RE: Join Me In Discussion To Build a Better Platform. @pawsdog
Good post, here is my opinion on your suggestions.
I wouldn't be in favor of an arbitrary cap on rewards, I think that would be a bit too blunt. I can also see it being a thing that would require regular adjustment based on the value of steem/SBD/USD etc. However I think a system of diminishing returns could work well. ie a relitavly small amount for voting power would be required to get a post from 0-10 dollars but a much larger amount of power would be required to get a post from 100 to 110 dollars. IMO this would not only ensure that any given user does not get too much of the reward pool but would also help to direct more net rewards towards minnows and new users.
On the idea of a post cap, I don't like that at all, again it's rather arbitrary and dependent on the type of content a given user is producing. The recent disagreement points to this a lot, but as a follower of @haejin I always found it useful to be able to ignore or just scan through the posts relating to coins I'm not interested in. However going back to the previous point, if we had a system of diminishing returns on a per user basis rather than a per post basis that would allow for content types that favor high post count without it making any difference to the overall payout for a given user.
For outgoing voting and flagging, diminishing returns on a per user basis could also work. For example lets say I upvote user A and it gives $1, if I vote for him again he only gets 90c but a vote for user B would still be worth $1.
Adding reputation to calculations could help to discourage the use of bots and multiple accounts but this would be far more complicated imo. At the very least I think some kind of exception would be necessary for the likes of steemcleaners. Maybe the witnesses could be empowered in some way to police that.
I'd rather have a simpler and elegant system where it's easy to calculate everything. Let's say you put a cap of max rewards per week = number of unique upvoters per week X 5
No other arbitrary limitations and codes where you can find a loophole to game the system. The only way to game the system would be to make hundreds of bots which would be easily noticed and will also require much work to create and maintain bots.
As for flagging I think 100% flag should cost 3% or even 4% VP instead of 2%. Naturally the flags will be focused on negative content and flagging wars would end faster and will be costly.
Yeah, simpler is better. I'm not talking about anything too complicated, just a system similar to leveling in games, the higher you get the more xp is required to gain another level. It should be fairly easy to follow and it only needs to apply to author rewards, not curation because you don't want to discourage curators from upvoting a post just because others have upvoted to a particular level already.
When I read your suggestion, the first thing I thought of was an MMO level system. Though it isn't very complicated it still isn't something you could calculate on top of your head. Also what if some person is really a big fan of one or few steemians? Then that person would feel restrained and might just end up making some bot.
If you just take the amount of unique upvoters and multiply that with a number, you know roughly how much each person can earn while treating each vote equally. This won't solve all the problems. But it's easy for even a complete noob to understand and it's easy to explain to a new user.
Thanks for engaging in the discussion.
Followed you since you seemed like a very intelligent person.
ditto :)
I have come to think that the "flag" in an of itself sends the wrong message, as well it is positioned incorrectly on the page. If we are to keep a "flag" then let it be for content that is egregious or violates policy (hate speech, illegal content etc.) It should serve to notify a super user or delegation of content that should be examined further.
Along the bottom of the article simple add a downvote option to offset the upovote option as they essentially carry the same weight. Much like thumbs up or down on FB..
In regards to the flag, leave it in its current place but limit its use to egregious content and apply a penalty if it is deemed to have been used in a malicious fashion.
As to the cost in SP, making it more expensive to be a dick.. I agree.
Positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement. There is a reason Fakebook started with likes only and Instagram only has the heart button. If you don't like something, the default and encouraged action should be to do nothing and move on.
I do support the idea of a notification of power users with a separate button. We could dedicate a section on steemit where anyone can come and take a look at posts which other people deem as negative content and choose to flag them after reviewing. We could even make a sub-chain dedicated to this and nobody will have any central authority and even minnows will be able to help with their numbers.
Good idea, basically a "spam" folder for review.. solid idea.. I think you are right in that positive is better than negative. That said the money aspect here tends to motivate some members to act in bad faith towards the path of self enrichement
That's why we need influence through positive reinforcement. When theft is harder than honest work, people would engage in honest work. But there will always be kamikaze hateful type who always resort to stealing. There are no perfect system that doesn't involve tyranny. Jus make the positive stuff easy and negative stuff difficult.
Solid idea about diminished returns on voting and flagging I never thought of that but it is a really solid idea and tailors well into what I offered without being so definitive. We will for the moment have to agree to disagree on a post cap or combine the two ideas yours and mine, but diminished returns is an excellent idea. I suppose in essence you could could apply a post cap through your method wherein the amount of SP to push a post from say 100 to 150 would be prohibitively expensive in terms of SP. We may be on to something..
Well if you don't have a post cap and base the diminishing returns around the user instead of the post then I think you can kill two birds with one stone. Of course you would have to base the visibility of each individual post on something other than the payout amount.
I agree and I think that is why reputation should have more status weight applied to it. Add to that number of upvotes with reputation X or higher.