I wouldn't neccesarily decide that I had to give an equal vote to 50 post for one thing. I would give votes at different percentages based on what I thought they deserved. I do see this dilemna and that's why I'm not railing against delegation or curation guilds. My points were mainly about bidbots. How do bidbots help to scale?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Or a better way to put that question: why not just use delegation and curation guilds instead of bid bots? Bid bots are what undermines the trending page. So shouldn't we focus on solutions that don't undermine the trending page and the whole idea of curation in the first place?
Before bidbots were selfvoters and circle jerks. @haejin and @ranchorelaxo, for example. @berniesanders for another. Bots aren't the source of evil, they just automate it.
@berniesanders actually made the first bid bot. But yes circle jerking is another seperate problem. Because there are other problems, does that mean it's not worth trying stop this problem?
I'm aware of @randowhale. All I'm saying is that plugging one hole just forces leaks to come out of others. I'm an original advocate of preventing all bots from voting, and have posted how this can be done.
Even though selfvoting and circlejerks would still be a problem, that problem would at least be something actual people did, rather than devices. I reckon infesting social networks with bots devalues people, and find that more offensive than financial problems themselves.
YOU ARE ON THE NAUGHTY LIST. YOU HAVE BEEN FLAGGED. GOODBYE.
If you look back in steemd you see that @ranchorelaxo was @haejin's bank, and Bernie was at war with @haejin. That's my recollection of the affair anyway. If you mean that the whole conflict was made for TV, then I would be suitably impressed by the cunning such a pretense would reveal.
Edit: also, please don't bring up gaping holes in this context. I.. I just can't even...
YOU ARE ON THE NAUGHTY LIST. YOU HAVE BEEN FLAGGED. GOODBYE.