I guess, because he is not powering down. There are people in the list who are just here for milking the system and selling their earned STEEM afterwards on external markets. Those are the first ones that need to be cared about.
In my opinion, in addition there has also to be done anything against personal 'flag wars', otherwise you won't be able to convince people who fear these kinds of flags. In the past many users have left STEEM because they were harassed by certain whales. You already know my idea of implementing a committee.
If your "independent entity" could solve that problem, too, I would be even happier. :)
Definitely, a committee is really necessary. What I like about having an Independent entity to fight abuse is that it will operate and act as a [Nuclear Deterrent Mechanism].
Deterrence theory holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction (MAD).
People with power will be more inclined to move on and avoid abusing their power.
What if the entity starts abusing its power? It will be pointless, the account Will have a lot of limitations, and the community will have the final decision on whether the account should be terminated or not.
I wish it would be possible to DELEGATE downvoting resource credits.
Let's say that I would be willing to downvote some abusers, but I would be worried to get hurt. I could delegate my downvoting power to someone larger (like yourself) knowing that you will take that risk on your shoulders.
I remember that several delegators got hit before just because they delegated SP to curation projects that fought abuse.
I was thinking about doing such a thing with ecosynthesizer. To use the SP of users to fight abuse, along with providing a passive income to our delegators, and curation.
It is a risk that I may take since the current situation is truly alarming. We hope to receive more support for our project [Steem Sentinel], but in the meantime, we must do what we can with what we have right now.
An independent entity is only independent until it isn't anymore. This has already been done. It was kind of effective. But I don't think it is the answer.
The idea of [isn't anymore] should only be based on a community consensus. To mitigate potential abuse by such entity, more measures can be implemented as mentioned here:
I am gathering more information on this subject from the community, and it would be great if you could share your thoughts on what you think could be the solution.
I wouldn't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.
I manage @project.hope with it's 200k SP, however I would still be worried to downvote this user.
He is without any doubt one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) abuser of the platform.
You nailed it. I wonder if anyone would ever stand against him since old witnesses are gone. They surely didn't like this user.
It's quite simple. You don't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.
I guess, because he is not powering down. There are people in the list who are just here for milking the system and selling their earned STEEM afterwards on external markets. Those are the first ones that need to be cared about.
I guess because of fear of retaliation! He is without any doubt one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) abuser of the platform.
In my opinion, you have both a valid point.
That's one of the reasons why we launched an initiative that you can found here.
Having an independent entity that focuses solely on tackling abuse is something that we should really be thinking about.
I like your idea.
In my opinion, in addition there has also to be done anything against personal 'flag wars', otherwise you won't be able to convince people who fear these kinds of flags. In the past many users have left STEEM because they were harassed by certain whales. You already know my idea of implementing a committee.
If your "independent entity" could solve that problem, too, I would be even happier. :)
Definitely, a committee is really necessary. What I like about having an Independent entity to fight abuse is that it will operate and act as a [Nuclear Deterrent Mechanism].
People with power will be more inclined to move on and avoid abusing their power.
What if the entity starts abusing its power? It will be pointless, the account Will have a lot of limitations, and the community will have the final decision on whether the account should be terminated or not.
Sure, why not ... however, there could also be guidelines / rules / limitations for a 'committee account'.
I wish it would be possible to DELEGATE downvoting resource credits.
Let's say that I would be willing to downvote some abusers, but I would be worried to get hurt. I could delegate my downvoting power to someone larger (like yourself) knowing that you will take that risk on your shoulders.
Cheers
I remember that several delegators got hit before just because they delegated SP to curation projects that fought abuse.
I was thinking about doing such a thing with
ecosynthesizer. To use the SP of users to fight abuse, along with providing a passive income to our delegators, and curation.It is a risk that I may take since the current situation is truly alarming. We hope to receive more support for our project [Steem Sentinel], but in the meantime, we must do what we can with what we have right now.
Sorry for such a late reply. I only had a chance to read your comment a moment ago
Thx for your comment. I love to see how responsive you are :))
An independent entity is only independent until it isn't anymore. This has already been done. It was kind of effective. But I don't think it is the answer.
The idea of [
isn't anymore] should only be based on a community consensus. To mitigate potential abuse by such entity, more measures can be implemented as mentioned here:https://steemit.com/steem/@symbionts/q93b9z
I am gathering more information on this subject from the community, and it would be great if you could share your thoughts on what you think could be the solution.
"intuitive " ?
ps. thx for sharing link to this post. Indeed interesting concept.
You are probably right. People are probably afraid that he will downvote them.
Exactly.
I wouldn't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.
I manage @project.hope with it's 200k SP, however I would still be worried to downvote this user.
You nailed it. I wonder if anyone would ever stand against him since old witnesses are gone. They surely didn't like this user.
In this case a user elected committee, backed by STEEM power from Steemit, Inc. might be a possible solution.
What's wrong with that? It's their steem to do as they want no?
Hi @d0zer
It's quite simple. You don't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.