Idea: Reputation should be based on the Steem Power of your followers
Hi Steemit,
Here I go thinking again. Our current reputation system isn't too bad, but it does have some flaws. The biggest one is that all you have to do is play nice for a while and get your reputation up above 65 or so, and then you can go rogue and not many will be able to stop you.
Heaven help us if @steemsports goes nuts and starts spamming.
Here is the idea:
Voting on posts/comments would no longer serve to influence the reputation. It would only affect the rewards. The front end interface could still have the option to grey out posts/comments flagged below 0 rewards.
So what does boost reputation then? Followers. If you follow someone, you'd give their reputation a boost equal to your steempower. I don't think this should be an N^2 thing. Just a flat power curve. If a whale follows you, you would get a nice healthy boost to your reputation.
And if you want to flag someone's reputation, you would mute them. Muting an account would subtract from their rep again equal to your steempower. This would be an elegant way of handling it. If you see someone spamming, or plagiarising or otherwise producing bad content you don't like, you just mute them, then you won't have to see any of their content anymore and you'd know that you dinged their reputation as well.
I'm not sure about the exact numbers but I think this could work really well. What do you think? Any flaws?
(I do believe that Dan floated an idea like this before, but I'm not sure if he gave any details.)
This will stop me from going rogue when I am ready. I'm aiming for a rep of 74 and then POW! Right in the kisser!
Rep based on followers. An interesting approach. Though it could create the hunt for followers; Such hunt could go into: I give you Steem/US$/Euro and you follow me; ie Gaming the system. But I guess many technology only algorithm has its flaws and leave room for gaming. Also, do you think minnows will start de-following others, eg Whales, when such Whale is posting 'wrong' and 'bad' posts and comments, and when a Whale is flagging? Keep in mind, the flagging by some of the Whales are sometimes good, and sometimes not so good, it really depends how you look at things.
In the science world the number of references to your article establishes a kind of reputation. Google uses similar way of ranking search results. I know it is not in our culture on Steemit to reference articles, but maybe we can start doing so when we build article references into the rep formula.
I opt for a supervisor board with enforcement tools. I know this goes against many of our fellow Steemians, but I think any new system should take the good things from the old system and use it. Supervisor boards may not be always implemented in a correct way, and can also be corrupted, but I'm sure we can come up with a way of implementation that will work better than technology alone: Think of members being voted for by the community; Think of limited time for each member in the role as supervisor; Think of rotation of supervisors.
Some will say: this is a police force. My argument is: When that is a police force, then all the rules implemented by technology is also a police force. The only difference is that the enforcer is either human or technology. Such supervisor board could get tools to ban certain users, or to mute a certain user for some time, or whatever measurements we as a collective decide upon shall be taken to whatever misuse of the service, the community etc. Some of us think that we shall have all the freedom we want, but in a world where we live together with others we have to respect each other. When someone is not respectful anymore in such a way it is damaging the community we are part of, some measurements should be possible to take to prevent further damaging the community. To decide if someone is going to far, some judgement needs to happen and some enforcement shall follow. I do really see no harm whatsoever to involve humans in such process; I actually think it is better, since not all situations are the same, even under the same conditions. In the end we are humans, and humans are not robotic in the sense we are all alike. Any situation is also unique, some maybe similar, but rarely they are exactly the same. At this stage technology is not able to make the nuance required to determine what is good and what is damaging for the community.
Wow you sure wrote a lot. I'll just give a few quick thoughts:
Gaming the system
The current system can be gamed. The new system could be gamed. Nothing much changes here.
Here is an example: https://steemit.com/reputation/@neoxian/neoxian-s-reputation-repair-service
Mostly meant as a joke but I had a couple people interested.
Board of supervisors
I had this idea recently too:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@neoxian/superpowers-for-the-top-witness
If you expand the top witness into the top X witnesses, you basically have your panel. I believe the current witness system is a natural fit for any sort of supervisor system, but perhaps you had something different in mind?
Supervisor Board:
It's actually not that hard to be a witness. Just takes a little technical know-how. Getting voted on is another matter.
If supervisors are not witnesses, then I'd still want them to be stake voted.
Why not having a mix, some members with higher stakes and some with lower stakes. In the end it shall be objective and IMHO that does not have anything to do with the stake itself. In fact, when only hogh stake holders are allowed, we do bot solve the situation we have now where whales are fighting with each other and the power is at a small top of the entire community. That situation really has to change, otherwise no suistainable uptake for Steemit I'm afraid.
I think you misunderstand. A witness doesn't have to have a large stake at all, they have to be voted on by those with stake.
I was mentioning more in general.
Witnesses require technical knowledge, excluding a whole bunch from the community, which is not prefered.
A supervisor board shall not be for a few, but shall be for everybody to reach. Otherwise the community will have hard time to accept; I would for sure.
Ok, I'm totally fine with the idea of supervisors who are voted on with stake, but not required to run or maintain witness nodes.
LOL just read your post on Rep Repair Service; super! You had a lot of clients back then?
I had two. One I decided not to help and the other I did help. I (and many others) helped @ltndd1 get his reputation back. He went on to post for a few more months until leaving for other reasons.
Though so little of us; Cool service anyway! :) Time maybe for a new service, something like "Flag Undo Service" and "I Don't Let You Leave Service"?
Hmmmm think reputation and power (what people have paid money for) should not be linked - but that is just my point of view. People would only be interested / write for potential big power followers. Reputation should value content while power is a different discipline.
I appreciate a new idea but not a fan of this (yet) but maybe i lack the details on that. Upvoting and resteeming for further discussion.
Keep in mind that under the current system, a whale can smack you over and over using their steempower ^2. At least under my idea, they could only do it once at steempower.
I think it's important to tie the voting power to steempower, because:
Thanks @neoxian - sorry for short reply, am on an island with not much web time :-)
1 - sounds convincing
2 - if it works that way also reasonable
Keen to hear more opinion from experts!
@neoxian, so i thought it was steem power that moved reputation up or down and not reputation. Your idea sounds good.
I am reading, but does anyone else doing so?
Nice thought there @neoxian
💡💡💡👍
How do you compensate for people who delegate their SP?
Hmm good question. If you delete your SP to some other account, you are trusting them to make decisions for you. It's not too much of a stretch to say that receivers of delegated steem power can also enjoy the greater influence over reputation.
Seems like a good idea however if it gets implemented then what about those who hold high reputation currently? And I think in this way the new joiners will have hard time to achieve high reputation since its pretty harder to convince someone to follow you then just comment or upvote.
I don't think so, I have 103 followers, I believe it is not who you are but what you do here.
People with high reputation tend to also have lots of followers. Most of them probably wouldn't be changed too much.
I imagine some accounts that benefited from whale-bot upvotes for a long time might lose a bit of rep. And I'm fine with that.
Doesn't reputation go up the more votes you get on your content?
I am not sure and would like to get more feedback on this anyways.
I got around 860 followers but my reputation moves slow especially since the experiment flagging attacks. I am truly confused so I can't really comment much on your idea. Looks interesting
With your 860 followers, you would do quite well under my new system. And the flagging attacks wouldn't hurt your rep anymre.
859 :)
Hurrahhhh I am in. I read carefully again and actually like your ideas.
Interesting idea.
I think that is a great idea,
shared on Twitter.