It could be tied to reputation instead then. You can get rep without increasing your SP hugely, but you have to have participated a lot to get, say 65.
As far as the blockchain is concerned there is no difference between someone manually voting and a bot voting. However a bot cannot get a high rep on its own (yet, and though there is some gaming of this, it is only effective to a point).
Someone can run a bot on their account which they also use "normally" (I do). So even if they do this, they would have to have raised their rep the good old way, and thus qualify for participation in this feature. To restate, there's no direct gain for this, so it might not be of interest to people interested purely in their own rewards. I'd like to see a counter argument to the idea that having no reward for "down voting a down vote" insulates it in some way from abuse, even as devils advocate! 😈
A lot of people don't really like the rep but I haven't seen a robust takedown of it. I can see this idea getting critiqued on that point but if anyone does, please point out how rep is not good for this. As it's a feature, probably permanent and could be improved, it's wise to use as much of what's there as possible. Less change = more stable in terms of code.
Edit: I think it should still be one unweighted vote per user. So instead of rep having a proportional effect, anyone with a rep above a certain threshold would be able to down vote the down vote. I think 55 might be reasonable?
Good. I think this may have been suggested before in general for voting and flagging, but since this takes away the power from the stake holders, they rejected it. Using it for a negation of flags, is interesting, but stakeholders might still object.
The stake holders want to have their stake mean something, which is understandable, but given the imbalance this creates in what is supposed to be a "social network" for social media, the limited people who have the power creates issues.
So 200 people with certain rep? What if there are only 20 or 30 people? I think the high rep limits how effective this might be to implement on a per post basis, especially with no communication functionality to make people aware of flag issues to negate.
The number 200 is not important, I pulled it out of the air. It could be fixed at some different value or proportional to something.
If you like this solution, it doesn't matter if some of the stakeholders rejected something like it in the past, it's time to bring it back up and see if it flies.
This is a limit on abuse, something most people can get behind (I guess). It doesn't take away too much power, it's a limit on very unpopular use of a feature which is inherently negative but which is required in general for broad fairness. I think a case can be made.
So do you think this is a good one? What next steps should we take? Obviously posting about it and getting support is the first way but let's formulate it clearly.
LOL it's on me! Hehe. Well it's your idea, I will resteem, but you should get credit for it. You're the originator of the idea who can best explain it. What about that?
It's a good point. It would be cool if there was a way to co-author posts without having a third, shared and mostly redundant account for it. Might be another idea, I'm full of them 😉
Yea good point 😑 Let me stew on that a while. First thought is that this is exactly what SP weighting is useful for. But there has to be something. Will think. 🤔
Good solutions come up... but the problem comes back to bots. I will get into addressing the bot issue that I was supposed to 2 months ago... The bot factor plays into why many simpler solutions can't be implemented to bring about better functionality.
It could be tied to reputation instead then. You can get rep without increasing your SP hugely, but you have to have participated a lot to get, say 65.
As far as the blockchain is concerned there is no difference between someone manually voting and a bot voting. However a bot cannot get a high rep on its own (yet, and though there is some gaming of this, it is only effective to a point).
Someone can run a bot on their account which they also use "normally" (I do). So even if they do this, they would have to have raised their rep the good old way, and thus qualify for participation in this feature. To restate, there's no direct gain for this, so it might not be of interest to people interested purely in their own rewards. I'd like to see a counter argument to the idea that having no reward for "down voting a down vote" insulates it in some way from abuse, even as devils advocate! 😈
A lot of people don't really like the rep but I haven't seen a robust takedown of it. I can see this idea getting critiqued on that point but if anyone does, please point out how rep is not good for this. As it's a feature, probably permanent and could be improved, it's wise to use as much of what's there as possible. Less change = more stable in terms of code.
Edit: I think it should still be one unweighted vote per user. So instead of rep having a proportional effect, anyone with a rep above a certain threshold would be able to down vote the down vote. I think 55 might be reasonable?
Good. I think this may have been suggested before in general for voting and flagging, but since this takes away the power from the stake holders, they rejected it. Using it for a negation of flags, is interesting, but stakeholders might still object.
The stake holders want to have their stake mean something, which is understandable, but given the imbalance this creates in what is supposed to be a "social network" for social media, the limited people who have the power creates issues.
So 200 people with certain rep? What if there are only 20 or 30 people? I think the high rep limits how effective this might be to implement on a per post basis, especially with no communication functionality to make people aware of flag issues to negate.
The number 200 is not important, I pulled it out of the air. It could be fixed at some different value or proportional to something.
If you like this solution, it doesn't matter if some of the stakeholders rejected something like it in the past, it's time to bring it back up and see if it flies.
This is a limit on abuse, something most people can get behind (I guess). It doesn't take away too much power, it's a limit on very unpopular use of a feature which is inherently negative but which is required in general for broad fairness. I think a case can be made.
So do you think this is a good one? What next steps should we take? Obviously posting about it and getting support is the first way but let's formulate it clearly.
Yes, it's good! I said good :)
Make a post on your solution ;)
Thread depth reached
I was making these suggestions for you to use! I might make a post but it's on you. 😬
LOL it's on me! Hehe. Well it's your idea, I will resteem, but you should get credit for it. You're the originator of the idea who can best explain it. What about that?
Thread depth reached 2
It's a good point. It would be cool if there was a way to co-author posts without having a third, shared and mostly redundant account for it. Might be another idea, I'm full of them 😉
Thread depth reached 3
I didn't suggest this but had another idea, check it out
Yea good point 😑 Let me stew on that a while. First thought is that this is exactly what SP weighting is useful for. But there has to be something. Will think. 🤔
Good solutions come up... but the problem comes back to bots. I will get into addressing the bot issue that I was supposed to 2 months ago... The bot factor plays into why many simpler solutions can't be implemented to bring about better functionality.