RE: PROPOSAL - How to DEFINE and FIGHT the BAD - Create a COMMITTEE with STRONG ARM to Support Creation of a GREAT STEEMIT CULTURE
This is a lot to chew on all at once. Your thoughts are good, but I think it might help to focus in on a small piece of Steem.
This proposal looks to me like "Let's start a community group that pushes steemit towads the right things and away from the wrong things." - it's a well-intentioned idea, but so vague.
My proposal might be more like this: We should set up a community tribunal to discuss the issue of self-voting. The question is: "What is the maximum % of voting power that a user should be able to allocate to themselves?"
After we can answer that question - whether it's 50%, 30%, whatever - the next step is to set up an enforcement mechanism whereby users who break the community rule are punished with flags.
Of course, this is all very tricky. Just a few rogue whales could tank the thing by flagging all posts that the tribunal members make, for example, which would make it financial suicide to participate. BUT, if done very cautiously, it could be a path forward to collectively disincentivize over-the-top self-voting.
Hmm... I may do a longer post about this later on my blog. It's an interesting idea. For now I am just an interested observer, but I'll keep an eye on this going forward.
I agree that it's quite vague.
In my mind it would help to narrow the focus significantly. There is already something in progress to combat rampant self voters. @smackdown.kitty is one I know of.
Again agree that it may be financial suicide to take art in this, irk a whale and in one fell swoop all your rep is GONE, not to mention post rewards.
[Edited] so that it does not seem as though @smackdown.kitty is the rampant self voter ;)
Not 100% clear what is so vague of what I try to describe. My proposal includes a lot of different things, including committee, notice board, voting system. Soft Rules needs to be defined by the community, I shall not do that, so what is good and what is bad behaviour will follow the establishment of such committee and the enablement of a good voting system for such soft rules. The way enforcement is done, may also be dependent on what the community will vote for. I have several ideas myself, but these should be debated and voted for by the community (eg different type of flags, maybe even account blocking).
I think we mean exactly the same: I propose to establish a committee that leads whatever needs to be done to create a better culture. That gets to power to execute as well. Everything with vote from the community.
We could implement a different vote weight, eg each vote is weighted the same, regardless of being a whale or a mini minnow. Than it is about how many users find something right or wrong, not about how much money someone has, more like a vote how it works in our countries political voting system. I for sure think that we need to create some technology to support the activities of a committee.
Looking forward to any further suggestions and comments, and follow on posts you may create!
Just reaching a consensus on whats 'right' and whats 'wrong' will take some time.
With so many sock puppet accounts, who is to say someone won't be able to influence the choices?
Apologies if I seem negative, just trying to highlight potential snags.
I am interested to see how this idea develops!
Thank you for pointing out the things that we need to take care of when we would get community voting enabled.
This may indeed be an issue, although we know of at least some of the sock puppet accounts, so they can be blocked from voting. Also, I think every account will need to cary the same vote weight, ie not depended on SP. From community members like @profitgenerator we can learn how voting could be done by setting the right levels for a YES/NO vote, eg set vote level at 70% or even 80% instead of relying on 50+% generally sued in countries political voting systems
meep
meep! :)
meep
Meep
meep
Meep meep meep