RE: The Witness (Circle Jerk) n-Person Prisoner's Dilemma, and the richlist Witness Votes - Some solid numbers for you to digest
I actually enjoyed reading your post and appreciated your work, this is why I have followed you, upvoted you and personally thanked you for it on my comment. You did not mention me with @ and only used it on the top 19 witnesses, I actually found this post randomly. So I am not sure why your response seems like you felt attacked somehow?, if that is the case then I do apologize.
I also read your other post on the -Person Prisoner's dilemma, it is interesting as it is social behavior, one that is expressed on many aspects of society and thus very hard to change.
And this is precisely my point, you believe that by eliminating the ability to self-vote, the top 19 witness list will change? I am telling you it will not. You are saying it is not moral and I am saying it inherent to human society and it is futile to rant about it. I also find very dangerous to believe that one morality is above others.
Take notice that this is coming from a #45 witness that has never been even close to the top 19 witness, and the reasons that I have never reached a high position are precisely those that you expose on your post. However, I don’t see a conspiracy behind it and I have seen many new witnesses with a lot of talent go up to the top 19.
If anything will change, it would by whales voting for whomever they see fit, changing self-votes will hardly move the positions on the witness list.
The only way to change it is to change the rules of the game.
It seemed like you were attacking me. I didn't really think much about how I put them there, I am just so used to changing -it.com to -d.com to see the activity log at steemd. So it was in part to facilitate that.
As for what you are telling me about changing the rules of the game not affecting the outcome, the only way to be sure of that is to model the behaviour based on a statistical random model with a large group of artificial players. If on average the rule change causes a difference in the churn, and it really should, then this will prove the point. Specifically, upward mobility. In my opinion, witnesses should not be incumbent, maybe serve for 6 months and then move on to something else.
Let's face it, if you haven't done anything with the big boost in income, then you should be taken off the schedule. I don't think it would hurt someguy123, jesta, or many others who have gone on to produce money making websites. Though some depend on that income to fund the site, even then, their prominence and celebrity leads to ongoing support through big upvotes from bigger accounts.
That cannot happen with a prisoners dilemma motivating this self and circle voting. Even after they move to a substantial new income source, they turn around and use it to continue to consolidate their position.