You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: People ignore the flagging proglem... until you show them how 'great' it is by flagging them... LOL
Allowing the community to vote against a player who is behaving badly regardless of how much SP they have is a simple solution. The votes could have different levels of consequences depending on how many people vote against them and the level of the vote. One other option that I really like is requiring them to have a certain level of reputation and posts before they have any significant power towards upvotes or downvotes. A person with a rep under 70 would not have very much influence when they flag or downvote someone. Checks and balances need to be in place so the community can help to correct those that are detrimental to the prosperity of steemit as a community and the value of the tokens.
I wrote about this, but I proposed to split the system into two distinct functions that complement each other: flagging and curating. Flagging gets unlocked at a higher reputation, >55, and curation at >30-40.
By limiting who can curate we can pretty much do away with autoflaging and autovoting and collusive voting sockpuppet accounts and counter them by flagging their content (necesary to increase them to above the threshold for curation) if they are used to abuse/game the system, for the benefit of large players especially. The flagging system as well, it could work as a way to limit people from negatively affecting reputation and visibility. Right now there is a real problem of one rogue account overloading the system by posting repeatedly insanely large posts and adding gigabytes in hours to the system ad infinity as nothing is going to stop someone from posting. This is a real problem that needs addressing now, before the community explodes and storage/bandwidth is more scarce.
If we put limits on flagging, curation and content creation we can effectively police the community, what we have right now is a joke, and it's a joke to argue that limiting those things deincentivizes SP without explaining why and how.
@Pharesim asserted repeatedly without explaining why and how it is as such, that reputation isn't consensus on the blockchain and cannot be used or should not be used to limit operations.
It most certainly is a metric that is tied to each individual account and without limits on operations and consequences for abusing/gaming the system it's absurd to address functionality or the viability of this platform.
My suggestion is to make a DV weigh 3/5th of an equal upvote and drain the equivalent of 10 similar upvotes. By stunting the curation system as such, spam and abuse can be delegated to a flagging system which has no recharge rate, and should affect reputation the same across the board regardless of reputation of the flagger or the author, or their SP. By creating tiers for people to reach in order to unlock curation and flagging and maintain a relative level above which they can create content and even send memos to wallets, we can then stop spam and spam attacks, effectively deal with bad actors regardless of their vests, and even abusive flags.
https://steemit.com/community/@baah/a-solution-to-the-downvoting-flagging-problems-on-steemit
https://steemit.com/flagging/@lukestokes/hey-steemit-let-s-talk-about-flagging-again
(wrote comments there)
https://steemit.com/flag/@dwinblood/clarification-for-some-people-re-flag-vs-down-vote
(and more comments here)
The obstacle that has become more and more clear is not the much needed curve change, as that won't fix any of the problems with abusive persons and their shields of vests, but the fact that the majority of people that can deliver this solution to the developers and the developers themselves see this topic as taboo and maintain a strict "It deincentivizes SP" argument without any WHY and HOW for that assertion, those two things are poisoning the effective discussion and it's viability, and pushing this problem into the future and marginalizing it as something that's not such a big deal is delusion at it's best, especially considering that there's no discussion about how to deal with overloading the system by even just one person posting at infinity and creating spam that makes bandwidth, storage and computation redundant!
You have put quite a bit more thought into this than I have and you have some very valid points. I never really thought as much about the bandwidth and storage but see how that could be a major problem now. I think your solution makes sense and at the least the community should discuss these sort of things. I guess the other option is just wait and see if these problems continue to cause issues and the devs can just fix leaks as they go. I have a feeling it will be dealt with eventually, but at what cost?
How can they expect to reach consensus if these problems continue to grow and the disparaging lack of communication with the community on these issues continues to snowball as well. I have yet to receive a thoughtful criticism that doesn't stink of that taboo of not addressing these things will make them go away, or lose your supporters that don't ever want to rock the boat.
Why would they be dealt with down the road when it's 16kb*20 seconds=69.12 megabits in a day from one rogue account just for commenting.I don't know what the limit for images is but it seems you can upload them in ghost mode and can be vastly larger than 16kb, and by ghost mode I mean you can drag files into the comment/post and upload them without posting it, and they are on the blockchain, effectively uploaded, and there seems to be no limit to this and this vulnerability is essentially overlooked!