You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Tale of the 5 Brothers -- A Voting Power Parable
I think the result may well be that more active curators do lose influence as you suggest. I don't really see how or why this is a good thing. We will have to see what happens but I wouldn't be surprised if this needs to be reversed like the 12 hour payouts.
Well, you have to keep in mind that there must be some threashold where we stop rewarding increased participation, otherwise bots will dominate the curation game. Even now, super andy's are "penalized" in the way you describe. And even if we allowed superandys to vote 80 times, there would be super-duper andys casting 160 votes that we would be "penalizing".
I use the word "penalizing" in quotes becasue its not really a penalty. For example, to borrow from the classroom analogy I cited above, when the principal decides to give perfect attendance certificates to children who have missed one day of class, you wouldn't really say the children who actually had perfect attendence had been penalized, except inasmuch as their award was now devalued.
I understand what you are saying but I just think that the previous voting threshold was actually better. Im not advocating having no threshold. I just think this is a change in the wrong direction. Yes people can change their voting weight but it still changes things. They are essentially letting people use more of their "rewards" on a single post if they want to. The problem is that is not how it will be perceived. When implementing things like this the developers must always take account of human psychology.