RE: 1776 Shots Fired (or) Why I Proxied to LZ's Witlist & You Can Too! ✨
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I have to write that this discussion is a bit beyond me for now. I didn't know the voting governance went so deep. I've been reviewing LZ's recommendations since he commented on them. I also appreciate oldoneeye's input into revising LZ's witness-list suggestion.
Post rewards are always a slippery slope. I've been working on fraud in our community through a "DV by justification" process for months now. I have touched on over-rewarded posts, but only at it's extremes where there was a logical fraud connection:
- Rewards on posts with "." as the content
- Duplicate posts
- Recycled posts
I can't get to the middle of the spectrum because there's no agreement...anywhere. I can't DV a post I disagree with because there's no justification for it or even a standard for reference. Can we even approach an agreement on rewards? Is that even possible? There are so many factors that go into an article's rewards it's difficult to manage the topic.
I can follow LZ's list pretty easily, but I want to drive people towards voting on making their own educated choices. Is there even a process to fully vet a witness's activities? Is there a way I can direct or educate new people on this process?
Anyway, thanks for writing the article and thanks to LZ for providing the list for review. It's always good to see how votes get used and how the people we elect utilize their authority. What I want is to make sure the right people are in the right place. You've shown me a weak area I need to address.
See, that's the thing, early on, the GUI wasn't always this way. There was a flag button for prescribed uses, and there was an upvote button. Over time, that evolved into this nightmare that we have now, and if you want to understand it: Watch the 'Black Mirror' episode called 'Nose Dive' (s03e01), watch 'The Orville' episode called 'Majority Rule' (s01e07), and watch the 'Community' episode called 'MeowMeowBeenz' (s05e08).
These thought experiments demonstrate why it's more natural to act more naturally. I prefer to treat HIVE like a market. If I see content that I like, read, and enjoy, I'll upvote it. If there is something that I don't like, I'll do like in the marketplace--I won't buy it. In the case of HIVE, I won't upvote it. But sometimes, I'll upvote stuff I don't like. And this is especially true if people challenge my thinking process in a way that makes sense and causes me to think about something differently.
What I don't do is downvote. Just like I wouldn't firebomb a storefront for selling things I don't like, I'm not going to downvote a post. It's impossible to come to standards for overrewarded posts. Some of the biggest enforcers that demerit the so-called overrewarded posts are the biggest violators of their own rules. What I'm saying is, they're hypocrites, and they'd do better off letting it go.
Besides some of the most overrewarded posts, these people are either untouchable in two ways. They are either highly regarded in the community and do boatloads of personal sacrifice for the blockchain. Either that--or they have enough stake to completely obliterate the rep of anyone who presses that downvote button on their post.
And this is why I say people ought to focus on: Spam, Scams, Plagiarism, and NSFW images that haven't gotten tagged appropriately. This way, people's hard-earned posts do not get penalized for ideological differences, and people don't have to concern themselves with the so-called overrewarded posts in the most hypocritical ways this blockchain has ever seen.
As far as witnesses go, I'd prefer to vote for those who don't vote for witnesses that target some of my favorite communities with opinion downvotes, stake-trolling, or abusive downvotes. I don't care if they are particularly-skilled witnesses in that regard, as far as I'm concerned, once someone learns how to run and update the code--it's mostly autopilot from there on out. That may be a gross over-or-under simplification depending on who you ask in their level of involvement on the chain.
I'll take a look at those episodes you mentioned.
That's one practice I'm promoting. And if someone's content is suspicious people would let me know and I'd evaluate it. I'm trying to get others to do that in POB. They don't like the DV outside of fraud control. Actually, they don't like it at all, but they accept it for fraud stuff now.
No doubt, fraud sounds like a scam to me! Enjoy those episodes. It will give you a good look into the human psyche when we turn the natural market on its head. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, @scholaris.pob!
I can see your point of view. When I write fraud I mean something I can verify like plagiarism, NSF stuff, scams, etc. I can't DV for something like an opinion. People have to agree with it. I also started waiting. I'll make a comment, wait for a response, and then act.
If, for example, someone quoted something from another source but didn't cite it, I'd bring it up and wait for a correction. That part can take some time, but it seems to make people happier. Mind you, none of this is a hard requirement. I just hope to influence enough to follow something similar. We tried to make it a hard requirement, but it failed.
That's very good, it sounds to me like
you have laudable downvote ethics!
I prefer not to do it, honestly. However, if I present a method acceptable then maybe others can follow suit. Ideally, my goal would be, instead, to avoid its use and utilize engagement as a means of deterrence. Unfortunately, the ecosystem is too large. While I can focus on a small community and start driving a small population to engage, there are too many other instances that escape my notice.
I'd love to read all about the Scholaris
method of downvote etiquette. Many
others could also learn from your way.
Engagement as a means of deterrence
is always a first best go to option. I say
that because sometimes people are new.
Better for them to have a good experience,
than to get immediately soured against HIVE.
If/when you publish, please send me the link.
I'll definitely send you a link as our policy develops.
https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@scholaris/proof-of-brain-update-voting-governance-and-new-changes
Oh, you're very welcome. I appreciate the conversation.
You mean escaping the -ship for good... do you not?
I'm not sure if that was for me or not, but I do love expanse!
just needed a good reason to watch tht clip : /
I felt good was done in the world when Amazon picked it back up. I love that show and I don't know why.
HORRENDOUSLY EXCELLENT RE-TORT!
Thank you, Sir Bacon!
Completely agree with every word
Thank you so much, that means a lot! 💖