You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Haejin has gone for downvoting rampage
He currently has the highest reputation on the entire blockchain, which is quite a problem if you think that reputation counts for something. I should point out though, that steemocean shows he is not even in the top 10 accounts for self upvoting: https://steemocean.com/
I can also see that he made zero downvotes during the last indexing period: https://steemocean.com/voter/haejin
The obvious solution is to stop thinking that it counts for something or even remove it from the platform.
It was a very stupidly implemented feature in the first place, though it did have its intended benefit in being able to reduce the reputation of pure spammers below zero for hiding purposes. Other than that it should be ignored or removed.
That function is really the only reason it's here I think. I agree that it's pretty dumb and I complained about the soft censoring from day 1. Either this is an anarchy flavoured network or it isn't. In reality it's anarchy lite - but at least we can remove the nonsense. :)
I feel that if we remove that, a lot of people will start posting what's on their mind.
Then, only the people that care about rewards would hold their tongues.
There's nothing wrong with free speech. ;)
" everyone has the right.... to free speech...that is, unless you're dumb enough.... to actually try it..."
Paraphrased from The Clash.....
Seems quite apt, from what I see in these parts...
What do you think,would it be possible to do a better rep system with @steem-ua? Some claimed it is a dead project, but I've seen them using flags at least.
Sure better rep systems might be possible. To me that's a separate question from whether the existing one has any useful value. IMO the existing one really is so bad and has almost no value. As such, there shouldn't be any requirement to replace it in order to remove it or largely remove it.
What does it count for? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Look at #2, and the other abusers that occupy spots in the top 20. I'd put it at a solid 50%.
Great site btw! I didn't know that existed. :-)
Thanks, I made steemocean, but it doesn't make money and I don't have time to promote it much. Maybe I'll make a video advert at some point for my videos ;)
Reputation mainly effects downvoting and censoring. Once your reputation goes below zero your posts are soft censored in Steemit.com. If you downvote someone who has a lower reputation than yours, then you can actually lower their reputation. So the highest account has the potential to become a tyrant and censor everyone if they have the resources to!
Can lower rep accounts drop higher rep accounts, or is he cock of the rock until someone overtakes him?
Lower rep can never drop higher rep accounts.
Lower rep accounts cannot lower higher rep accounts, no - so it basically means he is 'emperor' for now.
Wow, really, do we need a Hard Fork to change the reputation system? xD
It's up to website operators to decide what they use reputation for - some don't allow it to censor posts but ultimately that is part of the design of Steem, to mitigate spam.
@dan at one point artificially set berniesanders to -15 but then over time he recovered and some people started upvoting him to help him recover.
So we need to nuke steamcleaners with some whalevotes to make them the tyrant, or the next in line @traf ahem @trafalgar... :-). hmmmmm
I've seen Steemcleaners be tyrannical and cause problems unfairly. The entire premise of a reputation pyramid is in opposition to the principles of anarchy that Steem was allegedly built on.. Well, except it is 'anarcho capitalism' which itself is an oxymoron.
It's dumb that a large aggregate of lower rep accounts can't drop a higher rep account over time. Even a noble account at the top of the pyramid could get compromised or turn rogue. This should really get fixed at some point.
I think keeping him at zero income (locking him down with free downvotes) would be enough. He won't go down in rep, but won't go up. And before long, the rest of the field will surpass him, and then be able to crush him.
I did post about allowing lower accounts to affect the higher accounts a long time ago, but unsurprisingly the technocracy didn't like that so I got back in my cage. ;)
So, he's emperor, unless we can raise up somebody larger than him, to take him down. A weapon.
But how to ensure the weapon doesn't turn back on us once it takes out the current emperor?
I hope not, that sounds like a bad setup.