Changing to voting frequency allows the big SPholders to vote for others with 0% and themselves with 100% thus circumventing your algorithms.
I just wander if this is going to be fair, or whether you'll have the will, or bottle to hit people like adamkokeosh or exyle or rea or any other of the big name self upvoting circle jerkers because to me, it simply looks like you're tweaking the parameters to avoid them.
Apologies, I should have put 'will' in front of the original post and made it a question, sorry, I was rushing.
Always assuming the worst Nathen. The algorithm is fair. If they change their vote frequency to non-optimal levels and still only vote for themselves, it's true they will "circumvent" the algorithm, but that will because they are using less of the potential (SP * VP) on themselves. That they are not using the "wasted" potential on others is not something the algorithm is designed to catch. It's about optimal use of SP on oneself.
All in all the only way to circumvent it (to the best of my knowledge and design) is a change of behavior which by definition leads them to be taking less, which is our goal.
On what grounds do you question my will or bottle? What parameters are being tweaked? Make your accusations explicit.
They were not accusations, they were questions and my lack of explicitness was simply down to me not totally being sure I understood what you were explaining. The questioning of the ethics was simply down to observed, perhaps percieved evidence that there are certain members here who escape criticism or reproach due to whatever reason. No one seems willing or is possibly too afraid to question their behaviour.
Hitting autoposting bots who earn nothing is easy, hitting circle jerking self upvoting dolphins and whales is a different matter. Yes I am cynical, but all I ever see are words on a screen. At least Abuse Reports, reports this behaviour.
It could be argued that anyone who has invested and/or worked hard has the right to do as they please with their SP, making all our arguments meritless, but as you are quite rightly (in my opinion) aiming to use your expertise and SP to create a fairer platform, my argument in all these cases is hit the top first and work down.
You are acting as judge, jury and executioner. Fine with me, your SP, but why get all defensive when I mention a few of the 'names' and question the fairness and methodology of your operation from my simplistic understanding. Why even bother to explain it with this post ? Just get on with it. Posting on a public forum invites opinion and questions. It was a simple question from a non techy.
I wouldn't say easy, but it's definitely easier than scam clique voting. As I mentioned in the future part, and in the first post which you also brought this up in, it's on the roadmap.
The bot is taking action, that's more than words. Verify for yourself at https://steemd.com/@sadkitten
Not an analogy I agree with. On the platform we have a free vote on every post. This is just one relatively small vote to contribute to the distributed valuation of posts. There is no court here, no police. The aspirations to fairness are made so as to be ethically consistent, not to follow a law, as there is none such. Delegating to @sadkitten is voting by proxy with the power of the stake delegated.
Most of the time I defend when attacked, at least when the attack is in good faith. You called my honor into question, I see no shame in responding directly. Let me make this clear: the bot works on an algorithm, the is no white list, no black list, the algorithm is allowed to run.
I think you are afflicted with availability bias in your focus on certain accounts, mid sized and acting in clique voting ways. In the wider platform, the entire platform, there are far worse things going on. This is what @sadkitten is picking up, only the absolute worst by the metric we've developed. The focus on the worst is pragmatic, we only have a certain amount of SP to work with so it seems wise to vote on the worst. I had last year toyed with the idea of random ordering votes but it wasn't popular with the team.
Check out some of the posts that are being flagged if you want to see what I mean, really, before going on I insist you check.
Where's the fun in that? Engagement with the community is critical for any significant enterprise on the platform, and this is a labor of love. It's one of my main critiques of Steemit Inc., they do not communicate. We are getting on with it, as well as making a few announcements from time to time. I invite the debate on the topic, all the evidence you need of that is on my previous actions, all written in stone on the blockchain. Cynical supposings I have less time for, but I took the time to respond.