You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Make Flagging Great Again - On Self Up-voting, & A Suggestion For Improving Curation On Steemit
Flagging is designed to be conspicuous to avoid it's overuse. It is also designed to "cost" for the same reason (though the cost is regenerated for free).
From the perspective of your post, a more elegant solution would be returning changing the voting power decay to decay more slowly.
However from the perspective of dealing with the task at hand, self voting and circle jerking, what do you think of this post by @rycharde? In a nutshell, voting for the same person within a certain period of time (let's say the last 10 votes) would be less effective by some factor.
Glancing at it now. He's pointing out some of the same things I am:
"However, for any one individual to change behaviour unilaterally from one of self-interest to one of optimal social interest is not in the individual's own self-interest. That is the crux of the dilemma."
This is why I proposed flagging power. The current method of flagging makes moving from "self interest to social interest" not in the individual's own interest. This is why I think it fails.
"This must be encoded in the rule-set, the algorithm, and cannot be expected from mere behavioural changes because the Prisoner's Dilemma is a powerful disincentive."
I'd agree to some extent. That's why I think voting and flagging power drawing from the same pool can't work - I'll never want to "pay" $10 to take away $10 from someone that is annoying me with bad acting. I'd rather hit mute for free.
The further I get in his article, the more I agree (and the more it agrees with me):
"Self-voting and voting cliques cannot be eliminated. Indeed, for curators self-voting can be important in triggering votes from their followers. It is also a waste of social power to spend considerable time on negative interactions at the cost of more positive ones. "
Incidentally, I had considered the proposed solution he notes here:
"Therefore, there can be a rule that voting for the same user, whether oneself or another, will decrease the power of each subsequent vote, within a limited period. For example, take the last 10 votes of a user and, if a new vote is given to a user already voted then that new vote may be worth 90% or 80% of what it would normally be."
I don't have a problem with it (it would mean I would lose no voting power, as I definitely do more than 90% of my votes on others). I still feel like it is the stick vs. the carrot though. I'm not sure if I'd support the change.
Heh, your buddy is straight flagging my posts now. He's quite a self-righteous little thing, isn't he?
Unless you're @donkeypong.
Following you!
PLEASE EXCUSE THE LOW RATING, @donkypong IS CENSORING AND FLAGGING ME