RE: Improving the Curation-Rewards Process via a Significant (though Subtle) Change to Auto-Voting …

[trostparadox]

That is naive. Bots love randomness

Labeling a post as "naive" diminishes your standing as a legitimate debater, imo. Bots do not love randomness. Yes, they will compute the 'ideal' spot based on the parameters, but that is just the point. The creators of the parameters can use randomness to shift the 'ideal' spot in such a way that potentially diminishes their overall negative impact.

I was not saying this was a 'good' solution, but merely one of many to openly discuss and debate. It's not a position I would favor (nor is a straight lottery), but worthy of being 'out there' for folks to consider and debate.

Comments

[trostparadox]

I quoted a statement and claimed the statement is naive. In math, that is a word with an actual meaning. Or at least it was a decade or two ago.

Fair enough.

... expectation that I found inconsistent with the actual architecture of the game.

I do not claim to fully understand the architecture of the game. By all means, call out anything that might be inconsistent with the status quo or otherwise infeasible.

@themarkymark did a great job of explaining the current 'rules of the game' in principle here, but I have yet to dig into the code; so my comments and perspectives very well might 'miss the mark' in that regards.