You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I Got Flagged Three Times Yesterday. Did You?
Those definitely aren't connected with steemcleaners. The people running them probably don't care about the accounts, but they're going to get smacked. Sorry you had to deal with it.
If they keep going, eventually, everyone will deal with it, unless they're picking solely on small SP and moderate to low reps. When you say smacked, how do you mean? Short of closing their accounts, which is a big no-no, what can be done to them? They're not producing anything so they can't be flagged for it themselves.
I guess I'm missing how the smackdown occurs. Not that I wouldn't like to see it. Bashadow has an interesting theory about it, if you're inclined to read their comment here. :)
Steemcleaners will start flagging them. There are a lot of other accounts that use steemcleaners' blacklist, so if they get on there, they'll get flagged to oblivion fairly quickly if they start posting.
If they start posting. I haven't checked today, but I don't think that's in their plans. And in that regard, it's smart, so they don't get flagged into oblivion, but not so smart because they're voter power doesn't go as far as would otherwise. Although the hit to voting power must not be nearly as big when you flag as when you upvote, because they've hitting with 100% flags and been able to do it quite a bit each day.
VP decrease by 2% of your VP per 100% vote. So if you're at 100% VP and cast a 100 power vote, it decreases 2%.
If you're at 50% VP and cast a 100 power vote, your VP deceases only 1% because 2% of 50 is 1. Make sense? So when your VP gets lower, you can cast more votes of lesser value.
You still recharge 20% (of 100) per day.
Okay. So, yesterday from 12:45 pm to 1:14 pm one of the accounts that flagged me downvoted other people 178 times. I have no idea what their VP was when they started or when it ended, only that it's at 22.82% as I write this. Based on your numbers, does that sound feasible? I mean, I get that's how it works for upvotes. But it seems to me that's not happening here with downvotes. The first 2% would give you 25 100% upovtes, and the last 1% would give you 50 upvotes until all your voting power was gone, right? That's 75 upvotes according to my math. What's more, they did similarly for five straight days, so there's no way they were at 100% voting power during that period of time, so they've been flagging way below 100% over that period.
Sounds totally plausible. You can't actually get to 0% VP. Even if you were at 0.01% VP, if you voted again, it would only take 2% of that, so you'd probably have your VP recharging faster than you could use it at that point. They can just keep bouncing off the bottom and they'll recharge 20% (of 100, not if their current power level) every day. So if they got down to 4 or 5%, they would be back up to around 22% VP right now.
Remember, each vote (or flag) is based off the current VP. So if you cast a 50% power vote while you're at 50% VP, you'll only lose 0.5% of your total VP. At that level, you can cast 40 of those votes per day. That's assuming that you wait until the VP recharges to 50%. If you just cast them all at once, you could cast even more because the VP won't have recharged yet, so it will be based on the lower VP.
Okay, well, they haven't been throwing anything but 100% downvotes at anyone. But you're saying they could go on basically forever this way each day if they wanted to and never run out of VP. I mean, it's not going to affect anyone because they have $0.00 to start out with, apparently, but I guess when you have 0, there's nothing to lose, so you keep flagging.
Especially if they can manage to recuperate faster than they spend. What kind of infernal inversion is that?
Yes, they'll never run out of VP. It's mathematically impossible. Just like it's mathematically impossible for an offense to score a touchdown by the defense committing and offsides penalty. Or for a defense to score a safety by the offense committing a false start. It can't happen.
On the bright side, if it's at the point where it's below 5% VP, the account cant' do much damage. There aren't many accounts that can.
Everyone recovers 20% per day.
If they're casting votes with 0.69VP or less, they should be recharging faster than they'll spend.... if my math is correct. That's very little VP, so it wouldn't have much effect.
Now if we can just get more people flagging the stupid haiku bot. That would be wonderful. I'm on it's "harass" list, so I get their comments all the time. I muted them on Steemit, but normally look at comments on Busy... which apparently doesn't honor the mutings.
Oh, the haiku bot.
Apparently I don't talk in haiku, because I've yet to be hit by the bot. I think I might have to start doing that so maybe I can wear the bot out. Do bots wear out? Probably not.
Anyway, I like it much more than I like the grammar nazi bot. That one just doesn't know what's good for it. :)
I don't speak in haiku either. It seems to think that just because my words have a certain pattern sometimes that it's a haiku. It's not. I've told it as much, but it doesn't respect that. I don't think bots wear out... unfortunately.
I don't like any bots that you can't opt out of. In my opinion, you should always be able to opt out.
Yeah, I suppose they don't wear out. It would be nice to be able to opt out, too. Haiku though is relatively harmless. Grammar Nazi is a little more intrusive because it's going around picking out one typing error and calling it a grammar or spelling mistake, when it could probably correct most of some people's posts on a regular basis.
The other bot showing up regularly is the Magic 8 Ball. Some people are irritated by it, too. It does get old after a while, but still rather benign I think.
I think that if someone creates a bot, they should create an opt-out for it. It's that simple. Or you should be able to block them from following you. They could still have access to your stuff, but they couldn't automatically see all your posts because they were blocked from following.
Another thing I would like to see is the ability of the post creator to hide content they don't approve of. It would still be there, but the post creator could hide it without having to use flags to get rid of it. As things stand now, someone can post a reply to your posts and put any kind of pornographic or whatever image, words, gif in it. There's nothing you can do about it other than flag or ask them to remove it. Normally the type of people who put that stuff up aren't eh kind to take it down. I actually saw an example of this on someone's blog. The author had asked and the person didn't remove it.... so I flagged it. And it disappeared because I had a delegation at the time and my vote was powerful enough. As it is, I don't think I could block something posted on my own post.
The way I see it, it's my post, I should be able to control the conversation. Yes, people should have freedom, but it's not freedom to permit anyone to walk into your house and start saying whatever they want without consequence. People get too ______ (fill in the blank) because it's online and they say things they shouldn't because of anonymity/lack of personal connection/don't see the other username as a person. It's complicated, but I think more control should be afforded to post owners. If someone has a thought they feel is getting "censored" on someone else's post... they can always just make their own post out of it. Then if someone wants to silence the idea, they'll have to flag it.
How about instead of an opt out, you actually have an opt in. I'm not sure how that works, but how is it fair to me, you or anyone else that we have to be the ones opting out of stuff all the time because someone thinks it's a cool idea to start running a bot around the STEEM blockchain. I mean, really. Why should I do any work at all? Why should it be set up that you automatically get it?
If you want to get down to it, there shouldn't be any kind of bots running any kind of auto-comments at all, with the possible exceptions of a steemcleaner bot or something else that is a warning or a notification of some kind with some kind of importance. I know it would be a hassle, but unless you make it all or nothing, people find ways around it.
So, maybe the bots should just have to be followed like everybody else, and then they can set up their little sayings in the posts or whatever.
I don't know.
I like the idea of an opt-in much better. It's much less invasive.
Steemcleaners isn't a bot. Every comment that is made by them was submitted by a person. It may use a form, but it's all manual. I agree that it's annoying that there are so many auto-follow bots. Some of them run by prominent Steemians even encourage a follow-for-follow mentality. It's not what we need welcoming new people.
Make it a requirement to follow the bot to have it comment on your stuff sounds like a good idea to me.