RE: Bitcoin dominance is a metric of crypto failure, not success
I'm sure you care about Steem or you would not have taken the time to write that (which I will confess I did not entirely follow, but I got the overall idea).
I'll just let you work this out with @transisto. I was giving my two cents which is generally a negative reaction to people who complain about being downvoted when they are self-upvoting (or really in general). I'll say it again: no one is entitled to reward themselves. If you do it and no one objects, that's how the system rules work. But if someone does object (in this case @transisto), that's also how the system rules work, and the downvoter is getting NO reward, ever, for pushing back in a way that likely not only the downvoter but others too, find problematic.
He's using his vote power as he sees fit. Perhaps try to put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself why he is doing it and how you are both working in your own way to making a better Steem. Do you think he is being a malicious bastard and trying to ruin your life? Or perhaps is responding to a broader pattern of less-than-ideal behavior within the system that you have chosen (likely without explicit negative intent) to effectively align yourself with?
i might have skipped the point but we're in agreement (i too have to confess, for season steem users, that's kinda of a gimme....i think), honestly I could not fault someone who they choose to flags, or upvote, or don't (this is the great Steem experimentation), but if they do flag, i only care if ONLY this is something they personally decided is exactly what they wanted todo
i can think of alot more damaging things that can happen from this forms of distributed transaction, with system wide outcome.
Note: system wide is not unlike spammers and scam click-bait bots....also disruptive but probably to lessor degree.....someday we'll see much worst, i can imagine ad bots, sexbox, revenge bots, insane bots, etc.
if an owner of Steempower sets off automation they can end up abusing and without even knowing it....even the good ones, which results would be the opposite of their good intentions (so i hope)
Also: besides transisto, I've brought this up with lukestokes (he has delegated 1000 SP to one of these bots), we have chatted before so at least I truest he would respond and help this get better, and i have come to respect him from our conversation, i believe he was the 3rd witness i voted for.
i did try to put myself in his shoes, transisto's code is unknow, so i'm trying to give him data models for comparison, my description is probably not the best, for that i probably should apologize
if a community leader wants to create a flag bot, I suggest opensource the community flagging bot for review,
i can tell from bot activities, that there going to be a natural size cap limit on the size of the SP account it monitors, let me explain why
this will severely skew results as the larger the stakeholders (> few thousand to hundreds of thousands of SP), most will eventually have alt/multiple account, and the more upvote power they have, the more likely they will be tempted to selfupvote, especially if that's the their self-concluded main avenue of earning wealth via Steem (Note: this outside being a top Rep Posters, Witness, or running a sustainable Steem business, arbitrage, something else legitly profitable.....OR the most debatable significantly increase Steem BUIDL value, aka which increases Steem's dollar $value - this is the camp I firmly believe in)
isolated flagging by itself is just not a sustainable model (i have tried to tell patrice this even offer to help her with the code), make community flag code opensource, I know half a dozen dev on Steem that can give input to improve it to catch pluraility of the use cases (if not then majority of the disincentivizing negative impact behavior), i know talented devs who can put in a matrix that ties account to ownership so the flag bot owner can approve and run it for all to see
there are ton of investor giving 95% upvoters to themselves discretely, and new minnows within a few weeks figure this out and see the same thing and will try to emulate one way or another....and fail as they don't understand the economic model of support
it's better to utilized social psychology when we utilize flagging, and social-psyc tells us that what's stated or showin openly in public we will practice more self-control, especially when more eyes are watching.....most people will tend todo more of what's best for all as long as it benefits to themselves as well
BTW. if you responded this way @smooth, it means you care, and since this is our first interaction (i think), then it's a good one
No doubt those listed items and others like them will happen, and will need to be dealt with and/or tolerated to some degree.
However, on the matter of downvote bots, and algorithmic downvoting, there are different views on this. To one way of thinking, algorithms based on objective criteria such as self-voting, frequency of self voting, etc. are in some sense more 'fair' and indeed some people running these bots have very explicitly refused to adopt whitelists because it would or could be seen as favoritism. Or alternately that no system is perfect but the systemic good outweighs the bad on balance.
I take no position on this, I'm merely pointing out that when a bot behaves in a manner that seems inflexible, it is sometimes doing that on the basis of a reasoned position and not an arbitrary one.
Remember, when a bot does something it is because the person who set up the bot wanted it to do that. There is always someone who personally decided exactly on that activity (unless there is a bug, of course).
To be clear I am speaking generally here and @transisto may have his own view.
Nice chatting and I hope you are able to work out your concerns with @transisto
i don't disagree that it could be arbitrary, this is why virologist and geneticist have to work in a triple enclose environment, they can unleash more damage than good
we'll see more of this as artificial general intelligence progress in the coming decade
also by those very same arbitrary rules both @comedyopenmic will get flag, and if a matrix of ownership is setup so would @burnpost, to the detriment of liqudity of Steem/SBD and slowing down both rewarding top talent in the community as well as improve the positive cascade effect of retention (retention and it's correlation to fun is a compounding effect in any and all social network.....well so is stalking, envy, comparison, and such....but satire is better for the soul)
good chat
All agreed. If there isn't consensus on these things (@burnpost, @comedyopenmic, whatever really) and people are downvoting them (more than to an acceptable degree), then we'll have to move on to doing something else, ideally with a higher degree of consensus. That's the nature of the system.
I'm on record many times that we need more downvoting. That applies even if my own personal favorites end up being downvoted, of course.
Without any (or enough) downvoting, we end up with an anything goes system where every rip off of the system is successful, and likely a race to the bottom. There has to be a functioning mechanism where people say, "No" when the limits of community standards are breached.
That said, some downvoting is just disagreement and is healthy! If burnpost gets a small amount of downvoting (which it has) and still ends up with a non-zero reward, it doesn't change much, but it shows the boundary-keeping system is working, sort of like a "power on" indicator.
yes it's true, i do understand the intrinsically all downvotes benefit the general, and i'm not against it, but like any tool, it's how it's use
a knife and gun protects as well as murders? not really, only the users
as for @burnpost, it was my understanding the keeping the stash in burnpost and utilizing it to shift demand and supply "when needed" is important, hence the downvote does have negative implication...they are weakening (minimal i hope) a possible experimental control system
likewise i have seen comedyopenmic being downvoted and ridiculed for baseless reasons, and then we saw folks stepping up to defend (when i even had to tell folks to calm down and welcome criticism so we can all improve....it is a new volunteer curation base community after all) and provide even greater loyalty and support.....unexpected outcomes, but nonetheless Steem is the experimentation we all hope will succeed
personally, i think disagreement is healthy and necessary, alot of my IRL deep friendship came from good debates and disagreement (some has prepared me and my partners to also endure harsh times and cope with difficult decision with greater wisdom), even anger can be good......not unstable immature temper...but founded anger and logical disagreement, both in fact are very good and very healthy
Sure, but that is just our opinion. If others disagree, who is to say that we are right and they are wrong?
The system has to reach an outcome after considering input from different people, not just my opinion or yours.
agree, like you say as long as the post is payout positive, so there is something to burn to even conduct the experiment
on the other hand....i also can see the flip, if the burnpost project was too successful because it's proven it could work, so say in the future a BP could be like a massive $9K-$10K due to large support like >10% of all active Steem Power holders upvotes it
then it could be mildly detrimental in another way, BP could be draining the immediate reward pool when Steem price is low and the reward pool is stretched too thin amongst the growing user base. Perhaps that BP should be posted only above a certain threshold....say went 1 STU is > some mimimal $ value post BP, or else don't don't post BP (or donate BP back to all supporting BP upvoters post via a distribution bot)
hmm....maybe my math or understanding is off here, please forgive the logic errors in the idea, I'm just thinking out loud
Sure there could be tweaks to burnpost if needed (and perhaps prompted or motivated by downvotes and trying to make it more appealing, something which applies to everyone really). As far as the downside of draining the immediate reward pool, that is true, and it applies to everything. More rewards going to one post/comment is less to every other one. Every vote is an opinion on the best way to allocate. No one every really knows for sure what is best.