You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Personzzz witness report #1
Usually, when someone concedes a point, you are supposed to respond to the rest of the logic rather than repeat it.
Do you have no response for the fact you endorse different treatment based on net worth, and that you think "your" (collective) judgment is correct on where that line should be drawn?
Because that's self-assigned power, however you slice it.
If it wasn't clear, I was saying "yes that's a bit melodramatic" and so not something I'm going to take seriously. I don't believe you meant it seriously either.
The line is arbitrarily drawn by us at a level we feel is sufficient to exclude truly new minnows. We exercise no power other than that of our stake and that which has been delegated to us freely. But it's all a bit of red herring isn't it, since you disagree to entirely?
Well, it's a minor point, but I think it's fair to say that getting to pick the arbitrary line on any behavior in a social context comes with some degree of power and, to borrow from Spider-Man, responsibility. Hypothetically speaking, if you set the line just above the creator's power, that would be hard to justify as not some kind of advantage, albeit only as large as dodging the bot would be. So, probably not much.
Have you considered adjusting the bot with only one change - no flag, just the reports/updates? It's too bad there's no PM feature, because hypothetically, you could even PM a warning before a public name-and-shame.
I'm not sure these are good suggestions, just off the top of my head.