Open Discussion: How Do We Get Rid Of Flags But Stop Spam?
Hey Steemit,
I wrote a post about removing flags and there was concern about spam. Some people just said leave the flags and others wanted to find a way to rid of spam without flags. I feel we should get rid of flags, at least the way they are now. Like I said I have respect for people who used them in the experiment knowing the shit they would take but going ahead we need a better system. We need to work with positive reinforcement and not negative. The more tools people have to frustrate other users the more problems we will see. It is in hopes that we can get to a system that is setup in a way that it is only profitable to post good content and people who spam will find it a waste of time.
So let's figure this out. Remember most people don't care how the site works, they will just think WTF when something goes wrong and stop using it. And it is a lot easier to change a site than someone's opinion. I think a better filter system is one way to go. We need to start working on one anyways as more users come in. We need to find more ways for quality content to be seen at the top of pages. Or maybe a system that freezes post payment that are spam or plagiarized?
Let us put our brainstorming cap.
*my upvotes/rep disclaimer: https://steemit.com/steemit/@whatageek/my-steemit-account-where-i-stand-on-bots-self-votes-and-multiple-account
What I keep suggesting about the issue is this:
Keep downvoting to delegate rewards from posts that you perceive as collusive in the voting and therefore in the rewards but make it more taxing on the voting power, draining a lot more and therefore reinforce more thoughtful and meaningful downvoting and to weigh the influence SP has over the downvote to begin with, I think it should be weight at 50% less or 66.67% less even than an upvote by the same SP.
Then to counter spam we should have a flag button that effectively gets unlocked at a certain reputation level. The flag will effectively hide content with just one flag and it will be the same across the board, regardless of Reputation or SP, neither should affect the weight of the flag, the only thing that should affect the flag weight is if the person has been flagged before, which should penalize them for repeated offenses as such. To counter flag abuse there should be the option of flagging the flag and therefore the person who flagged. I think a ratio of 2:1 for counter flag will keep people from abusing the flag, so when another person counter-flags, as the author who got flagged shouldn't have that option for obvious reasons, the flag will be null, but when another person counters the initial flag so that now there are two counter flags the initial flagger should get a negative mark against the reputation, and it should be weighted based on how many times this action happened, the more he/she has been counter-flagged like this successfully, not just with one counter-flag to effectively nullify it, but with two, the more it should harm their reputation. There should be a limit to stop people from flagging to hurt the reputation, so that if 2 people flag a post or comment then the reputation should be affected only based on one person, and of course the more a person is flagged the more it should hurt their reputation. For the last situation where 2 flags are applied there should be a total of 4 counter-flags required to cancel the effect towards the author and direct it to the ones flagging. And finally, once a flag has been issued the person issuing the flag should have a minimal time limit to remove the flag.
hey @baah. A thoughtful response.
I agree making it taxing to down vote could help keep it from being abused. My only issue is I feel we need to go in a simpler direction where we don't need them at all. But that might be wishful thinking.
I like the idea of having flags being unlocked or having more weight as you get a lower rep account. As long as you give people the option to always get their rep back up when they start making quality site, it could work. People should always have a chance to fix thing no matter what :)
The counter-flag could work as well but it might lead to flag wars. These ideas are interesting if we keep the flags but I do hope we can find a way to scrap them completely. But like I said, probably wishful thinking and having ideas to clean up a system we might need is useful.
We live in a dual universe, and that is the beauty that contrast brings. Without white there is no black, without cold there is no warm, without boring there is no fun, without punishment there is no reward.
I don't think a flag war would ensue successfully because of the ratio of >1:1 for flags to counter flags for content to be successfully flagged and affect the poster's reputation, and a ratio of 2:1 for counter flags to flags for the counter flags to affect the reputation of those that flagged.
The friends
Bob makes a post that Tim flags.(-1:0) Bob cannot counter-flag as he is the author but he goes ahead and calls his friend Tod to counter flag, in doing so Tod effectively reveals the content once again for the community and Bob's reputation is recovered (-1:+1). Tim calls Rob and Rob flags it once more and it get hidden and Bob's reputation gets affected(-2:+1). Bob asks Don and Jim to counter-flag Tim's friends flags. (-2:+3). Tim and Rob are joined by Sam, so at that point the content is revealed (-3:+3), the ratio for the flags to be effective is >1:1 (flags:counter flags), they would require one more to affect the content and Bob's reputation. Lets say that there are now 4 flags and 4 counter-flags, and now Bob recruits his whole army of friends to retaliate against those 4 people and their flags. That would require 4 more for a total of 4 flags and 8 counter-flags(-4:+8) to affect the reputation of those that flagged the content. That could happen, but considering that those 4 also have friends all it will require is just 1 person to flag again and negate the 2:1 ratio of counter-flags:flags, therefore those efforts will be stalled again if it does get just 1 more flag, dropping the 2:1 ratio now to (-5:+8) to just 1.6:1 and keeping the content hiddne but not affecting anybody's reputation besides Bob.
The Piggyback rule
A gang which is trying to attack people could could succeed based on their combined effort. The gang could win and make countering them very hard if not impossible and nullifying their efforts challenging. To create a solution to that problem we could add a rule as simple as piggybacking. Piggybacking means that any flag over the ratio of >1:1 nullifies all but the first flag regardless of how much time has passed, unless there is a counter-flag as well to bring the ratio to >1:1 and <2:1 for flags:counter flags.
Tim is flagged by a gang of 100 people. The only way for the gang to attack Tim then would be to equalize both flags and counter-flags. A gm (gang member) would flag it first(-1:0), then the next gm will counter-flag(-1:1), followed by another who will flag(-2:1). We are now in the beginning stages of a planned attack by the gang, at 2 flags and 1 counter-flag. If there are more flags piling on it will still be counted as 2 flags:1 counter-flag. They would need to escape the mechanism by flagging and counter-flagging alternatively, because otherwise the flags have no effect. They couldn't pile on 50 flags and require 100 successful counter-flags to counter and negatively affect the gangs efforts, because each flag that piggybacks is not counted. What happens then is that were they to do that, (-51:+49) tow more counter-flag will stall the gang's efforts. For it to be successful it would require that no outside actors like Tim's friends join the flag war. If they do the gang's efforts will be stalled. Tim would need 53 people to counter-flag and bring the ratio of 2:1 for counter-flags to negatively affect the reputation of those 51 who flagged. The counter-flags also fall under the piggyback rule, but for counter-flags just like flags are bound by a ratio(>1:1 and <2:1) it is bound by a ratio of 2:1 (flags:counter-flags) which needs to be meet before the piggyback rule will nullify excessive counter flags, >2:1. Tim can call on 53 people to successfully punish more than half the gang, and the gang will need more people to not suffer from the negative reputation. Where is Tim's reputation though? We left off before his needing 53 people to punish more than half the gang, at his reputation being affected by the gang efforts (-51+49). If just two more counter flag happens then the reputation is recovered at 51 flags and 51 counter flags, as the 1:1 ratio has revealed the content and stalled all flags.
Edited it YET again and YET once more, botched it up the first 4+times! @whatageek
The one thing that might need more thought and consideration is counter-flag abuse, but I believe that it effectively takes care of itself, when people counter-flag to hurt the initial person who flagged the ratio will invalidate those efforts easily since if it is perceived as an attack on the initial flag the effort to invalidate the attack will easily manifest at the ratio of 2 counter flags to 1 flag