Contracts for Newbies? - Steemit development
Nearly every job I have ever had in my life has come with a trial period which generally consisted of some form of training and the option to terminate the contract if things weren't working out. Most also came with a lower salary for the training period. Since Steemit is a place to earn, why should it be so different?
At this point, this is a just a poorly constructed flow of what ifs:
What if 1
What if before a poster gets access to their profile for the first time, there is a simple checklist of basic negative behaviours to avoid with a short description available. This would be a very simple way to make sure that some basic points are covered without the need to read the FAQ (which would be linked) that so many fail to currently read. This could be very easily translated into a multitude of languages in a drop-down selector. It could work as a simple contract.
I will not:
- SPAM - X
- Plagiarise - X
- Beg for support - X
- Scam - X
- Defraud - X
- I know there can be consequences at Steemit for my behaviours. (Link to details)
After this, there is essentially no excuse to say 'I didn't know' so I don't deserve the flags. It serves as a very brief but potentially powerful reminder/warning and may make many check just what is expected of them as members of the community.
What if 2
Next, for users between (arbitrary) 25 and 50, there is an unavoidable confirmation of a few points before each post. This is a reminder and a receipt of acknowledgement. Again, this could be easily language localised in settings or from the language chosen in 'What if 1'.
This post is:
- Original content - X
- Properly referenced - X
- Not spam, scam or Fraud -X
This would double down on the first and act as a type of pledge. If found lacking, the flags, @cheetah or @steemcleaners can rain down.
What if 3
Okay, for the same set of (arbitrary) 25 - 50 reputation users, what if 20% of their rewards are withheld meaning that once they reach the end of their trial period, they get access to the additional part of their wallet. This would mean that it is in their best interest to reach that point and to do so, they would have to play to a set of very basic, platform friendly rules.
Once they get to that point, they will understand the platform, be able to post somewhat decent content and identify poor quality, spammy, plagiarised content.
What if 4
This is a decentralised, largely unrestricted platform but, should every behaviour be acceptable especially if repeated over and over? What if, those accounts that are continually breaking rules, (especially scam and fraud) had their access denied and if serious enough, their value thrown into @null?
This one opens up some censorship issues but, if activities are fraudulent and illegal such as theft, should those accounts be able to Powerdown what they have taken so far? This one I am really not sure about.
Now, with these 'What ifs' I am trying to change the behaviour of new users from the get go as it will be both in their favour and that of the platform if they arrive understanding basics and learning more in their first weeks or months.
These UI tweaks shouldn't be very hard to implement and should be relatively easy to localise. The FAQ (short version at least) should be translated into as many core languages as possible and perhaps the development team can throw a little cash behind a team to organise that. A checkpoint, short description of Steemit etiquette ( such as @thecryptofiend's) should also be a compulsory read that has been translated.
I love the freedom Steemit offers but what my hope would be is that there are basic guidelines that improve the overall standing of the platform and some lines that are uncrossable. A scam or fraudulent account for example should be burnable.
With currently so few interfaces onto the blockchain, some version of this system could be implemented by the Devs at each project so that no matter what the access point, there is some consistency.
I think that if we make more people jump a little higher to get in, it won't stop people coming but it will get them invested into making Steemit a great place to interact, post and hopefully earn. There is so much hidden potential that could reveal itself if, and only if, we get through these current issues.
Again, my disclaimer is that this is far from fully thought out and lacking the technical implications and many other ramifications. It can't do much about the people already here behaving poorly etc. It is more of a discussion to get mental juices bubbling a little.
Yes/no/maybe/GTFO?
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Nice proposal, however this would only increase the difficulty of getting the platform into mainstream exposure.
Let us face it. steemit.com is not for every one. There is a learning curve of becoming somewhat familiar on how the fuck things are going on here.
For someone who is not much into blogging and crypto stuff, the sheer amount of complexity here would seem too overwhelming for them particularly those who work 8 hours a day.
Ordinary Facebookers would only easily get frustrated upon their first shit posting and realizing no one even bothers to read, how much more after 7 days and all of their activities are hardly making even at 10 cents combined.
This is not for the lay netizen. Perhaps those above-mentioned regulations will be necessary when STEEM price climbs up.
The increased difficulty would be short lived past maybe the first entry screen as behaviours spread. Right now, a new user comes in and without having their own feed developed, see spam and shit posts and think 'Well, this is the way of Steemit'.
I don't mind raising barrieers to mainstream in the short-term while we sort all of this nonsense out with crap content being upvoted be bought votes and delegation
I think it's plausible that it could have a positive effect for noobs actually. On boarding is always going to take a little time and new users expect to have to take a few minutes to get instructed or feel their way around. The proposal here is minimal and actually helpful, I think there will be tolerance of it.
Additionally a little extra instruction could make new users feel less confused and helped out a little, which might translate to them sticking around for those crucial first few minutes, hours and days to get hooked.
It's definitely true that Steemit is not for everyone but I think we're losing some people because they don't know how it "works" (as in, what other users expect and reward) and have misaligned expectations. I think that's the intention.
Yes, I think Steemit throws people in and then habit takes over meaning they fall back onto their normal anti-social social behaviours.
Oh I didn't realize you were willing to make such a strong assertion 😱 I'd like to hear more on your views on that.
Perhaps in a post :P
I think that sums it up nicely.
The undesirable behavior will not be curbed by these measures. The abusers will continue to abuse and it will just be harder for regular users.
I think you're on to something. Steemit likes to promote its website as a quality blog. So far it really isn't. I was attracted here because of these rules: no spamming, no trolls, no plagiarism and no censorship. A few more rules and hoops to jump through might attract more serious bloggers, people who actually have something to say, sports fishermen out to land a trophy, not seiners with gill nets out to snag whatever they can. We just have to recognize that it could be a very slippery slope and figure out ways to prevent flagging for disagreement or personal prejudices. It truly is a difficult problem that must be addressed if Steemit is to live up to its potential.
There are so many behavioural nudges that could improve the platform through the AI but, it would take more than tech people to design it. I don't want behaviourists from FB either as they will nudge for engagement, only. Lots of options, much thinking, many experiments possible.
Sorry, my VP is low and needs to re-charge, but I did want to comment and say that these ideas are good except perhaps point 3. Newbies already make so little that holding back any amount seems double punishment and cruel. Why not actually GIVE newbies a bit of a boost to start out instead?
There is some delegated boost already I think but perhaps more would help. But, this gives more reason to withhold in my opinion so that there is more incentive to stick around and be part of the community. That way at 50* they get a nice little additional bump to continue on with also.
My VP is straining too...
there needs to be a mechanism for submitting accounts for ban, along with freezing of funds. we need to have witnesses or some other elected body do this. require a majority or even a super majority or whatever. if this doesnt happen the steem platform is going to die.
The problem with this is that they would be inundated with personal vendettas and it will lead to an authority having ultimate power which is something that should not happen. The democratic process itself is very unsatisfactory in such cases as generally, groups are idiots.
Ok cool so let's just keep letting people cheat the system I guess
Also it's nonsense that no authority should have power. That situation breeds corruption because that's is nothing to stop it.
So, the decentralised blockchain should be governed by a central authority to stop corruption?
This a very intriguing situation. Kind of reminds me of the tug of war between Anarchism and Communism. Both systems equally share their positive and negative sides. At the end, Capitalism always win.
Seeing the actual happenings here before my naked eyes and the so-called flagging war between whales makes me realize how insignificant the voices of the minnows are.
There is no hope. I don't know where the platform is heading. So much potentials but unfortunately it has become the new mercenary battlefield. Some minnows on the other hand are beginning to accept the reality and play the game.
Side point but this:
I would dispute this reading. In the spectrum of anarchism you can have anarcho-syndicalism (which is the communist anarchist flavor) and anarcho-capitalism. You can contrast that with state-communism (previously in USSR, China, Cuba, etc.) and state-capitalism (the "West", etc.)
I'm curious what you mean by saying that capitalism will always win?
Exactly, these are the legit concerns. You can't have it both ways @dhouse, that's why it's a hard problem that hasn't been solved here yet
No, it would be a decentralized authority, much like the witnesses are now. You're overthinking this
I think I get you, just that they should have that power.
I think the point here is that some powers are too much, but you're disagreeing with that. An analogy is to the death penalty, where some people feel it is never appropriate because no one should have that right, and others who feel that in extreme circumstances we should allow authority to decide to remove someone from the community, from all communities, by death.
Fair enough.
Life generally is not a bed of roses. Full of chequered experiences
In addition to that, I would say
ALWAYS
--Jon Bon Jovi
Nice one
Superior .excellent