RE: HF21 + Anti-Retaliatory Downvoting System (Proposal) = A Functional STEEM/Steemit
I wasn't sure about HF21, to be honest. My last post, written yesterday, was my first post after the rollout. I'm quite surprised that it made $2.35 on the first 16 votes. It has since gone over $3, my first post to do so for a very long time (I don't remember when).
On the jury duty, I made a similar recommendation on Narrative long ago. Abusive downvoting is awful over there. Any time money is at stake, people will find a way to cheat. Downvoting is an easy thing to do, and everyone knows if you downvote the next guy, that increases your own rewards. The jury system is a good idea, but I'd use more than three jurors. I'd use 24 and make the decision contingent upon a 2/3 supermajority. All the jurors should be selected randomly and are anonymous. They can't communicate with each other during the adjudication process and each arrives at their own conclusion based on the evidence presented.
@blockurator,
Hey Block.
Good to see you around and congrats on the Inside Bitcoin editorial position.
24 Jurors ... that strikes me as being a very large Jury Pool to decide something like a downvote that is, at most, likely to be worth a couple of dollars (and more likely pennies). It would obligate people to spend eight times the amount of time on Juries as in my proposal. Is there a rationale for such a number that I'm missing? Even the Supreme Court only has nine.
In any event, the number of Jurors is a detail. It's the overall idea that needs to be first accepted and we seem to be in accord on all the broad strokes.
I didn't know downvoting, and seemingly downvote abuse, was such a thing on Narrative. Well, I guess that's why I have you. :-)
Quill
24 may be too much for a downvoting decision. I think more than 3 because it adds more voices to the decision and leaves less room for gaming the outcome. Random selection and anonymous jurors would do much, but if I'm adjudicating your downvote of @prydefoltz and like her more than I like you, I may decide it's more important to vote with my affinity for prydefoltz rather than on the side of justice. If one other juror did that and there are only three, the majority is on the side of injustice. The more jurors you have, the less likely such thinking will rule the adjudication process.
@blockurator,
Well, we both know that if I was downvoting @prydefoltz, she would bloody well deserve it, wouldn't she? Block ... she wrote a poem about Brussels Sprouts!!!
OK, I just made that up. But now that I've planted the seed ... you just wait and see ... an "Ode to B.S." (No smart remarks about the odds-on-favorite to actually write a poem so entitled.)
Recall that the usernames of both the Poster and the Downvoter would be erased so as to increase impartiality. Such precaution is not, of course, foolproof. I sign off all my posts with, "Quill." Moreover, each of my posts ends with a Power House Creatives logo so even if a Juror wasn't biased in favor of me personally, he/she might be biased in favor of my group.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We will always have to accept something less than perfection. Hopefully, such hypothetical Juror bias would be offset by the impartiality of the other Jurors. Respecting the number of Jurors, I'd be more than happy to leave that to the collective judgement of the community ... whatever everyone decides.
Here's my thought: Once such a system is in place, it won't get used much.
Instantly, all the blatantly abusive Posters AND Downvoters will realize the jig is up. If they engage in shenanigans, they'll get called on it and attempting to intimidate their way to immunity, via retaliatory downvoting, will be self-harming ... by doubling the downvote or bouncing it back to themselves, as the case may be.
95% is, by definition, imperfect ... but it still gets you into Harvard.
Quill
You overestimate the goodness of man. But I missed the anonymization of the poster and downvoter. My apologies.
Okay, so I may have to be the first to write the Ode to B.S. In your honor.
:-)