You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Enhancing Steem's 'Proof of Stake' Model With A Process For Expiry/Renewal Of Witness Votes
Every month or so I run a Witness Voting Engagement Report you may find interesting. To me, this sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I imagine people will just implement a "auto-revote" service quite quickly to put us back where we are now. Ultimately, people need to care. There's no fool-proof way to force people to care. If there was, we wouldn't want to use it anyway because "forcing" someone to do something isn't a great plan.
My suggestion here is not about forcing anyone to do anything - it's just a way of solving weak points in the process. I agree that people need to care and that in itself is something that starts in their own hearts and minds. I notice that even when people say they are going to vote for me as a witness, they often don't until I remind them. Anything that solves 'memory'/'distraction' and engagement issues is a good thing for the community.
I know your intention isn't to force anyone, but the core of the problem is people, not the stale votes themselves, IMO. And people can't easily be changed. That said, a simple pop-up explaining witness voting and/or periodic reminders to update their votes may go a long way.
Or, maybe, if an account itself is completely stale (no claiming of rewards, etc) then their witness votes may go stale also after a period of time. Maybe that could help.
Having votes go stale due to account inactivity is another approach, yes - it solves a few of the problems too. I think the only aspect that that approach wouldn't change much is that of encouraging people to keep up with the witnesses they are voting for and changing their votes when appropriate.
Yeah, to me, that last part should be handled by community discussions, talking about voting more often in their blog posts, etc. That's why I put out my report, to remind people about witness voting.
Maybe even a bit of shaming in comments once in a while.
Stuff like that.
My idea of having notifications added to the user's feed that informs them of expired votes is intended to do that automatically - which saves time of community members having to remind others and also might reduce tensions between people who are annoyed at being reminded by others.. 'Shaming' isn't really part of a healthy, balanced community! :)
The expired vote concept deprives them of their intentions though. That might annoy them even more to have to continually re-assert their voting intentions. Maybe I'm just not understanding it.
Yes, I agree, in an ideal world there'd be no shaming as we'd all agree on everything when it comes to good and bad behavior, but I do think shaming has a place, even in healthy communities. It's how we learn when we did something wrong, thus keeping things healthy. Instead of top down "steemit said so", I prefer community norms which ebb and flow and adjust to circumstances. Maybe "shaming" isn't the right word to describe what I mean, though.
Vote expiry doesn't deprive anyone of their intention, unless their intention is to make a vote that effects a large number of people and then not reconsider the changing needs of the community. I'd say that such an intention is anti-social.
I think I would just use the word 'motivate' instead of 'shame' - since shaming suggests a kind of devaluation, whereas motivation is a gentle nudge.. It can be the difference between causing an argument and getting things done.
maybe, it just gives a second thought. like 2fa. or verification email.