RE: Flag Wars?! Ohhhh I'm Coming 2x as Hard for ALL of you!! **PLEASE WATCH STEEMIANS**
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The idea that people would use their mouse proved as unrealistic very quickly to me. Especially investors don't have much time for that obviously. But yes, we've been there both.
Agree with the rest too.
Another culture on here, less self interest, and we could've gone extremely far.
I like the concept of self organization and mutuality, but I'm not an activist who organizes on conferences and stuff to overthrow the state :D The self description is more of a play. I have most sympathy for the different traditional anarchist theories, but am too much of a rationalist to self identify with any political movement completely.
0
0
0.000
And that is where I disagree.
It was just a handful of people, who were chosen. Obviously poorly so.
And they still own a huge chunk and call the shots. And are probably some of the few, who took a good profit.
The actual investors like @laonie (just to name one of the many) instead got burned.
I can not believe that after all this indifference you now police content and then not go after the big fish, but easily irritatable circlevoters who make real vlogs.
Sooner or later acidyo will throw a fit with you too and then things might get more interesting.
It is inevitable. You will have to start voting, or this is never going to work.
You have a huge stake still and should have an interest and even you can not muster 20 minutes per day - why would a minnow ? And then if that minnow was to engage, would he not appreciate a vote by checking back on the other persons blog and start circlevoting like that ?
...
Running in circles here, really.
Safe travels !
As I said 2 replies before, I don't do the policing personally. I give delegators (who effectively decentralize their upvote power by giving smaller accounts the power to decide where the upvotes go) the option to utilize their downvote power too. If not all of them use it, they contribute to the selection all the others made. I never choose posts to downvote, as that'd always result in 100% downvotes by curangel and I want to give the smaller guys the possibility to have more impact.
As with slowwalker, I would intervene when the post would go really low, as I acknowledge some effort behind the post and a certain value. With the amounts he makes we're far from having that kind of impact though.
I still see this form of decentralization of the own stake as the 2nd best option after spending hours to find enough posts myself. I can support 100 authors a day this way, plus a bunch of manual curators. Doing that manually would take me considerably more time than 20 minutes. I don't want to push only a few posts up unreasonably high, and imo we desperately need ways to give at least a small heads up to the big base of authors as long as most big stakes don't care about them. But we had this talk before :D
What if I said, that by designing this system you already assigned which stuff will catch downvotes ?
I would agree more if you were talking about only your stake voting in this partuclar method, but you are creating a trail and that has much different implications.
That happened way before, the whitepaper defines the purpose of downvotes. The delegators also talk to each other, checking opinions, but they all are going after self rewarding behaviour only.
Trailing is a part of steem. The trail was created before I registered the account on steemauto, I just added a description and declared it official after I was notified about that. The only difference between a delegator and a (dv-)trailer I see is that the delegators make the decision what gets chosen, and the trailer can easily decide to stop following if he doesn't agree with what they choose. Oh, and of course people on the trail open themselves up for retaliation, but I tried to make sure to make them aware. It also usually stops when they unfollow.
Or maybe you mean the feeling someone who gets hit by a trail gets, as seen here? That's not up to me though. I had plans for an upvote trail, but never one for downvotes. And even that only after I was asked about one several times.
I somehow also doubt he would've reacted differently with a single downvote. Maybe a bit less rage, but probably a lot more retaliation for the individual.
Or was that about the upvote trail? That allows us to give even more votes without getting near dust value, so I appreciate it. It also allows users to vote manually when they have time for it, something delegators give up on. So it's two different ways for two different types of people.
As an author myself I can tell you that nothing motivated me like that single hand-vote by blocktrades.
You could make at least one person very happy every day, instead of this massive overhead for little outcome.
And I got a lot of feedback for the vote following I did in the beginning to spread my votes, that it motivated a lot of people. The answers to curangel posts also don't seem like "very little" outcome to me.
Yes, a bigger vote may motivate someone more in that moment. But it's not sure for how long. How many people who received a few big votes disappeared later. Curangel may be better suited to motivate to consistently produce quality - or not, there's no data on that I guess. Both approaches are helping in my view. And mine definitely scales better regarding the goal of mass adoption!
How so ?
My method would keep making at least one persons day, every day.
The more you spread your votes, the less they are worth.
Rewards are not linear anymore.
Another big difference: It takes more balls to put yourself out there and vote by hand.
I don't like the idea of a few whales being the ones deciding who is happy here and who isn't. I have always been of the opinion that we need a better distribution for the system to work. With my approach I go one step ahead by effectively creating a bunch of small orcas for the voting. They admittedly can't vote on the same post multiple times, which may be a flaw. But there's more in the community who can push them higher. If we manage to see less disparity in the rewards, and no good content going unrewarded, we might be able to make everyone happy.
I don't get how playing the guy who decides about making it or breaking it on an internet platform requires balls.
It would reveal your preferences and personality.
It is easier to hide behind proxies.
Did you ever consider to go undercover and just start a random blog ?
Try putting a lot of thought into a post and then get some half-assed unpersonal upvotes for it, getting as much as the next persons shitpost.
Or better:
Do you not think there is a post out there every day, that deserves a full upvote and to be on trending ?
Or like this:
Is it not how you train a dog ?
You can not reward them each and every time, but you reward them sporadically, which gets them super excited.
What you are proposing sounds bland to me and has no profile and it delegates your responsibility to other people.
I don't have preferences, I'm not a blogger, not a social media person, and generally not very interested in strangers and their lifes or creative output :D
I'm not hiding, I just leave the decision of what's "quality" content to others who can evaluate that better, over a more diverse spectrum.
I never considered having a blog at all. I wouldn't know what to write, and it wouldn't be fun at all for me. No matter the upvotes it would get. I would assume that what creative people really need to feel their work valuated are engaging comments though.
Dogs are rewarded very regularly in the beginning of the training. When they do something extremely well, they get a bonus. And only when they already know to do something you cut down on the rewards.
I may be a bland person without profile in this space, I don't mind. And that's why I distribute the big responsibility which comes with an exceptionally high stake to others who fit in better.
That's a fucking preference :D
I'm sure you would have a lot to share with this world - imagine my face, lol