted it to Logic to abuse. End of story.
I've been writing the same things since you guys tried to renew your sham proposal.
You don't care at all. You are just here for damage control until you can go back to the status quo.
Moar voices, better consensus.
I think instead of people complaining, maybe some others could be hired or offer their precious time to help attend to the growing needs of rooting out the rotten pasta. Nobody wants to be the bad guy, despite some wearing really convincing masks. Of course, I see a lot of the bigger stakeholders that don't actually care about that and want their profits maintained (obvious by a few comments). So, doubt that will actually happen.
Hivewatchers can do whatever it wants, but if it's getting funds from the DHF then there needs to be some accountability in the way it runs. A proper "charter" and transparent processes would go a long way to avoiding conflict and misunderstandings. As you know, I've seen a few and they are nearly always ugly. We simply HAVE to get better at this.
My view is that HW has a role, but is currently over-reaching and is not geared up to scale at all. We need to come up with a framework for how HW is going to interact with communities and educate users rather than just default to using the ban-hammer and it's guilty-until-proven-innocent. HW is currently operating like a bit of a kangaroo court so it's no wonder there is growing backlash.
Leonis, downvoted to disagree with rewards. I am sure you are cool with it.
Nuttin is an individual, who is not logic and not you and not me. I am sure you understand people can prefer to stay anonymous. Including you. If you know who freedom is please do let me know.
HW is supported by a DHF. If you or anyone do not like they don't have to vote for it. I don't think you vote for it. So that's that. It's a public process and stakeholders voted for it, including me. I find value in their services. I exercise my choice as a stakeholder. You do the same.
Regarding an alternative sure it's possible. Being better at customer service is possible. If you feel you personally can do a better job at cheaper cost, please write a proposal and stakeholders will evaluate it.
Otherwise I don't think there is anything more to discuss
Nuttin is only an individual by claim. You could be paying the same person twice. Lol
If you aren’t here to discuss, leave the conversation.
You aren’t here to hold people accountable and improve. You are just here to make sure things stay the same.
No. If you can trust me. I know the individual personally.
Please let me know if you are satisfied
With an account number of 499 you can bet it was one of the earliest adopters.
I'm still waiting for a couple of them to pop out of the exchanges, 'Surprise! I have 30% of the coins! I've been hiding that in exchanges and sock puppets.'
Until we cross the hump of the earliest adopters selling, anybody buying in is simply providing exit liquidity to somebody that isn't selling his principle, only the gains.
IF they left the pool to the daily users it would be different, but as long as they maintain their death grip on power, we are pissing into the wind, imo.
Doesn't change the facts of the tech, just makes it that much harder to come into our own where the actual community controls things rather than this shadow gov't we don't get to know who it is.