You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF21 + Anti-Retaliatory Downvoting System (Proposal) = A Functional STEEM/Steemit
This is an interesting idea (the jury one...)... the downvoting is all good and fine, but as you point out... most people don't see it as the market finding the appropriate price for a not yet rewarded post... but more as a theft of "entitled" rewards.... and then the cranky retaliations break out...
Still, HF21/22 has seen some good changes... but this critical one (fear of retaliation) is a big one... it is the same reason that I report directly problematic posts to @steemcleaners rather than doing something about it directly...
... over 40 REP... it might need to much much higher... I have caught plagarists with Reps in the 60s...
@bengy,
Hey mate.
The idea behind picking Jurors is "randomness" and the Rep Score (whatever it is) merely to ensure that whoever they are, they have some idea about how Steemit is supposed to work.
No matter the Rep Score, one could get a "Bad Juror" ... but that's always a risk, even in real world courtrooms. It is unlikely, however, that one would randomly get two Bad Jurors (and decisions would be based upon 2 out of 3 Juror votes).
The idea of "stake-weighted immunity to justice" is not defensible. There have to be some behaviors that are treated the same irrespective of wallet size. Rules, without the ability to pragmatically enforce them (against everyone), is naught but hot air.
Quill
Yes, but I would say that three is a touch too low for me... Another thing would be the jurors would need to be public, this might also lead to the similar retribution (not saying that the juror idea is bad...) situation.
@bengy,
My proposal would be to use a sidechain if it could be made non-publicly accessible or, if it could not, an off-blockchain computer system (just as Discord is an off-blockchain system that interacts with STEEM).
Confidentiality, of course, is necessary as, in its absence, the retaliatory downvoting would simply spread to the Jurors negating the whole point of the exercise.
Quill
League of legends had a similar sounding tribunal system to help deal with reports of toxic and abusive players. From memory, the jurors (around 10? For each case) were anonymous to each other, and cast anonymous votes. There was a small reward if your vote tallied with the others and nothing if it didn't. I think this mechanism would be better than a punishment incentive for not taking part...
It would maybe form a juror class of accounts... In the same way that steemcleaners reporting is highly profitable for new and small accounts with the direct proportional benefit dropping off as your account gets bigger...
@bengy,
Wonderful ideas and insights. I'm agnostic to the details and would highly encourage others to profffer improvements to the core idea. As long as we end up with a relatively pragmatic enforcement system that addresses the problem of coercive downvoting tactics, I'm all in.
Quill