You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Plagiarism on Steemit. A Look at @jpiper20

in #steemit8 years ago (edited)

Thanks for investigating and writing this up.. knew such things would happen, and at this state, plenty of resources are required to keep an eye out on dishonesty. Definitely something worth thinking about - how do we systematically do this, while keeping posts relatively easy to produce without the hassle of covering all angles? If his posts are fairly without good payouts, this probably would have been overlooked. So I guess when more payout = more DD required (duh).

And how do we conveniently keep track of the truth on accounts. What is universally recognized, and what is not? Will the rep system be effective in indicating dishonesty?

What I think Steemit needs to look into is a karmic vouching/referral system for new accounts. If I vouch for someone, a new account can be registered using my uniquely created ref code, just for one new account.

By vouching quality accounts, one also needs to tend to the lawn by performing checks once in a while to rectify situations, if any. The karmic system is network based. If there's a bad actor in my network, I will be affected in some way, weighted by my rep and such. But of course, I'm only talking about this with my limited experience and understanding of Arcade City's karmic (karma) system. What about those without personal connections? And what are the incentives for vouching when there's a heavy disadvantage for doing so, given the fallibility of human nature that may not stand the test of time? Obviously there are better ways to do this. Worth exploring though.

Sort:  

What I think Steemit needs to look into is a karmic vouching/referral system for new accounts. If I vouch for someone, a new account can be registered using my uniquely created ref code, just for one new account.

This is a good idea. It will also help people spread the word that they are on steemit.

The problem arises when someone starts vouching for money, which often happens. "Vouches for sale" etc. So the concept is right, the execution would have to involve vouchers being reviewed and their vouch ability removed if it is found to be abused.

Something has to be done thats for sure. Not just about new accounts being created but also about accounts that already have a reputation and SP but are proven dishonrable.
For example right now, even though he has been caught and proven a liar and deceptive, his rep is still higher than me and he has transferred more Steem$ to BC than me. Despite the fact that I run an organization with multiple web site, feeding 40,000+ free meals a year and operating under world class sustainability standards.
With freedom comes great responsibility. We must be responsible for upholding the standards that are important to us.

I'm kinda divided about this case. I'll try not to criminalise others, but the advantage was taken.. and he was finally proven wrong in his initial claims, and did not buckle when prodded earlier by @pfunk and the others.. Don't really know what to think of this, other than rep points taking a significant hit, at least.. hmm, need to read more about this.

I really like that idea. I work with a system like that and whomever I bring on board I am responsible for.

That site is very specifically invite only, here where it is not... it is still an option. There's talk of an internal platform verification being worked on (I am not 100% on details). I am positive that I also heard it won't be mandatory. So whats wrong with offering a third option... a karmic invite you can grant, but it ties your account in very real ways to theirs? I love it

What site is that?

Oh it's iptorrent lol. So not mine or under my control and is invite only, but my account ultimately is held accountable for an account I invite that breaks the rules

Hang that bitch, I mean ....ugh plagiarism is not cool!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.19
JST 0.033
BTC 89479.36
ETH 3038.26
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.80