Maybe you remember that I would support the implementation of a "convergent linear rewards curve". Concerning 'downvotes' I had the following thoughts (copied from my own post "My STEEM Vision."):
I think it's good and right that the possibility to flag (now called downvoting) exists in a decentralized social network. How else can spam or even worse, such as child pornography, be fought? I also think it makes sense in principle to be able to reduce the reward for posts that are extremely overrated from one's own point of view.
The crux, however, is that downvotes are often set for the sole reason of pursuing other users, solely because of their dissenting opinions or even completely independent of what they write(!), and denying them permanent visibility and any rewards. This is counterproductive to say the least and makes a devastating impression on newcomers who happen to observe such 'flag wars' or even get into them! We should be aware of this.
If it were up to me, ways and means would have to be found to contain 'flag wars' waged purely for personal motives. For example, a committee of respected users elected by the community and equipped with sufficient delegated STEEM power could be called in such cases and then decide whether the flags were justified or not.
In my opinion the suggestion to provide each user with a certain number of free downvotes so that spam (or overvalued posts) would be flagged more frequently in the future, wouldn't really make a big difference under the current conditions. I assume that only whales flagged more often than before, while smaller accounts would still not dare to do so for fear of retaliation.
Nevertheless, your idea of the "hybrid approach" is interesting and at least makes it somewhat less profitable to flag a lot, "just for fun".
I like your view which does not fall aside from Steemit view (I think). And wanted to just comment on something you said that is quite interesting...
This is basically a DAO for me. Which would make lots of sense, to me.
So, elaborating on your idea... a pool of STEEM could be "formed" based on either the weight of how much people like about the DAO representatives. The POOL would not be owned by anyone specifically and it would be up to the "board" that represent and execute the "work" how to spend that POOL on downvoting "cases" (no matter the size, but I would imagine that bigger ones would tend to be more popular here). This would be something like a justice council for complex schemes of downvoting within the community. Just like a court... of some sort... But one that gets decided by the community.
Does it make any sense for you guys?
If you ask me: yes, something like that (the idea still needs further elaboration) ...
Of course there shouldn't be discussed every single flag because that would be huge amount of work and too time-consuming. I see it as a means for cases like when - for example - one user feels threatened in his STEEM existence because a whale is permanently flagging him.
The "time-consuming" to me, is always something to sort with UIs and some AI-assisted facilitation for the user... But I understand why you mentioned it. In the future this will become less prone to "hard work" based activity, and there will be more intelligent ways for users to do analysis and make decisions quicker.
Hm ... apart from the fact that it could be possible to support decision making in future by AI, would you be in favour of deciding about every single flag?
I had in mind that such a 'committee' would only get active if someone complains ... but of course that's not the only thinkable option.
Not every single flag... I would think it as, "you need to bring a special case". In my view the community should be the one to flag. But on situations of power or scheme where the user is somehow imprisoned either by lack of power or because of "bugs"... this committee should be there "to make things better". They might not be able to solve all problems, and that is a consequence of who votes for the committee.
AI will mostly (or should) help with analysis of things. Giving you valuable information about what's happening without you having to go and look for everything (which is practically already impossible on STEEM).
Here is our new post with a few proposals that address the issues you are mentioning and put possible solutions on the table from the perspective of the antiabuse community:
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@jaguar.force/a-few-modest-proposals-regarding-the-downvote-pool-1559521991347
We eagerly look forward to your feedback.
Hi, in general users/organization like you(rs) are very important for the platform.
Here my questions:
Do you 'only' fight against spam and plagiarism (which is great anyway) or also against flag abuse? Look for example at the self-upvoted whale comment on top under the recent article of @timcliff and the automatically flagged (from alt accounts of the same whale) comment under this comment.
I think if whales upvote their own comments (by the way full of bad language) like this, while at the same time flagging other comments, that causes the same damage for STEEM like plagiarism. Of course I would flag this comment (but only if I intended to stop posting forever on STEEM, because of the expected retaliation flags) ... :)
Please check my answer to @steemcleaners under this post. I think @steemcleaners, you and other useful groups fighting against spam and plagiarism should communicate directly under the the post of accused people with them (and at least at first in a constructive and friendly way; not everybody is using places like Discord or Steem Chat, and not everybody making a mistake always had bad intentions).
Also please read what I wrote there concerning well known myths/sagas ...
In your post you are asking for delegations. Do people who are delegating you get any kind of interest/rewards?
Apart from that your ideas in the mentioned article are both very interesting.
ok.. some speek english