You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Punishing Rabid Self-Upvoting of Comments
Rather than flag - make the effort to change the formula to more accurately differentiate between comments and posts; and self-upvoting versus 2nd party upvotes.
In the long run the formula will be more effective.
I would argue that always relying on hard-forks (and worse yet, attempting to perfect formulas in a changing world) is a bad idea.
I've seen you say that relying on a hard fork is bad, and in a general sense I agree. But the point behind this platform is that healthy behavior is incentivized.
Saving all your voting power for yourself is not healthy for the platform, yet it is the best strategy. That means that unhealthy behavior is incentivized by the platform itself. In these cases, the platform should change. It's not even much of a grey area in my mind. If whales are trying to retain their steem value, it should at least be in a method that is social.
Other issues, such as copyrighted content can be regulated by the community.
And to people that say you can't stop self-voting because the offenders will just create a new account that always votes their main account.... that can be stopped as well. Just make repeated votes for the same account have diminishing returns. Make it so that you can vote for your friends, but only so often until your power for them recharges. At some point you're incentivized to spread the votes around.
Without this change I see steemit becoming a platform of mass hording.
I'm not sure changes on self voting algo MUST BE DONE in order for the platform to succeed.
This issue could be highlighted as something we revere as meaningful (in the FAQ) and best practice reviewed, and left to (for real people) user's discretion; (find bots that offend and wipe account); and everyone should consider further over time.
That may do it.
If not, then yes, algos need to change. As always.
You're right; it may not even be a question once considered seriously; and it may be on the next HF or two...
But that brings up another question; how much testing and consideration should an issue receive, before it is included in an HF?
Only your witnesses know; but not sure they were entirely in control of HF19 either..
@mark-waser no argument needed "always relying" is the point we agree on however if a formula or feature is flawed then it must be addressed via program code
MARK! Long time no see, my friend! Glad to run into you. And yes, totally agree....but I also believe that creating a context from which "ethical" or " good" behavior can bloom from is a step forward. Of course, ultimately the majority of users will be responsible for what Steemit will look like but let's not give those "good" majority an impossible task.
@razvanelulmarin indeed - we should do what we can to incentivize good and helpful activities.
I certainly do not imply "all bad behaviour" can be solved with algos.
Wow! Where are you at/what are you doing these days? Are you going to Lisbon?
I agree with this if it can be done
The ability to self upvote could also be removed... I'm just offering the suggestion for physical solutions.
At the end of the day you can't remove all cheaters, by changing the algorithm. In fact it would be contra-indicative. Having accounts manage this issue at this time is the right level. If we keep changing the rules to handle every case of cheating, it will create an extremely fragile system. In fact the more rules added, the easier to cheat and harder to identify cheating.
@gutzofter we agree that all cheaters and "gaming" can't be eradicated by the algos.
Personally, I like the idea of limited self-upvotes...